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

I don't mind the speed issue on "Kind Of Blue" or The Rolling Stones' "Beggars Banquet". I first heard them at the "original release speed". And, as you say, it didn't stop them from becoming classics. It was part of the sound.

I just checked and my "KOB" SACD is the 1997 non-hybrid stereo/multi channel version - engineered for SACD by Mark Wilder. I also have the Japan35DP version.


Hans, how do the SACD and redbook layers compare on your SICP 10083 Japan hybrid disc? I can't remember if you are using a SACD/CD player or separate components.

 

Here's the 1997 remaster on Amazon for $5.99. The cheapest I've ever seen it new:
http://www.amazon.com/Kind-Blue-Miles-Davis/dp/B000002ADT/ref=pd_sim_m_1/191-4589862-7085413

 

Lets assume for a moment that the 1997 remaster is a 100% flat transfer. Why does that translate to this waveform that simply does not look very good?

On the second waveform from the 50th anniversary box, which looks much better (not surprisingly so does the sound on the CD), even if it has some EQ ... why does it look quite a lot quieter?

I mean... there is clearly a different approach there, and I'm trying to figure out what is inherent to the tapes that would cause the "loudness" when transferred flat to CD.

Not only there must be something, in the tape, causing the 1997 to be louder and have all those peaks cut off in CD format, but also it would clearly demonstrate that the 2008 box CD had its volume turned down from the "flat" reference point of the tape, if the 1997 was 100% flat transfer.

I can't find any reasonable argument for this, and it really looks like the 1997 was engineered in a way that is far from 100% flat. Even if it is 100% of EQ, there is something else. 100% free of digital compression? Sure, I believe it... then why is it so much louder? Is it something from the tape? It's a mastering option (turning up some analog pot on the console)? Ok... why? What purpose does it serve?

 

I did hold off as well but just ordered it.

 

Can someone give me a rundown of the bonus audio material on the recent box and the upcoming Legacy Edition? Is it just the alternate Flamenco Sketches and some false starts?

 

Is there a version without peak distortion?

 

You are not going to see anything about the frequency balance from looking at a waveform.


A 100% flat transfer would refer to one where no equalization has been applied to any of the frequencies. Mark Wilder took the time to come on here and tell us that no equalization was used in the analogue re-mix tape, or the '97 Legacy CD. There was equalization used in the SACD, and the Kind of Blue tracks on the Miles/Trane box-set. (We have not heard if any equalization was done to the 50th anniversary CD, we do know it was used for the LP in the same box.) You can believe him, or not, as you prefer. The fact remains that you will not see any evidence of this looking at a waveform, one way or another. You would need to use some form of frequency analysis, which you are not.

If you compare two CDs by listening, one may sound like is has more highs and/or lows then the other. It's natural to think the one with more treble, say, was boosted with equalization. In this case though, the one with more treble is flat, and the one with less had the treble reduced by equalization. You can't really tell which it is, unless you've heard the master tape on a neutral system, or the mastering engineer tells you so.

Equalizing while mastering is not, by itself, evil. Steve Hoffman does it all the time.


A waveform like you posted shows you the dynamics of the signal. "Louder" could be two things. Higher peak level. Or reduced dynamics, ie compression.

Mark has told us no "dynamics processing" was used on either the analogue re-mix tape, or the '97 Legacy CD. Again, your call to believe him or not. It is extremely hard to tell at the zoom level you've shown if any compression was used. To me, it looks like none at all.

We do see some peaks being cut off, around the 6 minute mark. That indicates the volume was raised past "zero". It could have been digitally done, or it could have been that the analogue equipment was cranked up just a little too high.

That's not good, no. But, do note that most tracks on the album do not do that, and this one track only does it on one solo, in one channel. Why did he do that? I have no idea. Maybe he thought the rest of the album sounded better like that, and it was worth hurting one solo for the greater good? Maybe it was a mistake? Who knows.

In any case, what you see is nether equalization, nor compression.


If you dislike the CD that we know for sure is 100% flat, then probably the one you like has been equalized. Nothing wrong with that, despite what some folks will say.

 

Plus studio chatter! I'm especially captivated by track 12; Miles orders Chinese takeout. Who new?!?

