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

How do you measure the rolled off frequencies? Rolled off comparing to what reference?

The 2006 DSD was remastered in Sony Studios NYC by Mark Wilder / Maria Triana / Woody Pornpakoski.

The Japanese DSD CD's series (80th Anniversary SICP) all released in 2006, state the date of the remaster used. Some are 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006... if the purpose was to give the false impression of a fake remaster, why would they do that only for a few CD's in the series, and not for all of them, simply stating they were all brand new 2006 remaster jobs? Doesn't make sense...

I'm sure this will be interpreted as an attack, but I assure you my only purpose is to find the true facts behind all the reissues and remasters

 

Hope everyone is enjoying their holiday!

I also hope I didn't scare everyone away with too many numbers. Wanted to get it all down for future reference. I don't claim to be the only expert on this stuff, so if anyone sees any inconsistencies let me know. I can still post the frequency comparison charts, and samples of all the known masterings, if that helps anyone make an informed choice. . . .

Would still like to hear if anyone has the following limited edition Sony Japan discs:
1990 - CSCS 5141 (likely original mix)
1996 - SRCS 9104
1999 - SRGS 4501 (SACD)
2000 - SRCS 9701
2005 - SICP 816
2008 - SICP-20001 (Blue Ray Audio)

 

Everyone surviving post-holiday letdown OK?

I guess I'll keep the Japanese limited editions in the "unknown" column for now. Still, with the possible exception of 5141, and maybe 9104, I expect they'll only be slightly different and not a new revelation.

Hope all this helped someone chose a favorite CD. . . .

 

I have a copy of SRCS 9104 (1996) on the way from Japan. I will post the EAC numbers as soon as it arrives.

 

Cool beans. Thank you!

I've got a couple of the later albums on SRCS 91XX. Nice little mini-LP replicas.

If anyone is interested this page shows a list of all the Miles Japanese CDs from '07 to present:
http://www.plosin.com/milesAhead/Mastersound.html

 

Here we go: SRCS 9104

Track #1: 100%
Track #2: 100%
Track #3: 75.0%
Track #4: 100%
Track #5: 71.3%

BTW, I believe this is the "speed corrected" version w/o the bonus track. Also, this site http://www.plosin.com/MilesAhead/Mastersound.html claims that SRCS 9701 is a reissue of SRCS 9104 with the bonus track. Can anyone confirm this?

 

I prefer 2006 Japan SICP 1206.

 

I prefer that mastering too, which can also be found on the CD layer of the 2007 Japanese hybrid SACD, SICP 10083.

 

Not the same as anything is it?

Closest thing is the Mastersound Gold. It's kinda hard to tell though when they slam 3 out of 5 to 100%

How's it sound?

 

As luck would have it just last evening I sat down and carefully compared 7 different masterings of Flamenco Sketches. That's every known mastering, with the exception of JJ's SRCS 9104.

It is amazing how many times I can listen to this one tune and not get tired of it!

I would personally avoid the Mastersound Gold CDs. (Some folks do like them though.) They are not bad wrong, just slightly hard sounding. They do command a premium these days, which they are hardly worth. If you see one in the bargain bins grab it, otherwise not worth searching the ends of the earth for.

Everything else "speed correct" is from the same re-mix tape, and pretty much the same overall sonic picture. The common 1997 Legacy CD, that is just going out of print in the US now, is the original release using that tape. If you like it "clear and detailed" that's the ticket. The versions released in the last few years (1206 DSD, 10083 SACD, 50th) sound more or less the same, just as if someone turned the treble knob down a bit. One or the other may sync particularly well with your system balance, but IMO no great sonic revelations are to be had when comparing them side-by-side.

I know you didn't ask for "speed incorrect" versions, but here goes anyway. I will repeat my assertion that no one even realized that speed was a problem until 1992. Also that the tune I compared was from the second session, which was never affected.

Stay far, far, away from the "left-handed" 1986 mastering and its many clones. Not worth the $5 it goes for in the used bins.

The original 1983 Sony mastering is still the most pleasant listen overall. The high end is clear as a bell, but not harsh. In the previous thread Keith linked to someone said watch out for a note Miles hits 40sec or so into Flamenco. On any of the '97 and later CDs that note pierces right through your skull. Yikes! On the '83 it simply sounds like a trumpet, yet not muffled in anyway. The upright bass notes are just as low, but more rounded and detailed. More like a bass, less like thuds.

I paid careful attention, and I did not hear anything like the "double helping" of echo chamber Steve says should be on the original stereo mix. One can hear the chamber quite clearly on the sax solos. The echo got mixed center, the saxes either left or right.

You hear a bit of distortion on the second bass note. Otherwise I don't hear any wobbly deteriorated tape sounds or dropouts or anything. Hiss level is very similar to the '97 CD. Stereo separation is actually greater on the '83. I don't know for certain what Sony had in Tokyo in '83, but it sure doesn't sound like an nth generation tape on its last legs.

By contrast I hear a serious dropout right at the beginning of Flamenco on the 50th anniversary CD.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Other folks of course will differ. That's cool. I may even change my own mind one day. . . .

