# Which Karajan Beethoven Cycle is Best, and why?



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

As I understand, Karajan recorded the complete cycle of Beethoven's 9 symphonies no less than three times: first, in the early sixties, next in the mid seventies and finally in the mid eighties. I've heard many say that the 1962 recording is best, especially the Ninth.

I have the mid-1970s recording, and am dissatisfied with the sonics.

Aside from recording dates, which remasterings *sound* best? The 1962 recording has been released as SACD or Blu-ray. There's a lot of product out there, and it's been released as various different recordings, editions, remasterings, and digital formats.

Has anybody heard all of the different versions, who can guide us through this, or do we have to gamble on it and buy the various versions?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I just got a copy of the 1963 cycle on DG which I am encoding that one right now. I don't know how well it sounds.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

There is a Karajan cycle that was begun in the 40s and completed in 1956. I posted a link about it in a recent poll on (coincidently) which Karajan Beethoven cycle is the best. Here is the thread. You may be able to glean some advide from it while waiting for posts on this thread.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I've never been a Karajan fan and generally avoid this conductor's albums, especially the later digital works, though I do have several of the crucial, critically acclaimed works -- and others I purchased before I knew better. But I do have the 1963 Beethoven Symphonies, and it has served me well. Though I have a lot of Beethoven to choose from, I turn to that '63 Karajan box set a couple of times yearly. If it's the only Beethoven set you have, you haven't been cheated. (I can't speak to the other Karajan sets. I don't own them. Don't care to, either.)


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> As I understand, Karajan recorded the complete cycle of Beethoven's 9 symphonies no less than three times: first, in the early sixties, next in the mid seventies and finally in the mid eighties. I've heard many say that the 1962 recording is best, especially the Ninth.
> 
> I have the mid-1970s recording, and am dissatisfied with the sonics.
> 
> ...


 I enjoy High Resolution recordings and also enjoy multichannel. However, I have sampled the 1963 set in SACD and the 9th from the 1970s set in Blu Ray and I don't think much is gained from either. Two channel stereo or Mono in the case of the 1950s cycle carries the day here.
Regarding performances, I am only conversant with the early sixties set, which achieved classic status world wide. You will have to make up your own mind. I have always liked von Ks Beethoven but others have labaled these recordings "chocolate Beethoven" due to the emphaisis on beauty of sound. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I love the first Philharmonia set which boasts a Ninth Symphony with Schwarzkopf, Haefliger and Edelmann, but it is in mono.

For a stereo set, I would choose a Beethoven Symphony set by the quality of singers in Beethoven's Ninth and pride of place must go to the 1977 Berlin Philharmonic performance with Tomowa-Sintow, Baltsa, Schreier and van Dam.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

The one that wasn't by Karajan 

But in all seriousness, I have the 1963 set on vinyl and I have heard the 1977 on Spotify, and I think there's just something about the '77 set which I prefer, but I can't put my finger on it exactly...I tend to avoid Karajan in favour of other conductors who bring more life, passion and power to these symphonies.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

*UPDATE 2019: At last, closer to the "why"*


The one I have

Here's some interesting info from an amazon customer review about the engineering on the above 1963 box which I did not know:

_I bought this particular Von Karajan set (there is a later recording by the Maestro of the 9 symphonies) because it was recorded when Deutsche Gramophone Gesellschaft (DGG) was using Mittel-Side (MS) miking to yield TRUE STEREO recordings in the late 50's and early 60's. The later recordings were mike using a forest of microphones which are merely multi-channel monaural, and I hate that. Sure, multi-miked, multi-channel recordings give one a sense of right-to left (because the instruments were PLACED in their right-to-left positions by the recording engineers not by the natural sound of a real orchestra playing in a real space. Such multi-miked/multi-channel (up to 48 channels in some instances) cannot convey the depth of the orchestra. Remember Stereo is a Greek word meaning "solid". As in three dimensional. That is width, depth, and height. Multi-miked/multi-channel gives one only width.

_I have frequently voiced my preference for closely-miked recordings, such as Glenn Gould's, where it sounds like your head is in the piano. I guess it's a side effect of starting out in jazz and rock. I like the 1960s Columbia Masterworks recordings as well with John McClure producing, doing it that way.

Perhaps I've got the wrong box, because I really don't give a whit about true stereo imaging using only two mikes.

So it seems to me that "traditionalists" might prefer the older 2-miked 1963 set over the later "panned" set. 

Frank Zappa recorded his orchestral music non-traditionally, with numerous PZM mikes, so maybe the old 2-mike method, if traditional, is archaic. Anyway, what's "natural" about listening to an orchestra through hi-fi systems?

As a hi-fi nut, I think I might prefer the later 1970s set, or even the 1980s set. The blu-ray or SACD mastering of the 1963 set just complicates things further!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The HvK digital set, his last, is the worst: textures like molasses, and for digital sound, it's awful. No clarity or impact. The '60s set is, and has been, a cornerstone for decades - and justifiably so. But that's IF you like and accept the "big band" Beethoven that everyone was making in that era. Tempos seem perfect, the playing impeccable, and the DG sound excellent. The '70s set shows a deepening of interpretation, and overall is very good - but the sound isn't so clear. Wasn't this set made in conjunction with the highly manipulated video productions? Then there's that early Philharmonia set on EMI. Now, that's exciting Beethoven! Thrilling performances - Walter Legge certainly knew what he wanted- and he got it. Lightning in a bottle. But alas, the sound is too dated to be anyone's first choice. So for HvK: '60s. 

It is very interesting to compare that edition right alongside another one made nearly at the same time, same orchestra and different conductor: Andre Cluytens.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I like the '77 the best. The 80s set is a little more soupy and not quite as intense. The '63 set is good, but I feel like Karajan let loose more in '77. Not as "perfect" as '63 but more engaging.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

1977, easily. I own all of them. 1977 is the one I keep returning to, especially in its hi-res release, which is slightly clearer than the CDs.

The reasons are sound quality (best of the 4, especially in strings and tympani), tempii (briskest of the 4), the 6th (most lyrical of the 4) and the 9th (most powerful of the 4).


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

There's actually 5 cycles. 50s Philharmonia, 63 BPO, 77 BPO, 85 BPO and the Live Japan 77 cycle. My preference is for the 63 cycle but 77 is great too. In fact they're all very good, even his much maligned 80s cycle, which in the Karajan Gold series sounds MUCH better. If you can get hold of it (took me ages to get it) you should hear the 77 Live Japan cycle. It's free from DG's technical meddling and shows Karajan could cut it live too.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Are these both identical sets with different covers?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Merl said:


> There's actually 5 cycles. 50s Philharmonia, 63 BPO, 77 BPO, 85 BPO and the Live Japan 77 cycle. My preference is for the 63 cycle but 77 is great too. In fact they're all very good, even his much maligned 80s cycle, which in the Karajan Gold series sounds MUCH better. If you can get hold of it (took me ages to get it) you should hear the 77 Live Japan cycle. It's free from DG's technical meddling and shows Karajan could cut it live too.


Think you must know but forgot the Live Japan 1966 cycle issued by King International. I have the five you mentioned, but tbh I'm not really a fan of his Beethoven in general. However I absolutely agree that without DG's meddling (and his), the 77 live cycle sounds very different, and also I've always had an impression from the few of his live recordings that he was leaner and meaner in the concert hall.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tje cycles I have:

The early Philarmonia Cycle which includes a superb 6 but is surpassed elsewhere

The 1962 set which is tremendously exciting, with the BPO right on their toes and the sense of discovery. When people say Karajan was 'bland' they obviously haven't heard these exciting performances! A slight let-down in the first movement of 6 perhaps

The 1977 set which is also very fine and has a great 6 and the best 9. A combination of 1962 and 1977 would be ideal.

The 1982 set which is not bad but actually not really necessary apart from a superb 3. Get this in the remastered Gold edition and the sound is superb unlike the originals.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Kiki said:


> Think you must know but forgot the Live Japan 1966 cycle issued by King International. I have the five you mentioned, but tbh I'm not really a fan of his Beethoven in general. However I absolutely agree that without DG's meddling (and his), the 77 live cycle sounds very different, and also I've always had an impression from the few of his live recordings that he was leaner and meaner in the concert hall.


Oops, thanks Kiki, i did forget it probably cos i havent got it and wont be getting it as it costs about £100 and ive no idea what it sounds like unless someone can point me to a free listen. Ahem. Oh and i totally agree about the Live Japan 77 set (see my Beethoven cycle reviews). Its definitely leaner, better balanced (not as string dominated) and attacks are a little harder (shame its a little hissy). Tempi are very similar across all his cycles. HvK was incredibly consistent with his speeds. It's rumoured he trained his brain with a metronome in his formative years as a conductor and his metronomic precision never diminished.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> The 1982 set which is not bad but actually not really necessary apart from a superb 3. Get this in the remastered Gold edition and the sound is superb unlike the originals.


That's both you and Merl who assert that the 80s cycle in the "Karajan Gold" mastering is good.

MatthewWeflen gives us the 77 cycle in hi-res as a good choice.

I noticed the 60s cycle in SACD mastering. Anybody heard that? I like SACD mainly for its multi-channel capabilities, so since the 60s cycle is M/S stereo, I wonder if this is a difference? The original Amazon reviewer said that this "true stereo" was the result of "depth" on two axis: left/right and front/back. If the recording were translated for SACD (front and rear speakers), with this in mind, it would seem to be an _enhancement_ of the qualities the reviewer mentioned.

If you've ever read about this M/S miking technique, this is from WIK:

*M/S technique: Mid/Side stereophony[edit]*


Mid-Side Stereo​
This coincident technique employs a bidirectional microphone (with a Figure of 8 polar pattern) facing sideways and a cardioid (generally a variety of cardioid, although Alan Blumlein described the usage of an omnidirectional transducer in his original patent) facing the sound source. The capsules are stacked vertically and brought together as closely as possible, to minimize comb filtering caused by differences in arrival time.
The left and right channels are produced through a simple matrix: Left = Mid + Side, Right = Mid − Side ("minus" means you add the side signal with the polarity reversed). This configuration produces a completely mono-compatible signal and, if the Mid and Side signals are recorded (rather than the matrixed Left and Right), the stereo width (and with that, the perceived distance of the sound source) can be manipulated after the recording has taken place.

They used to do "matrix" recording like this, because you could "fold it down" to true mono for radio broadcast purposes. 
M/S stereo miking actually uses three signals, but only two microphones: the first two are from a two-sided bi-directional mike in which one side is + and the back side is -, placed sideways, giving L-R stereo. You've seen these as those big "flat" microphones.

The remaining mike is simply pointed straight forward, and this third signal is used by itself when a mono signal is needed for radio and TV broadcast (before stereo FM). They simply cut out the stereo mike signal. The "matrix" device is used to blend in various "in betweens" of this, giving greater and lesser degrees of "stereo" or "mono."


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

starthrower said:


> View attachment 126667
> 
> 
> Are these both identical sets with different covers?


AFAIK yes they are. I have the latter. The 77 cycle also has the cover below.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Merl said:


> There's actually 5 cycles. 50s Philharmonia, 63 BPO, 77 BPO, 85 BPO and the Live Japan 77 cycle. My preference is for the 63 cycle but 77 is great too. In fact they're all very good, even his much maligned 80s cycle, which in the Karajan Gold series sounds MUCH better. If you can get hold of it (took me ages to get it) you should hear the 77 Live Japan cycle. It's free from DG's technical meddling and shows Karajan could cut it live too.


Dammit, now I want this, and it looks quite expensive.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I ordered the '63 cycle in the remastered version, as it was only $12 plus shipping. I'm going to gradually work my way in, and see if I can hear any substantial difference.
My preferred format is SACD, and I am set-up for that. I would try the blu-ray, since it fits all 9 onto one disc, but I'm not set up for multichannel blu-ray because my receiver does not have HDMI inputs.









The '63 set remastered







​


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

for me - 60's with BPO and 50's with Philharmonia orchestra


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

If you look on the second hand market most of HvK’s Beethoven cycles can be bought pretty cheaply simply because they were sold by the truckload to a previous generation. Avoid the 1982 cycle unless in the Gold remastering. Not that they are bad but they don’t really add anything apart from a stupendous Eroica. That is worth having.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

But is this one (1963) really remastered? I see no indication on the discs, box, or booklet. It may be just a lower-priced, more compact way of selling it. Does anybody care to speculate?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm tempted to buy the DG Karajan Symphony Edition. 38 CDs for 48 dollars. Includes the 1977 cycle, plus Brahms, Bruckner, Haydn, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Mozart, Tchaikovsky. That's a lotta Herbie!


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

starthrower said:


> I'm tempted to buy the DG Karajan Symphony Edition. 38 CDs for 48 dollars. Includes the 1977 cycle, plus Brahms, Bruckner, Haydn, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Mozart, Tchaikovsky. That's a lotta Herbie!


If you do not already own the majority of these, you should do it. It's an astonishing deal, and the recordings are first rate sonically. Personally, I find them all reference worthy as interpretations - and very few would dispute the quality of the Bruckner, Brahms, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, at the very least.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

starthrower said:


> I'm tempted to buy the DG Karajan Symphony Edition. 38 CDs for 48 dollars. Includes the 1977 cycle, plus Brahms, Bruckner, Haydn, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Mozart, Tchaikovsky. That's a lotta Herbie!


It's a great deal, tbh and as others have said the Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky are very good or better, at the least. I rate the Mendelssohn too. The Mozart and Haydn are marmite sets (but personally I enjoy them). The only one I have issues with is the Schumann. I can never make my mind up about it. I go through phases of really enjoying it and at other times I find it soggy and saccharine. At the moment it's the former (but 2 years ago it was the later). Lol.

BTW, Millionrainbows, I have the set below and it is a 20-bit remaster and sounds great.