 

Ok, probably a communication problem... I did not say any of that, or at least that's not what I meant. But it doesn't matter, the EQ is most likely not the problem with the Legacy CD.

Now to the more objective part of "Loudness":

Indeed...

It's not a matter of belief. On the other hand, might be a matter of defining concepts... maybe when he says dynamic processing he does not mean the same thing as me or other people?

The zoom level for that single first track is quite easy to interpret. There is clearly and objectively information being left out of the scope and the overall output is clearly and objectively louder. It looks like none to you... it looks like a lot to me. And... more to the point... it sounds like it!

Ok, and you feel that such an option is beneficial? Can you explain why? And how does it relate to the tape? And why he never did it again after the 1997 CD?

Ah... ok, so it's not good. And there is no greater good on no track. Even on just one track with peaks cut off... why on earth would Mark Wilder do this? Is there a technical explanation? And... is this a good sign regarding how all the other mastering aspects of this 1997 CD were handled? I mean.. it does sound loud and harsh, and the waveforms do show that it is louder and the peaks are strange... are we trying to hide the fact that the 1997 CD is just not very good and there are much better options currently available?

Interesting that we don't know what it is... but we know what it isn't... something is not right. Then... maybe it's something even worse than bad EQ or compression... Or does it have to be something good? At least we agree there is something strange about it

We don't know that for sure. For me "flat" would be a 100% unfutzed with transfer. A loud and cut off peaks transfer is NOT unfutzed with, for me it does NOT qualify as flat. It was tampered with, and we simply don't know how. Or maybe we know but we prefer to discuss word games around the main issue: the CD is loud and sounds harsh, and I don't really care how that result was achieved. All I know is that Wilder himself never did it again like that... I wonder why? And also, the waveform, for all its uselessness, does show us on a graph exactly what our ears are listening to.

All this EQ talk is basically diverting the subject of the main issue: loudness and, most likely, compression.

 

We'll that would be the communication breakdown you mention. When I hear someone say "flat" I assume they are talking about EQ. Like on an old graphic equalizer all the sliders are left at zero, in a flat line, no adjustments. People say "smiley faced" to indicate a non-flat EQ job, like when the highs and lows are boosted those sliders look like a curved smile. It's about the EQ curve, and "flat" would mean no eq.

I've never heard anyone say "100% flat transfer" when they mean no compression?

The reason I've been talking about EQ so much, is so many folks have said they don't like the '97 CD because of the boosted highs. You'll also note I'm merely relaying some technical facts as I understand them, I'm NOT trying to tell anyone what to like, nor even saying which KoB CD I like.


Louder is not necessarily worse. If you have a CD that only peaks at 50% you only use half the dynamic range. If you can go up to 100% (digital zero) by raising the level of the incoming signal you can use the full dynamic range a CD offers. That's one time louder is better. Trying to raise the perceived volume by using excessive digital compression is bad, yes. I don't see that on your graph, I simply see a louder signal. Cutting off the peaks is bad, yes. I only see that during one solo on your graph. It does not indicate compression, just a louder signal. And the rest of the track that doesn't have clipped peaks should have more dynamic range.

I've seen Barry Diamant say that when he records a very dynamic signal he doesn't mind a clipped peak or three. (Although I doubt his waveforms look like the graph you posted.) I was speculating that perhaps Mark let that one solo clip to benefit the rest of the album? I really don't know.

Whatever the case, it certainly does not look like compression.


And for the final time, you should listen, and enjoy the one you like best based on that fact only. The one you like best may have had more mastering tricks done to it. Don't assume that every one you like best is the less futzzed with. That's why they do that stuff, to make it sound better!

Mark Wilder is not one of these modern ear-bleed ultra-compression specialists.

 

I believe Mark Wilder when he states that he did not use any digital compression or limiting for his transfer. Why should I doubt his word?

That doesn't mean that the final product (released CD from 1997) is not compressed. I am sure Mark Wilder did not oversee the complete process from his mastering session to the final product leaving the factory. In today's world, it is very easy to change peak levels and apply some sort of compression by other people in the chain. I can clearly see that with - for example - some Led Zeppelin releases (George Marino remasters), where the same track has different dynamics on various different releases (regular CD, CD single, Japanese Mini-LP, etc.). I am sure this was not done by George Marino.

It is very obvious by the wav-form posted (and also by listening to the CD) that some kind of compression and/or limiting was applied to the final product. I don't think it was done by Mark Wilder. If Mark Wilder would listen to the final product, I am sure he would state that this is not my work (anymore).

 

Mark's head of the Sony New York mastering department, not some outside contractor. It would seem inconceivable to me that he'd never checked the finished product?

 

Unfortunately Mark Wilder never took the time to provide some details about these doubts regarding KOB, specially the 1997 and post-1997 issues:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=3975957&postcount=53


This older case regarding Bitches Brew was never answered, and that is compression without doubt:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=3526175&postcount=126


I've come across other similar cases within Columbia Legacy catalog with Mark Wilder credited to mastering, where the sound is not so good and a bit loud and bright. And on some of them, he himself corrects these symptoms in later releases.

I personally think there is a lot of untold story behind the Columbia Legacy CD's that so many here seems to like... And I understand that Mark Wilder is an excellent engineer capable of great work (I know, I love his other KOB versions, or his Monk work on Legacy, gorgeous stuff)... but sometimes I believe some people blindly follow the name and not the sound.

 

Not to be disrespectful of Mr. Wilder, but his remaster of Nina Simone's "Silk & Soul" is compressed and is not a shining example of great mastering..
His work isn't horrible...but it sure ain't the cat's pajamas either...
I had to continuously turn that CD down...I thought I was listening to rock album!

And just a query...where did Mr. Wilder say that he did apply eq to the SACD? Not challenging anybody on this...I just wish to see a quote...
Thanx!

 

In the March 2005 thread "Miles Davis Kind of Blue - your opinions on the better recordings," Steve Hoffman wrote:

- Quote -
The three-track to two-track DSD SACD single layer is the version I prefer; just listened to it again yesterday. It has "that sound"!
- Endquote -


So who to believe?

 

I would believe the man who has heard masters from that studio and that engineer/producer team...

 

Believe Steve.

 

I agree 100%! I've been saying that in virtually every post here. Like whichever one you find most pleasing. End of story. I'm, just offering some additional facts that go with the story.

The only thing I find exasperating is when folks state "version A is best" but they haven't heard any others. (And I see you are not doing this.)

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=2409656&postcount=186

Believe in yourself. Listen, and if you hear multiple versions, choose one you like.

Two additional points. We don't know if Steve had heard the Miles/Trane box-set versions at that point. (Or even what else he was comparing the SACD to.) Second, there have been two additional re-masters since Steve wrote that; The 2006 Japan DSD, and the current 50th Anniversary one. Both have had positive reviews. (But, choose for yourself, please.)

 

That post by Mr. Wilder only explains what he did. Assuming that no-one else in the production chain did anything to the digital masters which Mr. Wilder created is just that, an assumption.

The difference between the SACD and the Legacy CD from 1997 is not just 0.5 dB minus at 21 kHz (I can't even hear that anymore). The difference between the SACD and the CD is all over the place and huge.

 

Sounds cut and dry to me?

You can choose not to believe him, if you wish. . . .

I get the impression Mark didn't want to stick around here and chat much, wonder why?

 

One possible answer to that is that Mark Wilder didn't have the time and availability to explain everything in a way that we all understand (not only believe) and that makes sense in accordance to what we hear... so he decided to drop it.

Or... maybe there was no plausible explanation for many of the questions and legitimate doubts posted here on many topics... so the easy way to deal with it is to be silent.

I wonder why myself... There are other engineers, also here in SHF, that answer everything and clear up all the doubts. Sometimes the answers they give are not to the liking of ALL users, and there might be some disagreements but at least the answers exist and there is a reason for why some things are made the way they are...

 

Folks, let's just take Mr. Wilder's comments at face value and not speculate as to what he might have meant or whether he left anything out of his description of the mastering of Kind of Blue. Speculation can easily be misconstrued as fact.

Thank you.

 

Was my understanding that the original mono LP was mastered at the correct speed. Be interesting to know why the mono mix wasn't included in the 50th Anniversary set.

 

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=3975656&postcount=48

 

See post #48 above - apparently the mono sessions tapes are lost.