That being said, it’s curious they decided to go with SACD on this (and a handful of others as well). EMI had tried it back in 2012, just a year before Warner acquired them, and the results were decidedly unimpressive, to say the least. It was a very limited series, dedicated to recordings originally made in Abbey Road studios – which, at the time, sounded pretty poor to begin with – and the SACD format did little to help.1 There weren’t very many of them released before EMI abandoned the project (only about half a dozen as I recall). So now Warner is resurrecting the idea and having a go at it. And one wonders why. Why is Warner, which has no experience or expertise with SACD, suddenly dabbling in the format so late in the game? Why not just perform a thorough remastering for CD? I’m a big advocate and fan of the SACD format, but even I question this – especially coming from a label like Warner.
So is it worth it?
PART ONE – what it is
Before I get into the sonics, which is really the point of this review, let me summarize what we have here. This is widely considered to be something of a landmark – one of the most consistently satisfying complete sets of the Tchaikovsky Symphonies on record. For a couple of reasons. This was back when Muti was a young firebrand (a far cry from what he sadly has become during his Chicago years). Musically, he brought Italian fervor combined with real Russian fire to Tchaikovsky, along with vigorous orchestral execution – which was uncommon even then, let alone now. And perhaps more importantly, he literally transformed the “New Philharmonia” orchestra from the brink of mediocrity after years of dire artistic decline under Klemperer. Significantly, as noted in the credits, only the First Symphony – the first in the series to be recorded in 1975 – was attributed to the “New Philharmonia”; and for all the rest, their name had been restored to the original Philharmonia Orchestra, along with higher levels of accomplished orchestral playing and renewed vigor. (He performed a similar feat in Philadelphia a few years later, positively rejuvenating that orchestra after their long, drawn out, and eventually tiresome tenure under Ormandy.) If ever there was an “orchestra builder” the likes of which had rarely been witnessed (along with Antal Dorati and Georg Solti of course, and perhaps, to a lesser extent, Zubin Mehta), it was Riccardo Muti – when he had boundless energy, enthusiasm and discipline. He knew exactly what he wanted and wouldn’t accept compromises from an orchestra.
The recorded sound in this Tchaikovsky set was never considered great however; merely serviceable. Muti’s musical interpretations and temperament were of primary importance, and technical qualities became a secondary consideration. Revisiting this new edition, I was reminded that most of these were recorded in Abbey Road Studio No. 1, which was a big part of the problem with the sound.2 EMI’s Abbey Road recordings of the day never sounded very good, even back then, and these Tchaikovsky recordings were no exception – tending to sound airless, cramped, dynamically constrained and sometimes a little rough. But it’s been many, many years since I’ve listened to them (more than I care to admit, or even contemplate), and audio memory can be notoriously unreliable. So it’s definitely time for a little refresher.
Personally, as a complete set, I didn’t think the final 3 symphonies quite matched the exalted heights of the first 3. They were certainly noteworthy, but hearing Muti in Symphonies 1-3 was a revelation. I had never considered them as important as the others, or even all that interesting, but Muti changed that completely. And the 1st Piano Concerto, with Russian pianist Andre Gavrilov, has remained a favorite of mine through the years – one of the most energetic, impassioned and fiery performances I can ever remember. Same with Romeo and Juliet; it was surely the most dramatic and thrilling performance ever (at least at the time), although I distinctly remember it wasn’t very good sonically.
This set has been reissued in various iterations many times over the decades, but all have retained the original EMI remastering used when they first began appearing on CD in the mid-80s. So these recordings have been ripe for a new lease on life and long overdue for a fresh remastering using current techniques. I immediately ordered this set before it disappears, or they raise the price ridiculously out of consideration – both of which are almost certainly inevitable.
What initially caught my eye on this is the SACD symbol on the front. SACD from Warner?! Interested about that, I found the meager booklet inadequate and skimpy with details. It is merely a reprint of the one included in the 2011 EMI CD box, which provides a brief history of Muti and a concise encapsulation of Tchaikovsky’s music (in 3 languages), but has not been updated to tell us anything about this production – why they revisited these venerable recordings, why they undertook a new remastering, why they decided to go with SACD rather than standard CD, etc. They only provide basic recording details (dates, locations, etc.) and a modest, concise statement in small font: “Newly remastered in HD 192kHz/24-bit from original tapes”. And of Manfred, which was digitally recorded in 1981, the wording is slightly different in interesting ways (italicized here by me for emphasis): HD 96kHz/24-bit from a 44kHz/16-bit digital recording with AI upscaling remastering. Hmmm. The audiophile in me is intrigued. I wonder what AI upscaling involves, and what it will sound like.
The documentation is strangely vague about the disc and audio formats, so let me clarify that. These are 2-channel, stereo hybrid SACDs, which of course include a CD layer for playback on any CD player. There is no multi-channel/surround-sound option.
Now a quick observation about the content before moving on. Unlike many box-set reissues from various labels (particularly SONY and Universal), Warner has seen fit to fill the discs to maximum capacity, rather than replicate the original releases, which typically offered very short playing times. Hence, this new set offers convenience and value for money.3 Excellent! And the Symphonies are presented complete, in chronological order (i.e. with no breaks over multiple discs, as we saw on the CDs). Again, Excellent! However, as this set concentrates solely on Muti’s Philharmonia Tchaikovsky (primarily the 6 Symphonies), missing are any of the “extras” Muti recorded later with the Philadelphia Orchestra. Therefore, some of what we got in previous Muti collections, we don’t get in this one. Most regrettably: Hamlet (1989), Francesca da Rimini (1991), and ballet suites from Sleeping Beauty and Swan Lake (1984).4 Also missing (perhaps less lamentably): Serenade for Strings and 1812 Overture (both 1981), and the digital remake of Romeo and Juliet (1988).
PART TWO – what it sounds like
I started with Romeo and Juliet (1976) – first on the new SACD. And … the results were decidedly underwhelming. First off, the transfer level is very low; I had to crank up the volume several notches from normal just to hear the opening woodwinds. Once a realistic level was established, I thought the sound was curiously 2-dimensional and lackluster; gray even. Consulting the booklet, I confirmed this was recorded in Abbey Road Studios (as were a majority of these recordings) – and it sounds like it. As the upper winds and strings entered, the sound began to lighten up a bit and grew a bit more colorful. But at the main Allegro, about 6 minutes in, the sound got louder certainly, but failed to fully open up (and air out) as expected. Oh it is dramatic for sure, and the strings whip up a fury, just as I had remembered, but this is definitely not a modern-day digital SACD in amplitude, dynamic range, or spaciousness. The hall sounds confined, stuffy and airless compared to what we’d expect to hear today.
Disconcerted, I stopped here and played the CD from the 2011 EMI box set, which utilized the original 1986 digital remastering. And astonishingly, the transfer level is lower still. I had to raise the volume a couple more notches yet to match the SACD. And as it played on, I was shocked at how remarkably similar it sounded to the new SACD. But at about that same 6-minute mark, the sound grew just a bit more congested than before, and the strings became a bit less incisive, while the acoustic lost some of its clarity. Not that it was all that clear on the SACD, but it was a little bit clearer than on the CD. So back to the SACD I went, listening to the same passages again, and sure enough, the SACD is indeed a bit cleaner and more articulate, and the strings a bit more fulsome. But seriously, the emphasis on those descriptions is “a bit”. The improvements, in all reality, are very subtle, even on a good stereo system. In fact, the differences are much more subtle than those I heard when comparing the newly remastered Dorati Haydn Symphonies on Decca to their original counterparts.
Disappointed already, I begin to realize that even SACD can’t work miracles. (Either that, or the remastering engineer hasn’t done an adequate job of it.) And perhaps my expectations were set unrealistically high from the get-go. But I decided to forge ahead and try a few more sections before giving up hope.
Symphony #2 is a favorite, and Abbado’s CBS digital recording with the Chicago Symphony has been my benchmark for decades. So how does Muti compare after all this time? Well he hammers it home with plenty of power and drama. But unfortunately, the closed-in, cramped, stuffy recording does him no favors. And the SACD helps little. Comparisons here are nearly identical to that heard in Romeo and Juliet, so I might just as well cut and paste. (But I won’t.) Starting with the SACD, as the main Allegro of the first movement comes powering in (at about 3-1/2 minutes), the strings are somewhat forward in the mix and the brass are confined and bounce off the back wall with nowhere to go, unable to expand. And the soundstage just collapses onto itself. There are reasonable dynamics and plenty of gusto from the orchestra, but it is weighed down under a blanket of claustrophobia. Going to the CD, that same passage sounds very similar, but slightly worse still. It’s even muddier now and the bass range is just mush – although I do believe the soundstage is ever so slightly more expansive in its portrayal of the magnitude of a full symphony orchestra. So yes, I do hear a difference, and yes, the SACD is an improvement – sort of. But is it significant? No; it still doesn’t sound very good, just in slightly different ways.
Interested to hear if the sound improves in Kingsway Hall, I listened to the last two movements of the First Symphony, recorded 2 years earlier (1975). And yes, the sound is slightly better, but still not anywhere near satisfactory by current standards. It is a little more brightly lit and a little airier, and perhaps a bit more open, but still fairly cramped and muffled, especially on climaxes. And the CD sounds about the same as the SACD.
In Symphony #5, also from Kingsway Hall, but three years later (1978), the sound is better – on both formats. But the SACD offers no material improvements over the CD. If anything, I thought the SACD was actually a bit brash on the big brass outbursts, including an overblown rasp to the horns. And though it revealed maybe a touch more spaciousness to the hall than the CD does, the CD countered with revealing more inner detail in the midrange (particularly in the woodwinds), and presents a slightly more harmonious, less forced, orchestral blend. Muti is positively ablaze in this symphony, likely demanding more from this orchestra than they could comfortably deliver at the time, and the SACD seems to push it perhaps a little too far in that direction. I would have expected the SACD to be more refined than the CD, but it isn’t. Just the opposite, actually. The CD would be my preference here.
The same with the Piano Concerto, recorded a year later, though back at Abbey Road. Starting with the CD this time around, it sounds better than I remembered. In fact, it actually sounds pretty good! – noticeably better than Symphony #2 for sure. The strings are full, with a bit of air on top of the violins; and the piano, though a little boxy, has some of that Steinway “ping” to it. So I’m enjoying this. Going to the SACD, I was surprised to hear the strings lose a bit of their sheen and some of the passion in their big famous tune at the beginning, and the orchestra now sounds a bit boxed in – more unemotional – with the brass bouncing off the back wall with nowhere to expand. Worst of all, the sound is thinned out on the SACD – markedly so. The orchestra has lost some of its richness and color, replaced with an electronic glaze. The orchestra sounds thin and cold, which I didn’t like at all. I had to confirm for certain that I was really listening to the SACD. (I was.) Curiously, the piano tone sounds about the same on both formats.
The results in Symphony #4 were very similar – and just as detrimental. Again starting with the CD, I thought those opening brass fanfares sounded absolutely splendid – full-bodied, with great focus and immediacy, within a reasonably spacious hall. But switching to the SACD, the orchestra sounded strikingly thinner – lacking body and fullness within a somewhat artificial-sounding acoustic. Moreover, the dynamics sounded clipped on those ff orchestral chords. I simply can’t imagine a producer thinking this was in any way beneficial, let alone an improvement over the source material. On the other hand, in the 4th movement, dynamics seemed a bit more explosive on the SACD, exposing more obviously a bit of overload distortion as well. So I can’t begin to understand, let alone explain, what’s happening with the “remastering” here.
Finally, I wanted to try Manfred, remembering the booklet’s statement that it has been enhanced with AI upscaling. Oh yeah? This should be interesting; I haven’t been impressed with Warner’s remastering yet, so will this be any different? It is an original digital recording rather than analog like all the others, and it was recorded in Kingsway Hall rather than Abbey Road Studios, so it will likely sound better for those reasons alone. And it does. The dramatic opening of the 4th movement is more open and immediate than anything I’ve heard thus far, and the orchestra has a more realistic size and magnitude to it – though still not what one would hear on a modern SACD. Fortunately, I hear absolutely nothing out of the ordinary to indicate that some newfangled “AI enhancement” has been involved in any way. And it sounds really good.
Performing my due diligence, I loaded the CD in the tray, expecting to hear similar results (due to its digital origins), and much to my utter astonishment, the CD sounds even better than the SACD! It is instantly, and obviously, more present and impactful – open, spacious and dynamic. The orchestra is suddenly right there in front of me in a more palpable (almost tangible) way. The brass have more bite (which is good), along with more incisiveness and clarity to the body of strings (which is also good). I am dumbfounded, and again take a moment to confirm I’m listening to what I think I am – double- and triple– checking that it is the CD. (I even looked specifically at the display on the disc player, which is boldly illuminating “CD” in big capital letters.) To hear Muti’s ferocity unleashed, at last unconstrained by the recording…this performance sounds great! And really, for the first time in these listening sessions, I’m excited. BUT – this is the CD, not the new SACD. (Sigh…)
This was an interesting listening experience; and I found the results complexing. In a nutshell, I hear the earlier symphonies as being freshened rather than transformed. I was really hoping more could have been done to open up the soundstage and bring a bit more spaciousness, clarity and dynamics to them – which they desperately needed. Conversely in some of the later ones, the SACDs are somewhat inferior with regard to richness and warmth, and in some cases (but not always), even dynamic range. Moreover, they tend to expose some of the flaws in the originals perhaps more than we want to hear. We’ll never know if this is all the result of the technical process used, or perhaps a certain lack of dedication and/or expertise; or merely that the source material was the determining factor. Nevertheless, I admit being surprised that the 192/24-bit remastering, in and of itself, didn’t do more to improve the sound in ways we’ve heard other labels achieve such success when utilizing this process (most notably SONY and DECCA).5
PART THREE – is it worth it?
