2016 Miles Davis remasters

[mkrzych]

Hello,

Anyone know what could be the provenance of the files for some of the Miles Davis remasters flagged as done in 2016?

 

On some websites like highresaudio.com here: https://www.highresaudio.com/artist.php?abid=523672 or qobuz.com: Bags' Groove | Miles Davis*– Télécharger et écouter l'album they're available in 24/96 or 24/192 resolution. Over the web sound pretty good, but it is something new?

 

The new ones seem be also Steamin' With The Miles Davis Quintet here: Steamin' With The Miles Davis Quintet | The Miles Davis Quintet*– Télécharger et écouter l'album

 

Interesting...

[CatManDo]

The only information I could find is this post from February 27 on the Steve Hoffman forum:

 

Miles Davis prestige remasters.

 

I got Walking, Musings, and Miles Davis and the Modern Jazz Giants.

 

Seem pretty good. DR values are in the 12-14 range. Some sound energy up to about 27 KHz.

 

Hi-Res Download News (HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, Pono, etc.) & Software/Mastering Part 12** | Page 185 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums

 

This may not be new, but I noticed that Miles Davis cannot be found as an artist on the Concord website (Concord now owns the Original Jazz Classics catalogue). So it looks like the Miles Davis Prestige catalogue has a different ownership. Qobuz mentions both "Universal Music Group International" as the label and "© 2016 Concord Music Group, Inc."

 

I tried to see if there were upcoming CD reissues with the new remasters (these usually come with an announcement and mastering info), but there seem to be none.

 

I'm interested in the titles which were not released on SACD yet.

[Distinctive]

I have the DooBop album from HDTracks (192/24) and it sounds absolutely terrible!

[CatManDo]

Indeed. The Warner remasters are unlistenable

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f29-hdtracks-sponsored/miles-davis-amandla-and-doo-bop-25836/?highlight=amandla

 

But this topic is about the Prestige remasters. Different label, different mastering engineer.

[Distinctive]

Indeed. The Warner remasters are unlistenable

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f29-hdtracks-sponsored/miles-davis-amandla-and-doo-bop-25836/?highlight=amandla

 

But this topic is about the Prestige remasters. Different label, different mastering engineer.

Quote:

'The problem I hear is actually not visible on those graphs. Compared to the CD, the download has much less bass and treble, and terribly boosted midrange frequencies. Almost telephone sound ...'

 

- Yes, this pretty much sums it up.

[Jan.ho]

From miles Davis quintet, i do have the Analogue Productions remasters on 45rpm Vinyl. Till now, I've heard nothing which can compare to this. As far as i know, the were analogue remasters and they also did then some digitalization. So, try to search for analogue productions: the prestige recordings; I think it's sacd.

[CatManDo]

I agree that the Analogue Productions SACDs are great

 

SA-CD.net - Miles Davis Quintet: Relaxin' with the Miles Davis Quintet

SA-CD.net - Miles Davis Quintet: Cookin' with the Miles Davis Quintet

SA-CD.net - Miles Davis Quintet: Steamin' with the Miles Davis Quintet

SA-CD.net - Miles Davis: Bags Groove

 

Unfortunately, they are not available as DSD downloads, unlike some other AP titles.

 

And then the new remasters include titles which were not released in hi-rez before.

[junker]

I've been converting Miles SACDs to 24/88.2 and in almost every case I'm using the early 1998-2002 SME Sony SACDs over the later MFSL, AP, etc.

[mkrzych]

I've been converting Miles SACDs to 24/88.2 and in almost every case I'm using the early 1998-2002 SME Sony SACDs over the later MFSL, AP, etc.

 

Cool, but for those of "poor" guys who don't have SACD are they available somewhere in download form? Don't think so. I like Bags and Groove, but to download it I would like to get the best possible in digital ;-)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mkrzych]

This releases appeared also on ProStudioMasters: Search Results for bags - ProStudioMasters stated as 2016 Concord in 24/96 and 24/192.

[junker]

This is the DR data from the 2014 AP SACD ISO rip:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Filename

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR14 -2.20 dB -19.07 dB 01 Bags' Groove (Take 1).m4a

DR14 -2.01 dB -18.67 dB 02 Bags' Groove (Take 2).m4a

DR13 -2.55 dB -16.97 dB 03 Airegen.m4a

DR12 -3.86 dB -17.37 dB 04 Oleo.m4a

DR12 -2.82 dB -17.15 dB 05 But Not For Me (Take 2).m4a

DR13 -3.85 dB -18.27 dB 06 Doxy.m4a

DR12 -3.17 dB -17.51 dB 07 But Not For Me (Take 1).m4a

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of files: 7

Official DR value: DR13

[mkrzych]

BTW, Bags Groove is in mono or stereo?

[junker]

This one is mono...

