Kind of Blue faux mono LP
"The mono original (and reissue) provides a better overall instrumental balance, with greater emphasis on the piano and more solid imaging. Yes, its not as ethereally spacious, but it better layers and balances the instruments in my opinion and if you remain unconvinced that mono can produce three-dimensionality, this record will convince you..
https://www.analogplanet.com/content/miles-davis-kind-blue-monophonic-reissue-sonylegacy-analog-planet-exclusive#GgvHFW0KVw0v0f8q.97
Comments
-
So Michael Fremer at Analog Planet is my vinyl guru. He's the best source by far for review of vinyl reissues. If you love Kind of Blue go buy the Mobile Fidelity stereo reissue. It's like $60 but well worth it.
-
As great as Kind of Blue is I wouldn't spend $60 on it. Derek is still waiting for his donation for one thing. But yeah, I "liked" Analog Planet on face-idiot-book.YellowSnow said:So Michael Fremer at Analog Planet is my vinyl guru. He's the best source by far for review of vinyl reissues. If you love Kind of Blue go buy the Mobile Fidelity stereo reissue. It's like $60 but well worth it.
The old thick mono jazz albums, and also classical albums, seem to have some kind of snap "high fidelity" to them which I don't understand. The super thick ones that say "unbreakable" and come with warnings about using a blunted needle are usually the best even with a layer of dust. Typically they have a different sound than the stereo records, meaning not just that they are obviously the same in both speaker but more like the recording techniques they used for mono had some weird property to them. -
I love Kind of Blue. I listen to it several times a week
-
What I thought was interesting was that they ran the mono tapes (recording) concurrently with the "stereo" (which was very primitive). The stereo recordings were 1.5% off in speed and needed tweaking later, but the mono was spot on. The mono tapes have long been lost and the stereo tapes are badly deteriorated. So it seems like the most true to performance recordings would be a vintage mono record.DerekJohnson said:I love Kind of Blue. I listen to it several times a week
I remember this record in the 70s, but modal jazz was passe and fusion was in. I suppose the Bill Evans solos are the highlight for me. But it is the whole package that appeals in that record. -
I don't understand this thread.
-
The Miles solos on Blue in Green is my favorite, especially when I want to mellow outApostleofGrief said:
What I thought was interesting was that they ran the mono tapes (recording) concurrently with the "stereo" (which was very primitive). The stereo recordings were 1.5% off in speed and needed tweaking later, but the mono was spot on. The mono tapes have long been lost and the stereo tapes are badly deteriorated. So it seems like the most true to performance recordings would be a vintage mono record.DerekJohnson said:I love Kind of Blue. I listen to it several times a week
I remember this record in the 70s, but modal jazz was passe and fusion was in. I suppose the Bill Evans solos are the highlight for me. But it is the whole package that appeals in that record. -
Generally speaking, the best mixes for most rock records, prior to about 1966- 67 were the Mono ones. This mono Stones, Beatles, Beach Boys, Jefferson Airplane, etc are the ones to have. Basically, since they were mixing for AM radio (which is mono) stereo was an after thought. The Mono Sgt. Pepper blows the doors off the Stereo.
But with Jazz, it's different and a lot of the classic late 50's and 60's stuff was intended primarily for people listening on decent stereo equipment. I've only listened to KOB in Mono once, but I think the stereo is considered to be equally as good. -
I was thinking lazily that mono used only one microphone but obviously they could use multiple microphones and tracks. I don't know how many, three usually?It can't have been many. Anyway I've been sorting through my collection which cobbles together a lot of records inherited, and also couple of dozen albums there were used for an early 60s jazz radio show -- these records bearing stamps announcing "PROMOTION ONLY -- NOT FOR SALE" etc. The mono quality doesn't detract at all. The records boast about "high fidelity" which is quaint in this era, but they did sound great.YellowSnow said:Generally speaking, the best mixes for most rock records, prior to about 1966- 67 were the Mono ones. This mono Stones, Beatles, Beach Boys, Jefferson Airplane, etc are the ones to have. Basically, since they were mixing for AM radio (which is mono) stereo was an after thought. The Mono Sgt. Pepper blows the doors off the Stereo.
But with Jazz, it's different and a lot of the classic late 50's and 60's stuff was intended primarily for people listening on decent stereo equipment. I've only listened to KOB in Mono once, but I think the stereo is considered to be equally as good.
-
Records pressed in the late 50s and early 60s that are in mind condition can sound as good or better than any digital source when played on the right equipment.ApostleofGrief said:
I was thinking lazily that mono used only one microphone but obviously they could use multiple microphones and tracks. I don't know how many, three usually?It can't have been many. Anyway I've been sorting through my collection which cobbles together a lot of records inherited, and also couple of dozen albums there were used for an early 60s jazz radio show -- these records bearing stamps announcing "PROMOTION ONLY -- NOT FOR SALE" etc. The mono quality doesn't detract at all. The records boast about "high fidelity" which is quaint in this era, but they did sound great.YellowSnow said:Generally speaking, the best mixes for most rock records, prior to about 1966- 67 were the Mono ones. This mono Stones, Beatles, Beach Boys, Jefferson Airplane, etc are the ones to have. Basically, since they were mixing for AM radio (which is mono) stereo was an after thought. The Mono Sgt. Pepper blows the doors off the Stereo.
But with Jazz, it's different and a lot of the classic late 50's and 60's stuff was intended primarily for people listening on decent stereo equipment. I've only listened to KOB in Mono once, but I think the stereo is considered to be equally as good.
So the biggest thing I notice on mid 60's rock records in mono vs their stereo counterparts is that they sound "punchier". On thing that also help is having a mono switch on your amp, since most of us don't have a monophonic cartridge on our TT's. -
Be curious to see what the promo copies are worthy. Discogs.com is your friend in this regard.ApostleofGrief said:
I was thinking lazily that mono used only one microphone but obviously they could use multiple microphones and tracks. I don't know how many, three usually?It can't have been many. Anyway I've been sorting through my collection which cobbles together a lot of records inherited, and also couple of dozen albums there were used for an early 60s jazz radio show -- these records bearing stamps announcing "PROMOTION ONLY -- NOT FOR SALE" etc. The mono quality doesn't detract at all. The records boast about "high fidelity" which is quaint in this era, but they did sound great.YellowSnow said:Generally speaking, the best mixes for most rock records, prior to about 1966- 67 were the Mono ones. This mono Stones, Beatles, Beach Boys, Jefferson Airplane, etc are the ones to have. Basically, since they were mixing for AM radio (which is mono) stereo was an after thought. The Mono Sgt. Pepper blows the doors off the Stereo.
But with Jazz, it's different and a lot of the classic late 50's and 60's stuff was intended primarily for people listening on decent stereo equipment. I've only listened to KOB in Mono once, but I think the stereo is considered to be equally as good.
