# Columbia (Sony) Szell/Cleveland Orch. recordings



## 13hm13

I've heard most of the classic/vintage Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo recordings (including Chesky LP and BMG/Sony CD/SACD reissues). Despite the careful remastering, I've mostly felt that these labels exhibited some wimpiness and "compression" in dynamic and complex passages, as well as lacking real bass.

The only vintage(~1957-1964) stereo recordings I've heard that can compete with more-modern stuff (analog or digital) are the Columbia (Sony) Szell/Cleveland Orch. recordings. 
Not sure what _exactly_ (or what _combination of factors_) these recordings got right: engineers/engineering, Severance Hall (acoustics), etc. They only lacking elements (as common as--but not as much--for most other vintage recordings, like Living Presence and Living Stereo) are bass, bass slam and macrodynamics. Only digital or 30ips analog can allow for these attributes to be "fully" captured.

Bottom line (based on all I've heard): Columbia (Sony) Szell/Cleveland Orch. recordings sound modern and timeless. I'm glad the extremely talented team of Szell/Cleveland Orch. got such a recorded treatment!

_Some examples:_

Brahms - Symphony n°1 - Cleveland / Szell 1957





Dvořák - Symphony n°9 - Cleveland / Szell 1959





William Walton 'Giga Burlesca' ("Partita") - Szell 1959





Walton Variations on a Theme by Hindemith





Schumann - Manfred - Cleveland / Szell 1959





Thoughts?


----------



## bigshot

The Mercury 1812 Overture sure isn't lacking in sub bass!

In the early CD era, the Szell recordings sounded really rough. But so did the Columbia Bernstein and Stravinsky recordings. Sony has done a great job on remastering their catalog.


----------



## 13hm13

bigshot said:


> The Mercury 1812 Overture sure isn't lacking in sub bass!
> 
> In the early CD era, the Szell recordings sounded really rough. But so did the Columbia Bernstein and Stravinsky recordings. Sony has done a great job on remastering their catalog.


Yeah, that Mercury 1812 is not bad -- the cannons are fairly dynamic. But the orchestra hall sounds small and constricted (closed in). Possibly too much multi-miking??
I generally don't agree that early-generation CDs sound rough--e.g., Telarc, Denon, Decca. I do agree that lot of the Bernstein/Columbia are low-fi, even the latest re-masters. The original engineering effort is the most critical element of a "good recording".


----------



## 13hm13

Just wanted to clarify this remark a bit ...


13hm13 said:


> Y
> I generally don't agree that early-generation CDs sound rough


If the early-generation CDs were sourced from an analog tape, then one important thing its got going for it is the "strength" of the tapes original magnetic field. In physics, this is called permeance and (even in the most perfect storage cond.) it decays over time. The Earth's own magnetic field "erases" it a little.
_What this means for remasters:_ If, say, the master from a 1964 recording was first released on CD in 1984, and the same master was re-issued as a "re-mastered" CD in 2014...that's and addit. 30 years of the analog master "decaying", and print-through.

Of course, there is more than just permeance that affects the quality off the remaster. The physical tape chemistry also deteriorates (often, it has to be baked before use).

OTOH, remastering equipment and techniques generally improve (unless you're talking about the $$-generating loudness war, which is not so much an issue with classical music)--and_ that's_ a plus for remasters.

Personally, I've replaced many, many early-gen classical CDs with newer "improved remaster" re-issues. Most often, I can't tell them apart. But I bought the remasters, right? What can I say -- the major studios have the $$ for marketing to the unwashed mass! Hook, line and sinker!!!!!!!


----------



## JACE

These two recordings by Szell & the Cleveland Orchestra are EXCELLENT -- both musically-speaking and sound-wise:









*Schubert: Symphonies No. 8 "Unfinished" and No. 9 "The Great"*









*Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition; Kodaly: Háry János Suite; Prokofiev: Lieutenant Kije Suite*

I remember reading about these two particular recordings in _The Absolute Sound_ a LONG time ago. They raved about the quality of the remasters. I agree; they're terrific. (IIRC, they pointed to the particular remastering engineer as playing a crucial role in the outstanding results. I think it was Bejun Mehta.)


