DVD/DTS Poll Davis, Miles - Kind of Blue [DD DualDisc]

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rate the DualDisc of Miles Davis - Kind of Blue


  • Total voters
    24
A comment about this disc from Amazon:

Yes very good reissue indeed, but true audiophiles don't listen to music in surround, that's just a marketing tag and anything surround should be just for movies. Don't remember ever being in a jazz club when the bass player was sitting in the back row.
 
They couldn't have listened to this disc then, as the bass player is not sitting in the back row. Everything is predominantly at the front with quiet ambience in the rears. The "true audiophiles" line comes across as more than a little condescending - and inaccurate.
 
It always cracks me up when such comments start complaining about guitars flying around the room with surround recordings.

It's then... that I understand how the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland feels. :teleport:


Btw, I have the SACD version. While it might be an artificial mix, I still like it. For me, it's an 8.
 
Last edited:
They couldn't have listened to this disc then, as the bass player is not sitting in the back row.

Well, the bass is very low (too low, in my opinion) in level. Listen to the remastered -97 CD, where the bass obviously has been moved forward on the alternative take of Flamenco Sketches.
 
Yes, it sounds louder on the alternate take on the dualdisc too.
 
And that balance is more natural to me. A pity he didn't stand there the complete session, but maybe that was considered "too loud" at the time? If I have understood it correctly, the alternative take was recorded before the master take?
 
I think you could be right. I gather it's the only track to have a complete alternate take.
 
DKA, you are entitled to your opinion on the use of the "fake Quad/surround" term. I believe it is a valid term and can alert potential buyers to what they're getting into. I've bought many titles, especially ones that were only available as Q8's that had no Quad effect, except to slap some echo in the rears. I could have done better by synthesizing Quad from stereo. Fake.

The technique used to create the 5.1 Kind of Blue is a valid one. It is reconstituted, but certainly tasteful. Although I prefer to listen in stereo, it is well done in 5.1, considering what they had to work with. "Fake surround?" In this case, it's debatable. I heard about how they did it prior to purchasing the SACD multi, and was excited about getting it. The DualDisc is the same mix, though not advanced res. Both versions are worth owning!

What is "fake Quad or surround?" If it is not mixed for Quad or surround using multichannel masters, it is fake. It may be tasteful and might sound better than stereo, but it is still fake. A classical title where the actual concert hall or recording studio is used to create the rear channels is not fake. It is simply a multichannel recording with natural hall effect. I greatly prefer these to stereo. Having had season tickets for the Chicago Symphony under both Solti and Barenboim, I know what a live orchestra should sound like. If I'd rather have a more intimate sound, the option of switching to the 2ch layer or info is there. In the case of Quad, switching from SQ or QS to 2ch will eliminate the hall effect, without loss of program information. I rarely choose to eliminate that REAL hall effect, though the option is there.

A pop recording, which is normally assembled anyway, and has no natural rear ambience to utilize, is most definitely fake if ambience is added to create rears. It is not fake if the multichannel masters are remixed. If multiple Quad or 5.1 mixes are created over the years, they are all "real Quad or surround." Different reinterpretations by different engineers, but all very real. Kind of Blue is closer to real classical surround than to traditional "fake Quad." It is reconstituted and recreated, rather than having mikes capture the hall effect while the musicians are there. I would suspect that the flooring, acoustical tiles, etc. in the studio have been replaced since '59, so it might be subtly different. That's negligible.

Even if I know the title is "fake Quad or surround," I'll buy it. Then, I have the opportunity to judge for myself and choose fake Quad/surround or stereo. I also am a completist. Surprise? Probably not for anyone who has read my posts. Yet, I can't help but feeling ripped off when I cue up a Quad/surround title that has multichannel masters, only to find hall effect and nothing else in the rears. It smacks of being done "on the cheap." Sometimes, the ineptitude of the record labels causes the multitrack masters to become misfiled, lost or stolen. "Fake Quad" varies from pleasant to horrendous. The CD-4 of Tony Orlando's Greatest is horrendous. My vote for most awful "fake Quad" ever is the Q8 of Tapestry. I prefer any 2ch copy to this mess. Yet, the REAL 5.1 mix on the SACD multi of Tapestry is one of the best ever pop surround discs.

Kudos to CBS for a project well conceived and executed. That helps make amends for the best selling jazz album ever being available as the wrong speed for 30 years. The more we speak out against fakery and demand the real deal, where possible, the more things will be properly done. If Kind of Blue were made in the '70's as Quad, it would have been at the wrong speed and echoey "fake Quad" besides. In light of what was available, Kind of Blue was very well done.

Linda

I just stumbled across this, and I realize it's a few years after the fact, but wanted to address a few things:

1) Ambiance in the rear channels was not recorded at the original studio. That (Columbia 30th Street) closed in 1981 or 1982 and was torn down shortly after.