Since no one took me up on the offer to provide samples of everything and decide for themselves I'll go ahead and delete them.

 

I'll have to try the 83

For speed corrected versions, my choice for the best balance between realism and listening comfort is the 2006 DSD SICP1206. This is a great sounding CD by any standard

The latest 50th ann. box CD is just a tad too soft... still great, but not quite realistic sounding. The 1997 sounds a bit too loud and harsh for me.

 

Sorry, didn't see this until you quoted it. Answers are all available earlier in this thread, I'll recap.

1) I measure the frequencies using the method I learned in the King Crimson threads. Mark Wilder specifically stated here that the '97 Legacy CD is done entirely flat at every stage. I used that as the baseline. Mark also tells us that Miles/Trane boxset tracks are gently rolled off top and bottom. My analysis showed exactly that, rolled off a dB or so starting at roughly 9k, and similarly so in the bottom octave.

Since I believe what Mark says, and my analysis shows exactly the same, I know I'm on the right track. Now I can confidently add the data from the other masterings using the same tape and know what EQ was used. The '06 DSD has roughly double the rolloff of the boxset tracks. The 50th anniversary even more off the top, and a boost in the bottom octave.

2) Mark Wilder has specifically stated here he had nothing to do with the '06 DSD mastering. You're probably seeing a credit for the re-mix tape he did in '97 and/or the A/D transfer done at the same time. Mark says those tapes never leave NYC, and that he did not do a special A/D transfer of them for the Japan market prior to that release. If 1206 truly is DSD sourced, then the only way that could happen would be for Sony Japan to take the files used on the '97 SACD, down-sample, and EQ them.

That doesn't make it bad by definition. I'm just collecting known facts about the various masterings. It does somewhat limit how much actual mastering could have been done though, so it's important info.

3) Never said it was a fake remaster. Sony Japan down-sampled the old files to redbook and EQed it, that's mastering, no?

Just look at all the Miles releases on that Mastersound page linked above. That's just Japan, and just the last 10 years! Complete sets of the Miles catalog come out like clockwork over there. They have to drum up interest for them somehow, right?

 

Oh, sorry, didn't remember you had one of them already.

 

My stereo-only, single layer version from 1999 sounds superb... much better than my 1997 redbook.

 

That sounds like a good method

Well, as much as I believe what Mark Wilder said, that's missing the point. The main question is not if the 1997 CD is a 100% flat transfer/mastering work from start to finish using the new mix tape. What we probably should discuss is:

- Are we assuming that the original 3 track tape has the most faithful sound recording of the actual performance?

- Whether or not this is the best way to transfer and mix the old 3 track tape to the new mix tape. If the resulting sound is not as good, maybe it shouldn't be a flat transfer/mix job.

- Whether or not the resulting "flat" mastering is the best sound we can get from the new mix tape. If the 1997 is the reference for this, then, IMHO, clearly it is not the best sound.

- Was KOB ever intended to sound like that?

- Where did Mark Wilder say he had nothing to do with the latest DSD transfer/remaster from 2006?

- When was the new 97 mix tape transferred to DSD? By whom? Are all the KOB SACD's in existence based on the same transfer to DSD? Does the first SACD release sound like the 1997 Legacy CD, with the same flat EQ and loudness level? Subsequent SACD releases were EQ'd with the rollof moves you mentioned before?

- It is possible that they refer to 2006 as the first time the DSD remaster is released on CD (not SACD). That would make some sense to me They might have used the original (and only?) DSD transfer data that already existed and mastered it to CD format and released it on CD for the first time making it, effectively, a new 2006 mastering as far as CD is concerned. Not a new transfer, but a new mastering.

 

Is this true? One forum member said he would know CDs are going away when Kind of Blue goes OOP. Is another version going to replace it?

Evan

 

Wasn't it Sony who decided to make DSD transfers of all the tapes, for archival and backup purposes, and also so that these new "DSD masters" would be used as if they were the tapes themselves. That is.. the "DSD Masters" replace the original tapes as the original master source for the music to be used on all digital media.

I've read something about it somewhere... that would explain a lot of things.

 

My favorite so far (I have not heard the famous early Japanese CD) is an Austrian CD, part of a 2-CD set coupled with another Miles Davis album). It has some minor fiddling, some added reverb to one channel added, I think, to attempt to balance the two channels. In fact, it sounds most natural to me. My second favorite is the Wilder flat transfer. Who can argue with his choice to do nothing? As someone else said, all of them are good. My biggest problem comparing the various masterings is every time I make up my mind to hear just a bit of a track to compare, I end up letting it play through.

 

What an absolutely wonderful problem to have .

 

There is this one coming out:
http://www.amazon.com/Kind-Blue-Miles-Davis/dp/B001KL3GZO/
Which is the two CDs from the deluxe 50th anniversary set. This is the first US market redbook only release since the '97 came out. And actually I don't know for sure whether the single CD version is going away, or getting upgraded, or what.

The copyright will be expiring in Europe next year. We may see a flood of non-official, yet legal, releases?