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

One of my Japanese contacts and also CD Japan assured me it's the same mastering. So far I've not been able to do a comparison myself.

 

Thank you for the info!

And the CK 08163 without 35DP 62 in the matrix? Specifically DIDP 50062 in the matrix, and "Digital Audio Disc Corp" imprinted in the clear plastic. This was well before the '86 "Jazz Masterpieces" alternate cover re-master. Not listed on the KoB website linked above.

 

I also have the same disc, and according to that site it's mono... I can confirm it most definitely is not mono. I picked up my copy in '97 from a branch of HMV in the UK, so perhaps there is a difference between earlier and later issues of this disc? Or maybe the site is wrong. I don't speak or write German so I haven't contacted them. Still a wonderful edition of the album though.

 

That site must be in error. The Mastersound was the first attempt at a "definitive" KoB re-master, going back to the session tapes without the speed issue at all that. I highly doubt any of them ended up in mono, without ever noting that fact on the package.

 

In the end I would have to agree also.

For some of us the original mix is the only way to go. No matter how good the intensions, and the mastering equipment, a re-mix done 40 years later just aint gonna sound the same. The original mix in no slouch either. This album was well known as an audiophile favorite since before the CD era.

The original mix is only available on CD two ways; The first Sony Japan mastering by an un-credited engineer at the dawn of CD. And the '86 "Jazz Masterpices" with the alternate cover. These are credited to Larry Keyes on US copies and Ray Moore on Euro copies, but are in fact one and the same. The '86 is, frankly, a joke! I am dead serious when I say the top end is rolled off -15dB @ 10k relative to the Sony. Not worth the $5 it goes for in the bargain bins.

So if you want the sound of the original album on CD - as Miles, Fred Plaut, and Irving Townsend intended - you must get the rare elusive original CD mastering.

This is not just "SH.tv elite collector talk" but a cut and dry case.

 

You mean, if one wants a CD with the closest possible sound to the original Vinyl release, then the original mastering CD is the only way to go, do I understand this correctly?

However, what can you tell us about what Miles, Fred Plaut, and Irving Townsend intended?

Also, what about the sound on the master tapes, is the original CD mastering the only one to faithfully represent the tapes? Is it any more or any less compressed, EQ'd, edited or badly converted to digital, than many other CD versions in existence?

 

Yes.

Why?

The two I mention are the only CDs to use the original stereo mix, created by Irving Townsend in 1959. How do I know that's what he intended? He left us the stereo tape of it! All CD releases from the Mastersound in 1992 on do not use this mix. Therefore we know these don't have the sound of the original master tape, because they don't use anything close to the original master tape! They use a modern re-mix.

Is the original Sony perfect? No. It is probably not from a first generation tape. It is however far, far, far, better then the only other choice on CD that uses the original mix; the '86 disaster. If you want the original mix the original Sony CD is the only decent sounding choice.

If you like the modern re-mix, fine. To each his own. It is not, however, the sound of the original album.

 

Ok, so there are two different mixes, the original, and the latest one. I want to understand why the original mix is better, and as a consequence why the first CD mastering should be the best one...

Other than chronological precedence of the first mix, what makes it better than the new mix?

Aren't they both mixed from original master tapes? Actually, doesn't the new mix use better tapes (without the speed problem)?

Are there any changes (other than the speed correction) in the new mix that would make it not as intended by the original artists/producers?

 

I really like the SACD. I can't find anything to complain about in it. Mind you I've never heard any other version of the album so I have no sentimental attachments to another mix. It sounds fantastic, and that's good enough for me.

 

I always liked the SACD/Current CD. I heard the MONO LP and wasn't thrilled with it at all. I'm rarely at this opinion with a dry, dedicated mix, but there ya go.

The current Sony CD sounds beautiful to me.

 

The current Sony CD is the new 50th anniversary CD box

 

Yep, I agree to that! To boot the mono LPs were always the correct pitch. I was championing the mono earlier in the thread:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=3975656&postcount=48
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=3979628&postcount=77

Only, we can't get that on CD (as you note) which is what I was addressing. So, we have to make do with copy tapes of the original stereo mix, warts and all, or a modern re-mix.

 

Listen, whatever you like is up to you. Not me. Compare them and choose for yourself.

I like 50 year old jazz to sound like, well, 50 year old jazz. Like it did in 1959, not 1997. The original Sony is the closest thing on CD available to that, no contest.

 

Other than being more recent... what's modern about it? Are there major changes between the original stereo mix and the later stereo mix (other than the speed correction)?

I'm trying to understand if it makes any sense at all to make a CD version choice based on what stereo mix was used, in this case if it used the original or later stereo mix. Until now I cannot think of anything to justify such reasoning...

 

Seems they missed a chance by not using it for the new 50th Anniversary CD set.

 

I think Sony claimed the mono tapes have returned to dust.

Steve, could you expand on the "added echo" thing? According to my Ashley Kahn book (which may not be accurate) Townsend did the stereo mix-down at Columibia's 7th ave location, not the 30th st studio. Are you saying more echo was added there? Or are you saying more of the echo chamber return was mixed onto the three-track session tapes live at 30th st? Was it really double the echo, as you indicate?

 

Haven't I seen a number of your posts saying how awful the Legacy CDs sound to you?

 

foobar2000 and SergioRZ, there is a bit of edge to your recent exchange. We could do without that. That sort of thing tends to build and build, and you know where it goes from there.

 

Go figure ... who woulda thunk it ...

Some of these decisions or shall we say 'non-decisions' by labels are impossibly difficult to relate to ... kinda like extreme winter conditions or a bad cold or something ...

 

Are we talking about the mix or the mastering?

Yes I did say that the Legacy CD mastering is much worse sounding (to me at least) than the latest remasters (2006 DSD and now the 2008 50th Anniversary Box). I still think exactly the same.

But now I'm talking about the mix and how the original stereo mix alone can be a deciding factor as to what is the best CD incarnation of KOB. I thought we were all talking about the mix on the last few posts in this thread...

Anyway, it seems like we are getting somewhere... There is nothing to make the original stereo mix tapes any better than the latest stereo mix tapes. On the other hand, the new mix actually fixes a tape speed problem. That's good, isn't it? I mean.. ok, it might not be absolutely indispensable, but if they did fix something that was basically wrong or simply overlooked to begin with, and by doing that they really didn't change anything to make the new mix sound like "not the original stuff"... why would it be inferior?

If you believe that the original CD has better mastering, now that's another issue altogether. That would be a subjective choice... right?

 

The '59 mix and the '97 re-mix sound markedly different.

I'm free to like whichever one strikes my fancy. Can we leave it at that, please?