[tubesguy2]

From HDTracks!  I haven't heard it yet, but I'm pretty sure it makes all previous versions (there are, what, 37 of them?) obsolete. 

[rw@cn]

I have many of the versions and downloaded this one two.    

[ted_b]

Let us know how it sounds.  My fave is still my DSD rip but I have a cd version (don;t remember which one) that is very good, too.

[dB Cooper]

Even though a 50+yo analog recording is only going to reach a certain level no matter what, I am considering this.

[dminches]

My understanding is that this is a stereo version.

Edit:  It looks like there is a mono version available too.

[kenreau]

Fwiw, I have the first cd pressing, made in Japan edition (CBS/Sony Inc. Tokyo Japan) of Kind Of Blue.  Matrix code 35DP-62.  Reportedly (Steve Hoffman Forums) the touchstone for sound quality.  It is of the original 1959 stereo mix with the sped up side one tracks.  It is very smooth and ananlog like.  The remixed Legacy version is more forward and detailed in comparison. 

I can make it available if someone wants to do a side-by-side shoot out with this new hi-res down load for the AC gang.

Thx
Kenreau

[FullRangeMan]

There is an entire book about this album.
The only important info about it is:
This album was recorded in analog tape in what speed??

[dB Cooper]

15ips would have been typical for a major artist/major label release at that time AFAIK.  The original master was three track stereo. The Columbia Legacy edition was mastered from playback on a restored sample of the original machine.

[FullRangeMan]

15ips is not bad. I have some Proprius SACD recorded in 15ips and the sound are great.
Thanks

[rbbert]

I think I still prefer the SACD rip, although I haven't heard an LP version for a long time (and never at the right speed for side one). 

[firedog]

Let us know how it sounds.  My fave is still my DSD rip but I have a cd version (don;t remember which one) that is very good, too.

Ted, I downloaded the 24/192 Stereo, think it is better than the Columbia SACD in stereo DSD rip.

To my ears, it is slightly clearer (detail) and a bit  more upfront sounding - in a good way. Cymbals sound terrific. But comparing it  to DSD, my preference may just be one of taste and not so much qualitative.

This is a new remaster from the original 3 track tapes by the same team that did the previous digital transfer.

[firedog]

Even though a 50+yo analog recording is only going to reach a certain level no matter what, I am considering this.

You'd be shocked how good some of these old recordings can sound. Many were very well recorded, and sound as good or better than modern recordings when the remaster is done right.

No, they don't have the extreme low and high notes of some of today's recordings, but I haven't found that lessens my enjoyment when playing them.

I have plenty of jazz and classical recordings from the 50's and 60's that sound great. The small jazz labels back then were populated by engineers and producers who were also serious music fans and audiophiles. They cared about getting the sound "right". Same for a lot of classical music. The recordings were "primitive" compared to today, but that can also be an advantage if you know how to record. Proper miking, and a minimum of processing and mixing after recording make for very natural live sounding recordings in many cases. I'd rather have one of these recordings with a  frequency response of say, 40-15,000 hz than a lot of modern recordings that have a much greater frequency spectrum.

This remaster of KOB is a good example. A digital remaster that gets everything from off of a good tape recording from 50 odd years ago - and it sounds great. Want to know what instruments actually sound like - listen to this one.

[golfugh]

Got it today! Excellent

Mark

[newzooreview]

Agreed. The remasters, like this one, that go directly to the original studio tape are frequently excellent and worth the re-purchase. As with the amazing Nat King Cole remasters, and the work by the original engineer (Wilma Cozart Fine) on the Mercury Living Presence recordings, the effort and care taken to carefully extract the full detail from the original source is the key. Not all re-mastering is done that way.

The quality of the recordings now available from many of these older sessions is now better than any version previously available: it's even better than owning the original master tape because the tape is often so fragile and worn that it can only bear one or a handful of careful uses for final archiving in hi-resolution digital form. In many cases, the archival digital files coming out in the last two years are the best versions we've ever had and the best we ever can have.

[firedog]

So I spent the day finding a 24/96 version of the original 1959 Mono LP ( 6 eyes label). This is a very good transcription done on a reference level home system.

Compared it to the HDT 24/192 Stereo.

Very interesting. I think  in the mono LP transcription there is even a little more extension and decay on the cymbals in a few places than with the HDT. But in all other parameters I think I prefer the new digital version. I'm not sure how to describe it, but the individual instruments and the overall presentation is just a bit more "focused". Everything is cleaner and detail easier to hear.

However, I can definitely imagine someone with a good vinyl rig preferring the vinyl. If you prefer vinyl, you'll probably still prefer the vinyl and if you prefer good digital you'd probably like the HDT better. Certainly in a situation where you aren't directly comparing they both sound great.

[dminches]

Thanks for the write up.  I am waiting for the 3 track mono vinyl release on RSD and then I'll compare that with the original 6 eyes mono (I have the vinyl) and the HDtracks just released.