Which leads me back to the question I raised at the top: Is it worth it? Well sure – for those coming to these classic recordings for the first time, wanting to acquire them in a convenient, relatively inexpensive box. But even more for those like me with a predilection for SACD and a sound-system of sufficient quality to appreciate such things. But I have to admit that the results are so variable (and unexpected), I have reservations. And let me expound on that. First and foremost, the differences throughout are largely subtle. As a matter of fact, I had to continually double-check myself to ensure which I was listening to at any given time, the SACD or the CD. It was not always easy to determine just by listening. And in those instances where differences can be for certain identified, I heard them as not really all that significant – at least not to the magnitude I was expecting from SACD. I mean, SACD can only do so much given the source material, and many of these simply are not great recordings – in either format. And the SACDs are at times complimentary, and other times counterproductive.
So the real question is, Is it worth it enough to make a difference? Hand on heart, I would have to say, no, not really. Ultimately, it’s the performances from a trailblazing conductor in his prime which are the main (and only) attraction here. (Even the Philharmonia are not fully restored to their absolute finest yet.) So for most folks, I would suggest this new Warner reissue is not worth it if you already own one of EMI’s previous CD collections – which in all truthfulness, sound about as good as these can get, and offer more music, including some of Muti’s later Philadelphia recordings. And when you consider that some of these actually sound better on the original CDs (depending on your preferences and sound system), well, that may be the deciding factor for many.
I had high hopes for this release, but in the end, it proved itself to be just another “major label” production in practically every way – from the booklet’s lack of updated, comprehensive information/documentation and the old-fashioned, clunky, hard plastic CD case, to the vagueness about the disc/audio formats and, ultimately, the sound itself. That the producers found it acceptable for some of these to actually sound inferior to their original 40-year-old counterparts, but went ahead with it anyway, is not only disingenuous, but indicative that insufficient effort went into it. I still find it hard to believe the 192kHz/24-bit remastering didn’t improve the sound more, and I can’t help but attribute that to carelessness or haste in the processing itself – as if they just ran it through a digital filter, transferred it onto SACD, and called it a day. Quick, easy, inexpensive. As opposed to taking the time and effort to carefully remaster each recording with listening discernment, refining each one as necessary and appropriate to get the most out of it and ensure it will sound the best it possibly can. But that would have been time-consuming and more expensive – which isn’t something Warner is likely to invest in. In fact, they don’t even list a remaster engineer in the booklet – merely a simple statement: “remastered by Parlophone Records”. But that SACD symbol on the front sure looks impressive! Therefore it must be better, right?
What I thought would be an exciting undertaking – reacquainting myself with these treasurable recordings, and hearing them anew compared to the old CDs – turned out to be a disappointment, and frankly, a bit of a chore. I acknowledge I did not evaluate every Symphony (or even every track of the ones I did), but I can’t imagine hearing anything different going any further, just for the sake of completeness. I had had enough of it after a while.
1 I only bought 3 of them at the time, mostly out of curiosity: Du Pre’s Elgar/Delius Cello Concertos; Richter’s Dvorak/Grieg/Schumann Piano Concertos; and Oistrakh’s Beethoven Triple Concerto/Brahms Double. I heard so little improvement in sound, I gave up on them.
2 Symphonies #1 & 5 and Manfred were recorded in Kingsway Hall; all the rest were at Abbey Road.
3 Disc 1 – 75’ (Syms. 1 & 2); Disc 2 – 83’; (Syms. 3 & 4); Disc 3 – 67’ (Sym. 5, Romeo and Juliet); Disc 4 – 84’ (Sym. 6, Piano Concerto); and Disc 5 – 58’ (Manfred).
4 His recording of the ballet suites was the very first CD I ever bought, way back in 1986. And I still remember hearing it for the first time. I was absolutely awestruck by the sound of CD – the silence of it; the dynamic range; the clarity; the sheer magnificence of an orchestra recreated in my living room as never before. I still own that original CD, despite it being reissued many times; and with over 10,000 CDs in my collection now, I still think it’s awesome.
5 I did briefly try the CD layer on a couple of these SACDs and heard sound which is very similar to both the original CD and the SACD. From what little I sampled, however, I would suggest the CD layer of the SACDs might be the best-sounding format of the 3, and I might have to explore this further at some point.
