A Kind of Sound by Marc Heijligers INTRODUCTION Sometimes you'll hold a CD in your hands, which looks familiar, but on the other hand looks different. You already have this CD at home, but the difference is that the CD you're looking at now contains a statement which says "better sound quality". Quality of sound is a subjective matter, so how can a record company generalize so easily? And even if the CD would sound better to me, is it worth all the fuzz and additional costs? When I, as a music lover, got involved in the hifi-scene many years ago, my main objective was to find a relation between "good sound quality" and "getting more involved into the music". This is one of the reasons why I started to evaluate four different issues of Kind of Blue of Miles Davis. How did all these "hifi-related details" match to the way I experienced this fantastic performance? WHY KIND OF BLUE? Music theoretically I would consider Kind of Blue as an important historical MILEStone, because it required quite some creativity and new views w.r.t. existing music styles. However, for me, and this is where the subjective part starts, the notes and chords themselves are not the most important part of Kind of Blue. The chords and schemes function as a template for musicians to express themselves. And it is especially their contribution which makes Kind of Blue so special. I hear musicians playing around with tempo, timbre, attack, decay, accents etc. etc. Especially, the way they contribute to the performance as a whole is very impressive. The music is performed in such a way that your atttention is drawn to all kind of directions at different moments, depending on the relative contribution of the players, resulting in a whole which is very attractive. Just like a poet, where the choice of words, the way they are assembled, and the way they are spoken, generates a whole which should give you a particular feeling. For me, this shows that the way this type of music is recorded and reproduced is directly related to how this type of music is perceived. THE DIFERENT FOUR ISSUES The four issues I've evaluated are: 1. CBS Jazz Masterpieces, CBS 460603 2 This is the version which has been released initially on CD, as part of the CBS Jazz Masterpieces series. It states that it has been "originally mastered from the original analog tapes". Compared to the other versions the pitch is higher. The booklet mentions that Columbia's recording policy was to run two tape machines simultaneously, and the master machine was running too slow for the session at March 2nd 1959, containing "So What", "Freddie Freeloader" and "Blue and Green". When the tape is played back at the correct speed, this results in a slightly faster - a quarter tone sharper - version. The other session took place at April 6th, 1959, and there the master machine ran at correct speed. According to Teo Macero, the producer, this speed change was not intentional. All other versions, are based on the safety tapes from the second machine, hence the pitch is different. Obviously the tapes are in a different status, because they sound completely different, but a-like. 2. Columbia Legacy, CK 52861 (SBM remaster, golden disc) The disc has a golden colour, which in the high-end audio stands for "good quality", so it is obvious who Sony wants to reach with this product. To add even more, Columbia refers to a new mastering technique called "Super Bit Mapping". The version was about twice the price of a ordinary CD. The CD has been remastered in New York, in 1992. The large plastic CD package contains beautiful photos, and contains some written info on the differences between disc version 1 and disc version 2. 3. Sony Records, SRCS9104 (Japanese remaster in paper box) This disc is packed in a small paper package, and looks like a miniature version of an LP. The booklet provided is in Japanese, so I can't give any detailed info on that one. The CD is issued in 1996. 4. Columbia Legacy, CK 64935 (produced by Michael Cuscuna). This version contains an alternate track of "Flamenco Sketches". The booklet contains quite some additional information. The CD is issued in 1997. The CD is a special-priced CD. The evaluation has been performed in order of increasing numbers mentioned in the previous list. For those who care, equipment used for evaluation are: 1. Apple CD-300 CD player, Marantz PM-54 amplifier, AKG K340 headphones. 2. TEAC VDRS-10 CD player, Audio Innovations Classic 25 tube amplifier, Audio Note E loudspeakers DETAILED DESCRIPTION What follows is a detailed description of my observations concerning the different tracks on the CDs: ** So What ** 1. There is a lot of (artificial) echo to give the illusion of musicians playing in a room with lots of reverberation. This makes the instruments sound a bit shut in, and less life-like. The cymbals miss sparkle. The bass is a bit far away. 2. The bass is more forward. The (artificial) echo is not so prominent anymore. The cymbals have more sparkle. Instruments have more 'life' performance. Especially the trumpet sounds very realistic. Nevertheless, the whole still sounds a bit shut-in, and in some aspect sounds more 'processed' than 1, i.e. the 'timbre' doesn't seems to be right. 3. Compared to 2, there is more attack on the piano, and the artificial echo seems to be coherent. The cymbals have the right amount of sparkle, which give them the right amount of timbre (very characteristic). This also seems to be true for the other instruments (especially for the trumpet, sax and drums, which seem to be recorded better than the bass and piano). The main comment seems to be too much bass, which therfore seems to lack pronouncation. Dynamics are very good. This version makes your feet tap, and has a lot of ambiance. 4. The first thing which is very apparent is the excessive amount of hiss. It is as if the engineers added a great deal of treble, which is a main concern of this version, because it sounds a bit overdone this way (almost shrill). Also, the echoes seem to have disappeared completely, which completely eleminates the 'introvert' characteristics of the music. Despite these facts, dynamics are great, and the bass has an enormous amount of detail. Treble also contains 'grain'. ** All blues ** 1. The differences between tracks of 'side 2' of the LP issue seem even to be more apparent. The whole sounds very muffled, and lacks life. 2. Compared to version 1, this is a relievement. All instruments now have detail. The piano however sounds a bit "far away" when compared to the wind instruments, and therefore the mix sounds a bit artificial again. Also the bass lacks detail. Very good life performance. 3. Compared to version 2, details are there, but the whole band sounds as a whole. The piano is still a little far away in the mix, but you can hear the attack of the notes. Compliments for the beautiful treble, and the dynamics are superb in combination with the timbre. The bass now is better than version 2, but still it lacks detail. The cymbal is a bit too brilliant, but the details are superb. The attack on the snares are amazing. Good life performance. 4. Again, the amount of detail is very good. Compared to All Blues, there seems to be more coherence. The bass is not very well done on this version too, but it is the most seperate bass there is. The cymbals sound too strong, making it sound like (pppffffff instead of pppsssssss). Good life performance, but in some cases a bit overdone. ** Flamenco Sketches ** 1. How about dreaming! This piece should transfer you to dream-land, and this version is capable of doing so. Again, lots of artificial echo on the piano, resulting in some resonant behaviour. Cymbals again lack too much treble. Nice timbre of Adderley's sax. 2. Compared to version 1, a lot of hiss. The bass has more detail, but it also a bit too resonant. The piano is a bit too backward. The whole sounds a bit too processed. The sax of Coltrane is a bit shrill. There is more dynamics on the sax of Adderley, but it sounds a bit analytical. 3. Even more hiss than on 2. The bass is more resonant. The reverbations and sense of room is much better than on 2, the trumpet is completely seperated from the piano and drums! Individual instruments are very dynamic. Details on the cymbals are very very good. Timbre seems to be less good than for other tracks. The sax of Coltrane is a bit shrill. The sax of Adderley (on the left channel) is perfect! 4. Too much hiss. The details on the bass are excellent. Although the trumpet sounds quite shrill, it is thrilling. The cymbals although, don't even come close to the quality of version 3. They completely miss timbre. The sax of Adderley is very analytical. No ambiance here. ** Freddie Freeloader ** 1. Shut-in, but the whole is nice. 2. Piano too much on background. Nice cymbals. Too much bass, lacking details. 3. This is a trumpet!!! Piano too much on background, but has ample of detail. Cymbals are perfect. Also lots of bass, but they have more detail than on 2. Piano very nice in solo. 4. Too much detail caused by an excessive amount of treble. The bass is recorded best of all! The details in the piano solo are very artificial. Hear for instance how the echo "fills". Too processed. ** Blue in green ** 1. There is very apparant wow and flutter on the tape. The piano is more forward, which is nicer. The atmosphere is good. 2. Too much bass. Good details in drums. 3. Good reverberations. Good timbre. Dreaming. Too much bass. Very good treble. 4. Drums very open. If only the treble would be a bit better... OVERALL OBSERVATIONS For each CD, my overall observations are as follows: 1. This version sounds introvert or "dreamy", but misses life-like dynamics. 2. Compared to 3 and 4, and considering the price, there is no right of existance for this version anymore. It has more detail than 1, it is also much more life-like, but the timbre of the whole is wrong. 3. This version makes my feet tap, and I'm concentrated on the music, the way the musicians deal with their instruments etc. The timbre is the best of all. At some places the mix could be better (the piano is too much on the background), and the bass could use a bit more detail. Nvertheless, overall this version has the ultimate trade-off between life-like dynamics and rest, giving it a beautiful overall ambiance. 4. Lots of detail, but the whole just doesn't seems to be right. At first sight one might tend to prefer this version, but after listening for a while things seem to be sounding too detailed and tiring. If you like a lot of treble and details, this version is for you. Please notice that this version is recorded a bit more loudly, which might influence your (and mine) evaluation. There also some grain on the treble, which can become annoying. CONCLUSIONS My personal order based on sound quality would be 3 - 2 - 4 - 1, but my buying order would be 3 - 1 - 4 - 2, because 1 differs most from 2, 3 and 4. Buying 4 is interesting for the supplementary track. I don't think I would buy version 2 anymore. The perfect version would have a bit more of the atmosphere of verion 1, the treble and timbre of version 3, and finally the bass of version 4. So, my final remark ends with a question to Sony. When can we expect version 5?