is there a good current CD of miles davis "kind of blue"?

It just draws you in every time, even after all these years.

 

OK, JJ was kind enough to loan me a short sample of Flamenco Sketches on the Japanese SRCS 9104 mini-LP.

First I listened to 9104 and my US Mastersound Gold CK 64403 2. With replay gain on, double-blind, I could not tell the difference. Same extra-wide stereo separation, same tone (which really isn't bad on this mastering, truth be told) same aggressive digital sounding hiss.

The bits are different, that's for sure. We knew that from the peaks. Lined up in an audio editor with the offsets corrected they sync perfectly. Spectral analysis added to my Excel charts overlapped the Mastersound Gold perfectly, just shifted up slightly in volume.

So, yeah, SRCS 9104 is a level shifted copy of the Mastersound Gold mastering.

 

SRCS-9104 is indeed a Sony Mastersound release, at least that's what can be seen on the OBI. Seems to have been released on 1996, which is before the new Wilder mix, so it makes sense they use the Mastersound mastering for this Mastersound mini-LP. I just don't know why they changed the levels... I suspect Sony has done this to many other non-gold Mastersound releases...

 

Ok, that site is back up now. Was down earlier.

I see where it says that. Maybe it just means a re-release of the same mini-LP sleeve?

The header for the SRCS 91XX series says 20bit SBM mastering, like the '92 Mastersound Gold CDs were. SRCS 97XX series says they are DSD SACD sourced. (Technically tho SACDs are 20 bit too.) Based on that info I suspect SRCS 9701 would be the ancestor of the '06 SICP 1206 folks like so much. If not the same, at least close.

There is however conflicting information out there about these limited edition Japanese market releases. We won't know for sure until we get our hands on one.

 

foobar2000... it's easy... how many DSD transfers were made from the new mix tapes (1997)?

 

According to all things you've written so far, and according to the quotes attributed to Mark Wilder himself, there is only one 1997 stereo mix tape, and (correct me if I'm wrong) only one DSD transfer made from that tape, around the same time (???).

So, since 1997, there is a new master tape and a new master DSD transfer.

Probably, all subsequent DSD releases (CD or SACD) use this very same and unique DSD Master transfer... the tape was never again touched for a DSD release.

What does this mean? Well, I would suppose that the DSD transfer is a true 100% flat transfer, which is great for keeping a Master, but probably not intended to be released that way for non-professional playback.

This is where the variations we hear on different DSD releases come into play. They all share the same transfer (they are all the same DSD Master), but they are not all mastered to CD/SACD media the same way...

This is, of course, speculation... but so far this is what I'm able to figure out of all that you've been saying...

Is this close to the true story?

 

I just picked up a first pressing mono vinyl and love it. I haven't thought to check the speed issue yet, though I've read on another thread that only the stereo mix has the problem.

 

Too many KOB threads, so I need some help.

I just purchased a 2006 cd with bonus track alternate take (Flamenco Sketches). It say The Definitive Version! on the yellow sticker and is in a slip case- 20 Bit remastered.

I did not care for the 1997 remaster as it was too bright and edgy for my taste. This one says it was remastered and remixed on an all tube 3 track machine at the correct speed.

Before I crack the shrink wrap, could some members put forth their opinion on the sound quality.

Is this the same mastering as found on the 2006 SACD?

Thanks

 

Back of slip case:

 

I'm about 90% sure that this is just a repackaging of the 1997 remaster.

 

reb, don't crack the shrink. It's the Wilder '97 remix in a slipcase. To Sony, that IS the "definitive version".

 

Thanks, bringing it back to store then.

 

Well, they've started to appear in the UK - saw it in FOPP the other day for £3 (about $5).

They're avaialble from Amazon.co.uk, too.

 

I have a CK 40579 [1A CK40579 06 B1] with the lefty cover that has no sign whatsoever of a -15db rolloff at 10k as seen here: http://i51.tinypic.com/5thxz.jpg

Sounds fine to me overall, and if it's the original stereo mix, all the better I suppose.

 

Listen to it alongside any other CD, and you’ll hear exactly what we’re talking about. Immediately. It’s not subtle.

Some folks do like it. If you do too, that’s good for you, they’re plentiful and cheap.

Should be the original stereo tape, but details are sketchy. . . .

 

I’ve seen LPs at Ameoba, but no CDs yet. . . .

 

You can see right there. There's no rolloff. The speed corrected version looks identical, just hotter overall.

 

Did you try listening? It’s pretty obvious. If you can't hear it right off, I dunno know what to say. . . .


If you want to see it, here ya go:



This is the first 5 min of Flamenco Sketches. Note that this tune is from the second session, and never suffered a speed issue in any edition.

