LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2013

ARSCLIST November 2013

Subject:

Re: The new "Kind of Blue" remasters explained

From:

Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:53:18 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (177 lines)

Oy, another 'Blue!' Nice to see them taking so much care - hopefully
extended to the rest of the Davis product. If only all the worthy music from
the late 50s could get so much attention.

I don't find stereo distracting, though it really isn't necessary for small
group sessions. More important to have good sound, which was the issue. The
naysayers of stereo at that time (like Fred Plaut, right?) would get a good
chuckle from hearing us say that in 2013. But, I really love what they did
10 years ago or so in creating a stereo (true stereo, not 'rechanneled')
Miles Ahead. The complex scoring is easier to hear with it spread out.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The new "Kind of Blue" remasters explained

Hi John:

The rationale was three-fold:

1. play the tape as little as possible because it's not in good shape

2. try to match the sound to what people are used to. This album has a huge
"sonic memory" out there with the buying public and critics. If the reissue
team didn't reference the original LPs for the mix and the general sonic
ambience, they'd get slammed by critics and careful-listening fans. Those
who don't "get" or accept this rationale are thinking too much as a
scientist or engineer and not enough as a music business person. One has to
understand the market, plain and simple. Deviating too far from what I call
a "sonic memory" is toxic to sales. I can cite numerous examples.

3. given that Mark Wilder has a long track record of excellent remasters
that sell well, I tend to trust his judgement to mix outside the box. In my
own experiments with using, for instance Izotope's "mastering EQ" plug-in in
Sony Soundforge vs. going back out to analog and using my Great River
mastering equalizer, I always prefer the Great River. I do not believe that
DSP has gotten as good-sounding as the best analog gear for "sweetening"
something to an individual's taste. I'd trust the Great River or my trusty
Pultec equalizers anyday over any DSP I've heard. I would also trust Mark's
analog mixer over, for instance, the ubiquitous Protools mixing interface.
Again, this is not worth arguing if someone is a hardcore believer in doing
these things in the box. Tomato, tomahto. 
Wilder and Sony have a proven track record of sales to back up their work
methods.

I also think they cut new LPs out of the mixdown process. Like the LP
niche-renaissance or not, cutting an LP that will retail for $30 with a $10
profit for the issuer is a good business move for a popular title like this.

Regarding why the mono -- purely a marketing choice. There are many fans out
there, myself included, who prefer the mono version of this album and are
thrilled to have it in a high-resolution new version (I'm probably not alone
having worn out my original mono Columbia LP). Like the mono Beatles albums,
at least up to Sgt. Pepper -- and we can debate whether this is true all the
way through their last mono offering, the White Album -- with the Miles
Davis small-group albums of the late 50s and early 60s, the music hangs
together better in the mono mixes. I immediately notice that I hear complete
ensemble songs instead of compositions of well-played sounds coming from
three different directions. I feel the same way about the Blue Note
small-group records up to the mid-60s. 
Small-group jazz does lend itself to close-in mic'ing in order to get all
the details of playing. 
But, then taking those close-mic'd signals and building them into a
non-distracting stereo image took some learning and practice. It still
wasn't right in the 70s, when you'd have close-in wide-spread stereo mic'ing
of the piano (inside the lid, invariably) and drums, but have single-mic'd
horns then spread across the soundstage (think of Pablo small-group records
made at A&R or Group IV studios). It was unrealistic, like one's head was
simultaneously inside the piano, drum set and yet out in the room to hear
the horns spread across a plain. One can get used to it, but an excellent
mono mix keeps just the music and the ensemble front and center.

Given how terrible the original CD reissues of Sony's jazz library sounded
(including "Kind of Blue"), I am thrilled that lessons were learned and
budgets are being used to get us modern remasters that are faithful to the
"sonic memory" but also crisp and clear and dynamic as is expected in a
modern setting. To my ears, the "Kind of Blue" remasters keep the balance
and vitality of the original issues but remove several layers of fuzz and
gauze, so you get the same instrument tonality and mix approved by the
original team, but it's now like you're hearing it out of the original
signal chain instead of behind a layer of cutting-master tape smear and LP
fuzz. Oh, and this stereo version is speed-corrected, unlike the original
LP.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The new "Kind of Blue" remasters explained


> Of course they should have used the session tapes, not later mixdowns.
> That's a given.   The part I don't get here is doing DA and AD conversion
> just to use the analog mixer, if I understood that right.  The resulting
> 192/24 signal has thus been unnecessarily converted twice already and
> subjected to a bunch of old analog electronics.  Also, I don't get the
need
> for a mono version derived from the same tapes, and personally, instead of
> that I would much rather have had a three-track SACD version, which they
> have precluded, but that's me.
>
> Best,
> John Haley
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Tom Fine
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_p7Qbb_LAo
>>
>> Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" archival transfer made by Mark Wilder on an
>> ATR-100.
>>
>> This text (below) copied from the Kind of Blue description at
HDTracks.com
>> (HIGHLY recommend the new 192/24 downloads of BOTH stereo and mono, they
>> sound fantastic): The new mono mix is also in the new Miles Davis Mono CD
>> box set. As I understand the description below and in other interviews
with
>> Wilder and Berkowitz, the 192/24 transfer from the 3-track was a
straight,
>> high-quality NAB playback. Then all remixing and remastering was done by
>> bringing the 3-track high-resolution digital back out to analog, mixing
and
>> processing using analog equipment, and then back to a 192/24 stereo (and
>> mono) master.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> Kind of Blue Becomes Digital, by Engineer Mark Wilder
>>
>> "Since the Kind of Blue mixed masters are multiple generations from the
>> original (due to excessive play/wear), we decided to go directly to the
>> original session reels. Not only does this put us at the original session
>> as a starting point, but it also allows us to deal with the pitch issue
as
>> well.
>>
>> The three, 3-track half-inch tapes are in good condition, but age has
>> force them to "scallop" a little, meaning that the edges curl away from
the
>> tape head. This changed the initial focus from mixing from the originals
to
>> archiving them before mixing and working from the archive files. This
>> allowed us to gently guide the tape against the playback head to get
>> optimal contact and fidelity.
>>
>> The archiving was done at 192kHz/24 bits, played from a modified Ampex
ATR
>> 104, and hard-wired to HDCD Model 2's directly patched to a Lynx 2 sound
>> card.
>>
>> An upside to working from the archive files was the ability to chase the
>> original fader moves done during the mix in 1959. We constantly compared
to
>> an early pressing - mono and stereo - and worked bar by bar to duplicate
>> the level moves on the three tracks to match as well as possible.
>>
>> Each channel was converted to analog and passed through a GML mixer,
>> bussed to stereo or mono - depending on the release format - and
converted
>> once again to 192Kc/24 bits. At the GML, we inserted processing where
>> needed."
>>
>> - Mark Wilder, Battery Studios
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager