|
|
|
Hi all,
I'm also looking to replace my current CD copy of this album. I see that there are two different SACDs listed in the database. Is there any difference among these two? If so, which of the two is higher rated for sonics?
Thanks,
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
GhostInTheShell said:
I see that there are two different SACDs listed in the database. Is there any difference among these two? If so, which of the two is higher rated for sonics?
The difference is the first one is single-layer and the later one is hybrid. I'd take the hybrid one unless you plan to play it only on your SACD player.
I presume sonically the content of the DSD layers is identical.
|
|
|
Post by Beagle September 17, 2006 (13 of 22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Claude September 18, 2006 (14 of 22)
|
|
Beagle said:
and here are some interesting remix notes:
http://www.avrev.com/music/revs/milesdavissacd.shtml
I've read another informative article about the the KoB recording, but I can't find it anymore.
The article above says that an advantage of the SACD over the CD is that it uses the corrected tape speed, but in fact that has already been corrected for the 1992 Mastersound Gold CD reissue, and the 1997 Miles/Coltrane box set and midprice CD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kind_of_Blue
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies guys.
Another question. The last remastered CD version of this album still evidences huge amounts of hiss, especially during quiet passages in "Blue in Green." Was this aspect improved at all in the SACD?
|
|
|
Post by azure September 29, 2006 (16 of 22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Eureka October 4, 2006 (17 of 22)
|
|
mdt said:
Were those 3 channels ever intended to actually be listened to over 3 speakers?
I would asume the intention was to get a better center image in the stereo mix.
No one would come on the idea to listen to a modern 32 track recording over 32 speakers either, would they?
as for the rear channels being artifically(!) generated, that's going to far definitely for my taste.
Artificially generating the surround channels has been done effectively for years and was most popular with Dolby Prologic. Since the original recording was made in 1959 they really didn't have much other option if they wanted to present surround sound. If you don't like the surround sound listen to the stereo layer. I think artificial surround sound generated from the stereo signal can be very effective if used with moderation, of course it isn't going to compare favorably with a new discrete channel surround sound recording.
I have both the gold CD and the SACD of this recording, but have not yet listened to the SACD. I hope to this weekend and will add my 2 cents worth here. Even if not satisfied with the surround sound, the stereo layer must be an improvement on what many people consider to be the greatest jazz recording of all time.
|
|
|
Post by Claude October 4, 2006 (18 of 22)
|
|
Eureka said:
I have both the gold CD and the SACD of this recording, but have not yet listened to the SACD. I hope to this weekend and will add my 2 cents worth here. Even if not satisfied with the surround sound, the stereo layer must be an improvement on what many people consider to be the greatest jazz recording of all time.
I have both discs as well, and they sound very different, because the SACD is a new downmix from the 3-track tapes. The CD sounds fuller, while the SACD is more analytical. Both sound great, it depends on your taste and system which one you prefer.
|
|
|
Post by Beagle October 4, 2006 (19 of 22)
|
|
Eureka,
Just curious, are you the David Sanford at Holyoke?
|
|
|
Post by Eureka October 20, 2006 (20 of 22)
|
|
Beagle said:
Eureka,
Just curious, are you the David Sanford at Holyoke?
No, I am not.
|
|