Although I don't have the edition below it, too, is a remaster (unless others on Amazon and elsewhere are lying). I couldn't comment on its quality though. Its been remastered to death since then.


----------



## JB Henson (Mar 29, 2019)

I'll agree that the ideal Karajan Beethoven is to augment the 1963 cycle with the 1977 one. However the 1963 has one thing over the '77...









I own it on vinyl.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Merl said:


> It's a great deal, tbh and as others have said the Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky are very good or better, at the least. I rate the Mendelssohn too. The Mozart and Haydn are marmite sets (but personally I enjoy them). The only one I have issues with is the Schumann. I can never make my mind up about it. I go through phases of really enjoying it and at other times I find it soggy and saccharine. At the moment it's the former (but 2 years ago it was the later). Lol.
> 
> BTW, Millionrainbows, I have the set below and it is a 20-bit remaster and sounds great.
> View attachment 127113
> ...


The Mendelssohn is superb in my opinion (I have Gardiner to compare it to). I just don't see it praised as much as the other aforementioned sets. I can imagine a criticism of it (which I do not share) that is it too driven.


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

I prefer the 1977 set. The 1962 set is good, but by 1977 Herb's Beethoven was deeper, more cogent.

IMHO, early digital recording was often godawfully strident and no match for late analogue recording: 1977>1982.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starthrower said:


> I'm tempted to buy the DG Karajan Symphony Edition. 38 CDs for 48 dollars. Includes the 1977 cycle, plus Brahms, Bruckner, Haydn, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Mozart, Tchaikovsky. That's a lotta Herbie!


A very good set


----------



## Fpanny (Nov 5, 2020)

*Hi*



Merl said:


> AFAIK yes they are. I have the latter. The 77 cycle also has the cover below.
> 
> View attachment 126680


Which of these has better sound?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Fpanny said:


> Which of these has better sound?


60s has slightly hissy but very detailed sound, with sweet JCK reverb.
70s has mature, very detailed analog sound with no hiss and somewhat more reverberation from the Philharmonie.
80s has early digital sound - very detailed with great bass tones, but a little unpleasantly "crunchy" in loud spots.

Of the three, my order of preference is 70s-60s-80s.


----------



## Fpanny (Nov 5, 2020)

Merl said:


> AFAIK yes they are. I have the latter. The 77 cycle also has the cover below.
> 
> View attachment 126680


How is the sound quality on this version? There are two versions of this 77 cycle. I want to make sure I get the one with the best sound quality.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Fpanny said:


> How is the sound quality on this version? There are two versions of this 77 cycle. I want to make sure I get the one with the best sound quality.


The truth is I don't know. Hopefully someone else can answer this one. I just have the one below and it sounds really good.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

My understanding is that this is the 2007 remaster, while the Symphony Edition set above is from a previous 1980s mastering.









https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-th.../dp/B000WQGPNI/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8


----------



## bluto32 (Apr 25, 2015)

I think those two sets are different, since only the Eloquence mentions "AMSI", a specific remastering process. I remember looking into this a few years ago and being put off by several Amazon reviews panning various AMSI remasterings for sounding artificial and not quite right. I bought the same set as Merl (2 posts up) and am very happy with it.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I think all the sets are very close in sound quality. AMSI is a process that allows Dolby Digital surround decoders to place information in surround speakers from a stereo mix. I listened to this AMSI mix in stereo for a year before I acquired the 192k/24b Blu-Ray release. I detected no problems.

The thing about the 70s cycle is that it was recorded for quadrophonic sound, which was all the rage at the time among enthusiasts. Because of this, it is amenable to all sorts of remasters such as AMSI, 5.1ch, Dolby Atmos, and so on. But the stereo mixes themselves do not suffer, and are not appreciably different except under very close scrutiny. Any of them will serve you well. 

I have the Eloquence set and the mixes present in the 70s box, in addition to the Blu-Ray. The Blu-Ray and the Eloquence sound extremely similar, which leads me to believe they were mastered from the quadrophonic source material. But DG always had extra mics just for stereo mixes, because they always wanted a fallback if new technology disappointed (they did analog recording in tandem with digital for several years as well). The 70s box sounds a bit drier and with less reverb, as if it is pure stereo without extra information, which is probably the same as the symphony edition.

A set mixed in the 80s would be only stereo, because Dolby Digital Surround Sound was not yet a thing (it debuted in theaters in 1991, in the home afterwards).


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

I actually think his video/DVD performances of Beethoven from the late '60's and '70s are easily his best Beethoven performances. Depending on your Blu-ray/DVD set-up, you might want to give one a spin to decide if you want to explore further.

**I just noticed that the original post was made 6 years ago**:lol:


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

That is a very good cycle indeed. I'd probably put it behind 77 but ahead of 63 and 82.


----------