----------



## 13hm13

This one from 1958 sounds very modern and well-balanced; the performance is outstanding:





Robert Schumann/Symphony n°2 op.61

I. Sostenuto assai - Allegro ma non troppo 0:00
II. Scherzo. Allegro vivace 10:42
III. Adagio espressivo 17:20
IV. Allegro molto vivace 28:27

The Cleveland Orchestra
George Szell
Studio recording, Cleveland (24.X.1958)


----------



## 13hm13

JACE said:


> I remember reading about these two particular recordings in _The Absolute Sound_ a LONG time ago. They raved about the quality of the remasters. I agree; they're terrific. (IIRC, they pointed to the particular remastering engineer as playing a crucial role in the outstanding results. I think it was Bejun Mehta.)


Not sure what "remaster" means here. I don't think these 1992 Sony releases were on CD prev.--so they only existed on vinyl or tape/cassette previously. Those varied MUCH more in quality--among myriad re-/releases-- than CDs.
That said ... 
Sony is a very good company that cares about quality--and they have the $$ to do so. Not only do they put the time/effort into their projects, they also use technology such as SBM to add that last hint of goodness. 
I don't, however, feel that the _already-digitized_ material they acquired from CBS/Columbia -- after the merger-- is necessarily better if Sony re-releases them as "remastered". That is, no need to "upgrade" from those CBS "Great Performances" CDs (but I will stand corrected if you point to some examples):


----------



## jegreenwood

Funny - I just posted the following today on another forum.

"Several years ago Sony Korea released a Szell mega-box. I hoped it would be released in the U.S. (as was the Bruno Walter box, which I bought), but no. However, since then I have purchased remastered versions of his Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms, mostly from Japan. I also have several SACDs released by Sony in the early days of that format (Schumann, Mendelssohn, Strauss, Dvorak). Since I started listening to classical music, there is no conductor I have found more reliable."

This budget Haydn box:







is a marked improvement over my Odyssey CDs of Symphonies 93-98 (which I used to describe as the worst sounding stereo classical CDs I owned).

I also like this Mozart disc a lot.







Sony Japan issued a two disc set of Mozart a couple of years ago. To my ears the first disc has the same mastering as the pictured disc (although they substituted a different filler piece.) The price is reasonable. Y1800 plus shipping as I recall. And you get Symphonies 39-41.

The Beethoven was a Summer 2016 release, and it was a splurge on my part - a 5 SACD set remastered this year. It's so new I can't find the exact image, but it uses this photo:









Beware of the budget line issue available in the U.S.









The box says 24 bit mastering, but I ripped one of the discs and compared it with my Essential Classics discs from the late 80's/early 90's, and they were identical. I returned the box.

Both the Japanese Mozart and Beethoven are very new purchases, and I haven't listened to either all the way through. Comparing (quickly) the openings of the 3rd and 5th Symphonies of the Beethoven, I heard marked improvement in the 3rd, but less in the 5th.

I picked up the Japanese Brahms several years ago. That also was an improvement over the early 1990's releases I had.


----------



## 13hm13

jegreenwood said:


> The box says 24 bit mastering, but I ripped one of the discs and compared it with my Essential Classics discs from the late 80's/early 90's, and they were identical. I returned the box.
> 
> Both the Japanese Mozart and Beethoven are very new purchases, and I haven't listened to either all the way through. Comparing (quickly) the openings of the 3rd and 5th Symphonies of the Beethoven, I heard marked improvement in the 3rd, but less in the 5th.
> 
> I picked up the Japanese Brahms several years ago. That also was an improvement over the early 1990's releases I had.


Interesting feedback--thx.

I, too, have some more-recent Japan releases (Sony, Denon, etc.).
Not sure exactly why new Japan Sony releases would sound better than Essential Classics (or any earlier Sonys from 80s/90s); I doubt (but won't confirm) that Sony would _again_ go thru trouble of actually remastering from the analog tape--that's a lot of work.
Much of the CD plastic/aluminium used in mass-market optical disc is of relatively low quality. This is why Japan CDs, as far back as the introduction of the medium, have generally sounded better even though the _same master_ was used _everywhere_ in the world.

On that note, a little audiophile tweak you can try is to rip the original commercial CD to your computer and then burn the tracks onto a high-quality CD-R (Verbatim, Tayio Yuden, Kodak, etc.). I've almost always noted an improvement *.
So for the newer Japan CDs, they might just be using better material or stamping equipment. Indeed, many newer Japan CDs have the Blu-Spec CDlabel.

* Nowadays, I don't play discs, but pull the music (files) right off the PC hdd, network drive, iPad or iPhone-- and, then, into music-file software (like iTunes or Foobar, jRiver, etc). _This_ sounds quite a bit better than any CD/disc player I have.