 

Miles Davis-Bags Groove-Hybrid Mono SACD|Acoustic Sounds

 

BTW, Bags Groove is in mono or stereo?

[mkrzych]

This one is mono...

 

Miles Davis-Bags Groove-Hybrid Mono SACD|Acoustic Sounds

 

This one is new arrival :-) Miles Davis-Bags Groove-FLAC 96kHz24bit Download|Acoustic Sounds

[junker]

Must be same source but different format? I wish I we know more about how these were mastered... what tape was used and was it digitized into DSD->PCM or direct to PCM from tape/file?

 

The 1:32 decimation from SACD ISO to 88.2 KHz gives very nice quality and prevents too much HF noise. Using XLD it would require another processing step to go from 88.2 to 96 or from 1:16 174.4 KHz to 192. Hmm... well anyway I've give it another listen tomorrow to see how the old recording sounds. The DR isn't too bad, and I bet is the same as the 96/192 offerings. Hmm...

 

If someone try out the 2016 versions can you post the DR data to compare?

[CatManDo]

I've been converting Miles SACDs to 24/88.2 and in almost every case I'm using the early 1998-2002 SME Sony SACDs over the later MFSL, AP, etc.

 

Including the albums from the second half of the 60's (Filles de Killimanjaro, Sorcerer, Nefertiti)?

 

For those, I have compared the 2000-2002 Japan SACDs to the MFSL SACDs, and the latter are so much better. I was astonished by the big difference. The JSACDs sound rather thin and a bit distant. The MFSL SACD use the original stereo mixdown tape and the JSACD use a new mixdown from the 3-track tapes by Mark Wilder, and the latter wasn't successful in terms of sound quality IMHO. Normally the new digital mixdown would sound more realistic (because an analogue copying step is removed), but it's the opposite here.

 

Where I prefer the earlier japan SACDs is the two albums from the 1964 New York Concert ("My Funny Valentine", "Four and More"), for these, the Mark Wilder remix sounds fuller, more natural and close up, while the MFSL SACD made from the original stereo mixdown master tape has some added reverb that I don't like.

 

For other Columbia albums (Round about midnight, Someday My Prince Will Come, Seven Steps to Heaven, In a Silent Way), the original SACD/JSACD and the later MFSL SACD sound very close.

 

The most dramatic difference in SACD sound quality is with "Sketches of Spain". The Mark Wilder remix on the original Sony SACD sounds almost painfully thin, while the MFSL has the warm full sound you would expect from a big band, while not lacking clarity.

 

 

BTW, all the Miles Davis Prestige recordings are mono. 1957 is the year when stereo was introduced in most jazz recording studios (Rudy Van Gelder started in 1958), and these were made up to 1956.

[mkrzych]

I have asked ProStudioMasters, HRA and AcousticSound about the provenance of the files - have not received the answer yet however.

 

Over the Qobuz streaming HiFi Bags Groove sound quite good - very groovy and rather full. Japan DSD transfers have clippings, don't know if all, but when I've checked some of them, clippings were there.

[odelay]

Thanks for the input fellas. I'm reading with interest

... trying to work out which DSD version of KoB I should get [emoji868]?

[mkrzych]

I've plunged and purchase one song from Qobuz. First of all it is wrongly tagged as Kenny Clarke and wrongly advertised as 24/192 - it is in fact 24/96 :-/

 

Here are the scopes from the above Oleo song file and the bottom one from the original CD release OJCCD-245-2 Jazz Classics from 1987. Latter one seems to be stereo mixdown?

 

 

1987 CD release AAD:

 

 

The newest release has much higher true peak levels and it's boosted in average - no surprise? :-(

[CatManDo]

Thanks for the input fellas. I'm reading with interest

... trying to work out which DSD version of KoB I should get [emoji868]��

 

Avoid the one on Acoustic Sounds which is based on the early Sony SACD.

 

Not that the SACD sounds bad, but the newer transfers are clearly better.

 

My favourite version is now the 2013 HDtracks stereo release in 24/192.

 

I have only heard the CD layer of the new MFSL SACD and couldn't compare it directly to the HDtracks version, so I can't say which one is better.

 

I've also heard the mono transfer, but I don't care about it, since it is just folded down from the 3-track tapes and not from the original mono tape, which is lost.

[CatManDo]

the bottom one from the original CD release OJCCD-245-2 Jazz Classics from 1987. Latter one seems to be stereo mixdown?

 

Sorry, what do you mean by mixdown? It's a mono recording. The digital releases (download, CD) are 2-channel of course, but with the same signal on both channels, unless something went wrong (channel imbalance, mono tape played on a stereo machine).

 

 

The newest release has much higher true peak levels and it's boosted in average - no surprise? :-(

 

The early OJC CDs in general have a rather low volume and a high DR (14 and more).

[mkrzych]

Avoid the one on Acoustic Sounds which is based on the early Sony SACD.