2) There's simply not much that could have been done differently to create a 5.0/5.1 mix. The original recording was 3-track: left, center, right. The only options would then be either to leave the rear channels silent, or mix those 3 tracks (directly and/or with some sort of reverb effect) to the rears. It's not as if there were separate tracks on the recording that could have been mixed to the rear channels.
 
Considering the 3-track source I think they made the right decision regarding the mix - that is, to keep it essentially 3-channel. The ambient rears are thankfully quite low and when muted the only change is a slightly dryer soundstage. Anyway, the use of the center channel provides an interesting alternative to the stereo with bass and trumpet most prominent there. The sound isn't bad but is quite lacking when compared to the recent HDTracks stereo remix. That download is superb with much warmer sound and fuller bass. I give the DualDisc an 8.
 
Yeah, for KoB I've heard it's best to pick up a stereo SACD. Only hearsay though.

I quoted @edisonbaggins' post here because I didn't want to pollute the Songs & Stories thread with unrelated info.

This is really a three channel release, but those front three channels are very discrete, often to the point where it almost sounds like you're listening to the raw three track multi.

I once tried playing around with the channel assignments to get a sort of triangular surround field: you could leave the center channel upfront and swap front/rear OR leave the fronts as they are and mix the center channel content into the rears. I tried something similar with The Doors' debut album and the results were interesting. More to come...

BTW, I think the DualDisc sounds nice and was easy to rip. I have no plans to upgrade to the SACD unless a really cheap copy comes my way.

"So What":
38761

"Freddie Freeloader":
38762
 
Last edited:
I quoted @edisonbaggins' post here because I didn't want to pollute the Songs & Stories thread with unrelated info.

This is really a three channel release, but those front three channels are very discrete, often to the point where it almost sounds like you're listening to the raw three track multi.

I once tried playing around with the channel assignments to get a sort of triangular surround field: you could go with leaving the center channel upfront and swapping front and rear or leaving the fronts as they are and mixing the center channel into the rears. I tried something similar with The Doors' debut album and the results were interesting. More to come...

BTW, I think the DualDisc sounds nice and was easy to rip. I have no plans to upgrade to the SACD unless a really cheap copy comes my way.

"So What":
View attachment 38761

"Freddie Freeloader":
View attachment 38762

I have both the dualdisc and SACD of Kind of Blue and the only obvious advantage is the Dualdisc's lossy DD 5.1 as opposed to the SACD's DSD mastering from the original analogue three track masters.

I'm surprised AP didn't release a three channel SACD of KoB as they did for several other Miles Davis' three channel releases. Really wish Monster Music did for KoB what they did for Sketches of Spain...in effect, making Bluer kind of cooler!
 
Last edited:
I quoted @edisonbaggins' post here because I didn't want to pollute the Songs & Stories thread with unrelated info.

This is really a three channel release, but those front three channels are very discrete, often to the point where it almost sounds like you're listening to the raw three track multi.

I once tried playing around with the channel assignments to get a sort of triangular surround field: you could leave the center channel upfront and swap front/rear OR leave the fronts as they are and mix the center channel content into the rears. I tried something similar with The Doors' debut album and the results were interesting. More to come...

BTW, I think the DualDisc sounds nice and was easy to rip. I have no plans to upgrade to the SACD unless a really cheap copy comes my way.

"So What":
View attachment 38761

"Freddie Freeloader":
View attachment 38762
I have both the dualdisc and SACD of Kind of Blue and the only obvious advantage is the Dualdisc's lossy DD 5.1 as opposed to the SACD's DSD mastering from the original analogue three track masters.

I'm surprised AP didn't release a three channel SACD of KoB as they did for several other Miles Davis' three channel releases. Really wish Monster Music did for KoB what they did for Sketches of Spain...in effect, making Bluer kind of cooler!

I believe we ARE listening to the raw three track multis here spread across the front. For those who prefer the stereo? I get that, although I don’t think there was much mixing that was done to mix three tracks down to two.

I also don’t think a SoS-style Monster Music treatment would have worked with this album. The orchestration of SoS lends itself to such a surround mix and gives the producers much more to work with. Trying to electronically effect small ensemble recording into full surround? I can’t imagine much of anyone being happy with those results.

I haven’t heard this DVD version, but I think the SACD sounds amazing. It is the clearest and cleanest I have ever heard this recording and I really like the ambient rears. Just enough to give the mix more depth and breath without even really knowing they are on. It just makes the room sound a bit bigger and the soundstage more full to me.

But one can always turn them off if they don’t like the effect.
 
Last edited:
there you go tooting your own horn again, humprof .... demanding your senior citizen discount!
I received a senior discount at an Indian casino a few months ago. I was with some older co-workers, who received the discount at the buffet. When I jokingly asked the very young cashier, "what about me?" she answered, "of course, sir".
:cry:(n):cry:
But I took the discount...
 
Back
Top