First let me say, I prefer aggressive surround mixes. However, with recordings such as this from 1959, with 3 channels to work with, I would much rather they mix it as they did as opposed to the Silverline approach. KOB has subtle ambiance, not faux echo. Also IMO, the record quality, and content of this classic title more than make up for the surround mix. In all fairness, it is probably correct that I should have taken a bit off for the surround mix, but as I said above, for 1959 this is as good as it gets. So I am giving a little leeway for the source material. I would be more than happy if they would release more classic recordings of this type, mixed in 5.0 as they have on "Kind Of Blue."First I'll admit I haven't heard this. My only comment is about the voting thus far. One of the criteria for a 10 is Great Surround. Is it really fair to rate this a 10 when only 3 channels are being actively utilized? It seems like there is a contradiction here. I applaud the voters for cleary stating that the surround mix leaves something to be desired. But I am struggling with the fact that they gave it a 10 anyway.
Well, I'm not saying the surround mix 'leaves something to be desired'; I said that it's superb for what it is...which is to say, given that it's a 3-track recording, it's perfectly balanced, and the limited back ambiance isn't, as noted, contrived but clearly meant to help convey the overall atmosphere in the recording studio. In other words, it's hard to imagine improving it in any way. If that's doesn't constitute a '10,' I don't know what does...First I'll admit I haven't heard this. My only comment is about the voting thus far. One of the criteria for a 10 is Great Surround. Is it really fair to rate this a 10 when only 3 channels are being actively utilized? It seems like there is a contradiction here. I applaud the voters for cleary stating that the surround mix leaves something to be desired. But I am struggling with the fact that they gave it a 10 anyway.
i wouldn't be so hard yourself chris. i'm guessing a lot us own at least two copies (like me for example) - - after all, it's a single layer sacd and ya gotta have a copy for the car too...I rarely buy a second version of my favorite albums, much less a third, but there is apparently no end to my stupidity when it comes to this hobby.Chris
Ha, I should get that too, so I can have 4 versions of this one. I didn't know it had been released as a hybrid. There have been several CD releases, at least 2 SACD and one DualDisc. It is a great album and a great recording considering the age, it must have been state of the art at the time it was done. I have never owned it on LP, cassette or 8-track.
There were a number of titles released originally by Sony as single-layer SACD that got re-released as hybrids. However, these were re-released in Europe. Based upon the hybrid multi-channel SACD of Dave Brubeck's "Time Out" that I purchased in Hong Kong sveral years back, the CD layer appears to have the latest CD version....in the case of "Time Out", the CD layer was HDCD encoded.I didn't know it had been released as a hybrid.
KIND OF BLUE is closer to the concept RCA used for their classical SACD's that had 3-track multis to work with: front only. If you only have a 3-track source to work with, to get to 5.0 or 5.1, some tinkering and chicanery comes into play, which is why I can think of at least one Silverline compilation that could have been perfect had the compilers simply spread out the soundfield based on what they had to work with, rather than insist on 5.1 when you really do have to 'fake it.'btw, let me offer a contrarian view from most of the rest of the posters on this one. i'm not crazy about the surround mix at all. previous posters note that there isn't much more they could've done with the source material, and i'll agree that what we have is much better than if they tried to fake it. but for me, as much as i love this album, this is nowhere close to a top tier surround release due to its lack of discreet rear channel information.