This is the raw spectral plot of the "Lefty" 1986 edition (blue) the 1997 Legacy re-mix (red) and the 2008 50th Anniversary (green). You can see how the blue plot starts out fairly close to the red one, and the gap widens as we go up to 20k hz. That means the top end is rolled off.

To make it even clearer I did a subtraction:



What this essentially does is straighten out the red line, making the difference between the 1997 edition and the others clearer. This is a fair comparison in this case, as Mark Wilder has stated (on this site) that the 1997 edition was a "flat transfer" no EQ was used at all.

You can see the 15dB rolloff on the 1986 quite clearly.

I've done this with every single digital edition of Kind of Blue ever released. Most are rolled off slightly compared to the 1997, but none come anywhere close to that 1986 one.

 

Did you look at my spectral view of So What? You can see that there's no rolloff, right there. That's what I possess. You can shove all the graphs in the world in my face, it has no bearing on the copy I personally own.

Furthermore, if you took my course in your comparisons, you would see that the difference between the two is clearly NR, not a rolloff, which you errantly assumed.

I happen to find that hiss quite distracting, and the unaltered high end unnatural and unfitting for the material. But no question, there is no "rolloff".

 

I own a copy of the same disc you do.

I own copies of every digital version of this album.

I haven't a clue what you mean by "taking your course" but never mind that.

Your image tells us exactly . . . nothing.

How can one tell from looking at a single spectral view how it compares to another one? You can't.

A 15 dB reduction in the highs on your image would be an unnoticeably slight change in the green tint. For it to go from orange to black would be a 110 dB reduction.

My graph shows quite clearly that there is 15 dB less high frequency information when one compares the 1986 version to the 1997 one. This is a fact.

Yes, they probably did it to reduce the hiss, so what? (pun intended) It still amounts to a 15 dB reduction in the highs. And, yes, it affects the music as well as the hiss.

Just FYI, but most folks here don't think noise reduction is a good thing.

I know for a fact that the 1997 one was done flat, they guy who did it told us so. I made no value judgments about whether that was the right mastering choice or not.

You claim you don't like the high end on the 1997 edition, yet you claim it's exactly the same as the 1986 one? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I told you specifically in post #240 that if you like the balance of the 1986, good for you. I have no stake in telling you what to like.

To claim the high end was unaltered, just because you like it that way, is just silly.

 

Actually, scratch that. You can see it quite clearly in a colored spectral view.

Here is the 1997 Legacy edition re-mix:




And here is the 1986 Jazz Masterpieces "Lefty" edition:



These are the same clips of Flamenco Sketches I used for the above graphs. Only I normalized the volume this time.

Look how the lower 1/4 of both images, say from 20 to 4,000hz, the orange is exactly the same shade.

Now, compare how the top half, say from 10,000 to 22,000hz, the color fades from orange to blue. The higher up we go, the more it fades.

That, my friend, is a 15 dB high end rolloff.

Once again: If you like that, more power to ya. I'm really serious when I say that. However, there is no way you can say it doesn't exist, just because you like it that way.

 

Musically, it is the same, the spectrals show that. And it can be heard. Little musical information was molested. I never claimed the high end was unaltered, nor that it was exactly the same as more recent versions. Those are claims you've invented because I dared to correct you. So is "most folks here don't like NR," except that's not revelant. Your copouts are progressively cheap and your arrogance appalling. And yet you seemed so fond of pedantry.

To claim that the highs are simply rolled off without qualifying it in any way is short-sighted, misleading, and bordering on outright foolish.

Have a nice day.

 

When you post repeatedly about how "There's no rolloff." and "Musically, it is the same" you give the impression that you think the high-end is unaltered. Then you say about the 1997 you find the "high end unnatural and unfitting for the material." which gives the impression you think there is a big difference. You can't have it both ways, nor can you claim I'm making this up.

My spectral view in post #256 clearly shows the musical beats, the orange spikes, are much quieter in the 1986 version in the high end, yet just as loud in the low end as the 1997. Please explain how that could occur without any high end roll-off?

My graph of the subtracted spectral analysis in post #243 clearly shows this reduction is -15 dB centered around 11k hz. Please explain what you would call this, if not a "high-end roll-off"?

The one image you posted is of a single sample, just the 1986 version. Please explain how I can use this to see if it is any different then the 1997 version?

Thanks, I think I will.

You do the same.

 

Not so fast there, tiger.

There is no rolloff, which is very clear, and now you're just being stiff-necked. Your pride is now a glaring weakness.

That you can parse "Musically it is the same" with "the high end hasn't been touched" shows that I might as well be talking to a machine. Maybe music isn't for you.

 

I've showed you the rolloff three different ways. If you care to offer a meaningful critique of that, I'm all ears. You can start my answering the three questions I posed in post #248. If you continue to evade those, I'll continue to claim it's there.

The insults you offer instead of a meaningful critique don’t phase me in the least, and I will continue to ignore them.