----------



## bigshot

13hm13 said:


> I generally don't agree that early-generation CDs sound rough


Not early cds... early Columbia CDs. Their catalog was in poor shape before Sony started their remastering program. The decline in sound quality actually started in the late LP era. Compare the Bernstein CBS releases to the equivalents in the recent Bernstein boxes. No question. EMI has gotten better too. DGG has always had decent mastering. Philips is beloved by some, but their stuff sounds muffled to me.

I calibrated my frequency response using tone sweeps, and I can tell you that on a calibrated system Living Stereo and Mercury sound full and have just the right amount of sub bass. (Except for the cannon shots in 1812- those make my dogs run for the other side of the house).

As for CDs not sounding as good as rips, it sounds to me like your CD player might have been out of align, and your computer drive was perfectly aligned.


----------



## jegreenwood

13hm13 said:


> Interesting feedback--thx.
> 
> I, too, have some more-recent Japan releases (Sony, Denon, etc.).
> Not sure exactly why new Japan Sony releases would sound better than Essential Classics (or any earlier Sonys from 80s/90s); I doubt (but won't confirm) that Sony would _again_ go thru trouble of actually remastering from the analog tape--that's a lot of work.
> Much of the CD plastic/aluminium used in mass-market optical disc is of relatively low quality. This is why Japan CDs, as far back as the introduction of the medium, have generally sounded better even though the _same master_ was used _everywhere_ in the world.
> 
> On that note, a little audiophile tweak you can try is to rip the original commercial CD to your computer and then burn the tracks onto a high-quality CD-R (Verbatim, Tayio Yuden, Kodak, etc.). I've almost always noted an improvement *.
> So for the newer Japan CDs, they might just be using better material or stamping equipment. Indeed, many newer Japan CDs have the Blu-Spec CDlabel.
> 
> * Nowadays, I don't play discs, but pull the music (files) right off the PC hdd, network drive, iPad or iPhone-- and, then, into music-file software (like iTunes or Foobar, jRiver, etc). _This_ sounds quite a bit better than any CD/disc player I have.


The liner notes/packaging for the Great Performances Mozart disc (pictured in my prior post) and the Beethoven box both state they were remastered in DSD from the original analog tapes. The other Japanese sets may say that as well - unfortunately, I can't read Japanese.

I too rarely pull discs out after I've ripped them. I even rip my SACDs using the PS3 hack.


----------



## jegreenwood

There's a legend, probably apocryphal, about the Szell recordings. According to the legend, Szell listened to Epic/Columbia's recordings of his work using speakers set in the corners of the room. This positioning resulted in a boomy bass, and Szell would demand that it be turned down. Hence, the absence of bass in some of the original releases.


----------



## 13hm13

jegreenwood said:


> The liner notes/packaging for the Great Performances Mozart disc (pictured in my prior post) and the Beethoven box both state they were remastered in DSD from the original analog tapes. .


I purchased the three Star Wars films' SE 2-CD sets in 1997 when the Special Edition of the orig. trilogy was theatrically re-released.

In 2004, the SE Trilogy 6-CD soundtrack "box set" was released (coincident with the first-ever DVD video release--another mkting opportunity!) with that "remastered in DSD" * note (unlike the 1997 sets). Nevertheless: 
The sound quality is EXACTLY THE SAME for the 1997 and 2004 sets.

DSD is the format for SACD, so many thought that SW music would be released on SACD. Never was. 
I have seen that same DSD hype on _many regular_ CD releases. It makes no sense, other than a pure marketing lie re-sell the same product. Yup -- the 1997 and 2004 were on the Sony/BMG label.

*DSD/SACD was a Sony/Philips technology. A possibility is that the DAW (digital audio workstation), used in production of optical disc, converted everything to DSD (even PCM) -- maybe this was in _anticipation _of potential SACD market that never really materialized.

Some more info on the DSD processing here.


----------



## JohnD

13hm13 said:


> Just wanted to clarify this remark a bit ...
> If the early-generation CDs were sourced from an analog tape, then one important thing its got going for it is the "strength" of the tapes original magnetic field. In physics, this is called permeance...
> *
> Of course, there is more than just permeance that affects the quality off the remaster. The physical tape chemistry also deteriorates (often, it has to be baked before use).*
> 
> OTOH, remastering equipment and techniques generally improve (unless you're talking about the $$-generating loudness war, which is not so much an issue with classical music)--and_ that's_ a plus for remasters...


