Miles Davis: Porgy & Bess CDs

i picked up the older "Columbia Jazz Masterpieces" CD of Miles Davis's Porgy and Bess the other day (catalog number CK 40647) - this is the one with the blue border on the front cover. mastering is credited to Teo Macero. i was surprised by how good this disc sounds. i have nothing bad to say about it. i haven't done extensive a/b comparisons with the Columbia/Legacy remaster, but i'm pretty sure it's better. i remember the remaster being harsh with little bass (same deal with Sketches of Spain). the older disc sounds really balanced by comparison.

anyone else have thoughts on the best-sounding Porgy and Bess?

 

I'll have to keep an eye out for that disc. I find the Columbia/Legacy remaster incredibly harsh but I have nothing to compare it to. Is that piercing, trebly horn sound just how it was recorded or is it the work of the mastering engineer?

 

Hi,

It is partly both, Columbia mandated that all Stereo recordings be bright. Phil Schapp also added some of his own. The current Legacy disc is still better. Just use some treble reduction or EQ.

 

That's the Phi Schaap "sound." He is a jazz disc-jockey who somehow got into the mastering room at Sony and Verve in the 1990s. Both labels eventually stopped hiring him.

As for "Porgy and Bess", the CD from the mid-1990s is both a re-mix (from the 3 track tapes) and a remaster. The Japanese SACD is the best version I've heard, though I've never experienced it on vintage vinyl.

 

That's the one I own and all I've heard.

 

Same here. But even the JSACD is bright. My 4 year old daughter regularly asks me to put on another CD, although I always play it at moderate volume levels.

But the music is fantastic. I'd love to hear an original LP pressing.

 

I sent a Japan 32DP version to Wolfgang. I wonder what he thinks of it?

 

I will definitely state my opininon on this, if I have received and listened to this one.
The 200? Legacy remaster is way too bright and I already sold it.
Those 90s remasters are not so bad, I have "Sketches" in the 32DP version and as Columbia 90s remaster (Made in Austria I guess - would have to check that again though - I'm at work now) and although the 32DP is (I believe) better, I could easily live with the 90s version. Which I cannot say about the 2000s remasters......

 

The Mark Wilder remasters are too bright (including the JSACD), and the old CD is way too veiled. None of them is really satisfactory.

I can understand that the new remaster sounds not only bright but painfully harsh on some systems, but I prefer it to the old CD. On the JSACD, the cleaner treble reproduction helps a lot. Apart from the brightness, it sounds much more realistic, dynamic and detailed than the old mastering.

 

The latest 2006 Japanese mini-lp DSD remastering is remarkable and best of the lot by a mile.

Really, isn't it time to stop the endless remasterings of the Miles catalog? There must be 10 or more remasterings of KOB by now!

 

FWIW here are wave forms from "Sketches" for the two versions I currently own, the track is "Will o' the Wisp" and the first waveform is from the "diditally remastered" CBS Masterpieces Series CBS 460604 2 (CD is Made in Austria with plain black writings on the CD) and the second sample from the 32DP Japan Version (2nd pressing I guess ??)

 

CBS/Sony 35DP 63 is the first Japanese pressing.

 

I thought so. Thanks, Hans.

 

Are you sure it is a new remastering, compared to the JSACD? It could be that they used the same DSD transfer which was made for the SACD.

In Japan, most reissues are limited edition releases, which explains why new versions are coming out every few years.

 

If I said 2006 remastering that's because it's a 2006 remastering. The SACD was done eaelier.

 

That wasn't the question. He was asking if it was the same DSD transfer that was used for the SACD.

Just because it has a 2006 date doesn't mean it was a 2006 remastering (The Doors Perception box for example). Things get repackaged, reused all the time.

I find it strange they would do TWO separate DSD transfers for this title, so it's a valid question, though apparently you didn't think so...

 

I own many of the DSD releases from 2000 and 2001. My friend has recently picked up many of the 2006 DSD discs. So far he seems to think that the two are the same, based on a few cdr copies I've made for him. He listened to both and checked wav files with EAC. I too would be surprised if they went back and did brand new transfers.

 

Again, if I said 2006 remastering, it's 2006 remastering. I'm quite aware of the difference between year of release and year of remastering.

How could it be the same mastering as the SACD if it was done in 2006, but the SACD was years earlier?

 

The remastering is the transfering of the analog tapes into the digital domain (playing the analog tapes and recording them through a analog-digital converter). It determines the sound of the resulting disc.

If the digital files are used again for later CD pressings (with no added manipulation), those CDs will sound the same as the first pressings. That's what is meant when we talk about the "same mastering" on different CDs.

 

The title which is the subject of this thread is Porgy & Bess. What is a surprise and what other titles are sourced from are not relevant. The FACTS are:


Of the 2006 Miles Davis reissues:

Some were new 2006 remasterings.

Some were the 2004 SACD remasters.

Some were the 2002 DSD remasters, reissued. A few are 2001 remasterings.

Go to the Sony Japan site which lists the remastering done for every title to confirm this.

The 2006 remastered titles are simply outstanding and easily rise to the top of the crowded field. Unfortunately, most of the 2006 titles sold out very quickly to astute music lovers. The remaining titles, sourced from earlier remasterings are easily found, because they for the most part offer nothing new.

The 2006 remastering of Bitches Brew, for example, is mind-blowing - tons of tape hiss, but a mellow - yet vivid - richness and depth, and the 2006 remastering of ESP for the first time takes away the hardness on top and brings out the wood in Carter's bass - and presents Shorter's tenor tonally correct, not the squak on the earlier issue. Porgy...well, it's still the same tape, but again has plenty of tape hiss, but the brightness is presented in a more relaxed analog way - the best this great record can be heard.

 

Because both the SACD and the 2006 REDBOOK could be sourced from the SAME DSD transfer, that's how.

 

AFAIK, no Miles SACDs have been released in 2004. The Sony SACDs and JSACDs all came out between 1999 and 2001.

 

Btw, who is credited with the remastering on the 2006 Porgy & Bess?

 

Jeepers!!!!

If the CD was remastered in 2006 it COULD NOT POSSIBLY be the same as a SACD issued years before!

REMASTERED in 2006!! REMASTERED in 2006!! REMASTERED in 2006!! REMASTERED in 2006!!

Not - "Sourced from a DSD master in 2006"!!!

REMASTERED in 2006!!!

OK, seriously, a few of you here are getting confused in this thread. Remastering means preparing a new digital master from the original source material, or as close to the original material as is available. Taking an already available digital master and using it as the source for a new issue of a title is NOT a new remastering. If a title is described as "2006 remastering" that means only that the analog source material was newly transferred to digital. Use of a previous digital master - whether it has been used for a redbook CD before or not - cannot ever be claimed as a new remastering.

Hope that helps Claude and MikeP5877 to understand what a new remastering is and the difference from simply using an earlier DSD transfer.

 

I don't have the CD at hand right now, but it is a Sony Japanese engineer.