One bit of clarification regarding "sticky shed syndrome": this is a condition that affects tape from the mid-1970s and later--and almost never with tapes before that. See here: 
http://audio-restoration.com/baking.php


----------



## jegreenwood

13hm13 said:


> I purchased the three Star Wars films' SE 2-CD sets in 1997 when the Special Edition of the orig. trilogy was theatrically re-released.
> 
> In 2004, the SE Trilogy 6-CD soundtrack "box set" was released (coincident with the first-ever DVD video release--another mkting opportunity!) with that "remastered in DSD" * note (unlike the 1997 sets). Nevertheless:
> The sound quality is EXACTLY THE SAME for the 1997 and 2004 sets.
> 
> DSD is the format for SACD, so many thought that SW music would be released on SACD. Never was.
> I have seen that same DSD hype on _many regular_ CD releases. It makes no sense, other than a pure marketing lie re-sell the same product. Yup -- the 1997 and 2004 were on the Sony/BMG label.
> 
> *DSD/SACD was a Sony/Philips technology. A possibility is that the DAW (digital audio workstation), used in production of optical disc, converted everything to DSD (even PCM) -- maybe this was in _anticipation _of potential SACD market that never really materialized.
> 
> Some more info on the DSD processing here.


As the owner of 450 or so SACDs with about 7,000 posts on the Steve Hoffman forum, I am aware of the meaning of DSD. I cannot speak to the Star Wars discs, but it is inarguable that digital music mastered in any hi-rez format will need to be converted to 16/44.1 for release on CD. That doesn't mean that there will be no differences in the mastering process or the results. Mastering involves a range of issues starting with the source. What I can say is that when I use JRiver's "analyze audio" to compare the my 20 year old set of Mozart's symphonies with the recent remasters, I can see differences. How significant these differences are and whether or not they are improvements is a subjective matter, but the differences exist.


----------



## Adamus

https://www.amazon.de/George-Szell/...?ie=UTF8&qid=1478432556&sr=8-1&keywords=szell

big box


----------



## Pugg

Adamus said:


> https://www.amazon.de/George-Szell/...?ie=UTF8&qid=1478432556&sr=8-1&keywords=szell
> 
> big box


Big price also


----------



## jegreenwood

By my count I have about 20 discs (averaging well over 60 minutes) of Szell's recordings with quality mastering. More are available on Tidal. So if Sony released the box set now, I would likely pass.


----------



## Adamus

Pugg said:


> Big price also


leuker kunnen we het niet maken. Amazon no reviews....no buyers?


----------



## Pugg

Adamus said:


> leuker kunnen we het niet maken. Amazon no reviews....no buyers?


For that price, no thanks.


----------



## Adamus

Pugg said:


> For that price, no thanks.


do they really sell? I can wait a year or longer.


----------



## Pugg

Adamus said:


> do they really sell? I can wait a year or longer.


I should do that if I was you, strange that only Amazon seem to have this box.


----------



## jegreenwood

For Szell fanatics (like myself) I suggest you explore the Japanese e-tailors. (I buy from CDJapan.) They have a number of titles. From what I know (which is far from complete) many if not all of these are remasters, superior to the 1990's vintage budget releases in the U.S. Prices are USD10 give or take (except, unfortunately, for the Beethoven which is on SACD and twice that amount), plus shipping, where they offer a range of options. A reasonable way to pick and choose a number of titles without breaking the bank. I also heartily recommend the budget Haydn box. And I like the most recent Great Performances discs (not the ones that look like newspapers).


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Acoustics aside, my all time favorite Szell interpretation is his Schubert 9th (the "Great" C major), originally recorded 1959 on Epic lp, now on Sony cd (not his last recording for Angel/EMI).


----------



## Vaneyes

Many of the 1980's Sony Szell CDs sound rough to me.

Some Szell favorites: *Mozart* PCs 21 & 26 w. Casadesus; *Prokofiev* PCs 1 & 3 w. Graffman; *LvB* Overtures, Sym. 9, PCs 3 & 4 w. Fleisher; *Haydn* Syms. 92 - 97; *Dvorak* Cello Cto., w. Fournier (DG); *Mahler* Sym. 6, DKW (EMI); *Sibelius* Sym. 2 (Philips); *Walton*: Sym. 2, Variations on Theme by Hindemith, Partita for Orchestra.


----------



## bigshot

Szell is due for a refresh like the Bernstein and Stravinsky recordings got


----------