 

Not that the SACD sounds bad, but the newer transfers are clearly better.

 

My favourite version is now the 2013 HDtracks stereo release in 24/192.

 

I have only heard the CD layer of the new MFSL SACD and couldn't compare it directly to the HDtracks version, so I can't say which one is better.

 

I've also heard the mono transfer, but I don't care about it, since it is just folded down from the 3-track tapes and not from the original mono tape, which is lost.

 

Well, mono version could sound stunning as well! 2014 SACD from APO is mono for Bags Groove.

 

BTW, by mixdown I meant two same signals on both channels even 2-track tape had been used.

 

It is amazing how nowadays late 50s records could sound besides the performance which brought me toe tapping and dancing through the room! Exceptional!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[junker]

In general, the early SACD releases have better DR. Once I convert to .DSF then I use XLD to convert to Apple Lossless - XLD allows for +0 to +6 dB of gain during conversion. I then check the DR with DR TT Offline Meter by watching the real-time processing for both Peak and RMS values. The logs kind of suck because they report L/R average values where you can watch the individual channel values in real-time. It's very possible to have an "over" but not catch it in the log. And I look for RMS values to be down in the -16 to -18 range even if the peak values are pulled back a bit. Either way the same DR values are obtained. With my 100 dB Altecs I avoid compression/limiting at all costs because at first glance it can sound more dramatic but ultimately sounds much less natural, forward, and well just plain loud.

 

Initially, I had converted both versions of the SACD but then after seeing enough examples just starting converting the older copies. But now based on what CatManDo is saying I might have to do a closer comparison on all of the titles.

 

KoB is kind of a weird one and is why I kept both copies... the initial one has lower overall levels so I can see what he is saying...this is even at +6dB but it does sound like a nice tape transfer to me with minimal meddling. But upon direct comparison with the new SACD the bass is a lot fuller. I'm going to give the newer release more attention now to make a final decision but the later one might be the way to go even if it is missing the alternate take.

 

Here are the DR logs:

 

2001 SACD

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Filename

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR14 -4.28 dB -23.57 dB 01 So What.m4a

DR14 -5.82 dB -24.48 dB 02 Freddie Freeloader.m4a

DR14 -10.55 dB -29.47 dB 03 Blue in Green.m4a

DR15 -5.55 dB -25.19 dB 04 All Blues.m4a

DR15 -7.04 dB -27.92 dB 05 Flamenco Sketches.m4a

DR15 -6.68 dB -26.11 dB 06 Flamenco Sketches (alternate take).m4a

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of files: 6

Official DR value: DR14

 

2015 SACD

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Filename

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR15 -2.62 dB -22.10 dB 01 So What.m4a

DR14 -3.32 dB -21.49 dB 02 Freddie Freeloader.m4a

DR13 -9.74 dB -26.68 dB 03 Blue In Green.m4a

DR14 -2.55 dB -21.88 dB 04 All Blues.m4a

DR14 -6.32 dB -25.62 dB 05 Flamenco Sketches.m4a

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of files: 5

Official DR value: DR14

[junker]

The most dramatic difference in SACD sound quality is with "Sketches of Spain". The Mark Wilder remix on the original Sony SACD sounds almost painfully thin, while the MFSL has the warm full sound you would expect from a big band, while not lacking clarity.

 

I'm not so sure here... The 1999 SACD sounds so natural to me. And it has crazy good DR. I'll reconvert the later issue to compare. Do you think it sounds fuller due to Eq'ing or due to a better transfer? I know it had worse DR so I have to assume it's louder and processed at some level? Ok, I'll re-run the #'s on it to compare and then listen... Thanks.

 

DR Peak RMS Filename

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR18 -0.76 dB -24.01 dB 01 Concierto de Aranjuez.m4a

DR15 -3.97 dB -22.71 dB 02 Will O' The Wisp.m4a

DR14 -2.66 dB -19.48 dB 03 The Pan Piper.m4a

DR14 -2.16 dB -19.57 dB 04 Saeta.m4a

DR13 -0.96 dB -17.91 dB 05 Solea.m4a

DR12 -2.27 dB -17.79 dB 06 Song Of Our Country (issused take).m4a

DR16 -2.65 dB -23.32 dB 07 Concierto De Aranjuez (Adagio-part one, alternate take).m4a

DR12 -2.95 dB -20.85 dB 08 Concierto De Aranjuez (part two, alternate take).m4a

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of files: 8

Official DR value: DR14

[junker]

The 2013 MFSL SACD is quite compressed vs. the original SACD with 1-5 dB of compression (2 dB avg.):

 

DR Peak RMS Filename

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR13 -2.32 dB -19.75 dB 01 - Miles Davis - Concierto de Aranjuez (Adagio).m4a

DR13 -3.33 dB -19.24 dB 02 - Miles Davis - Will O' The Wisp.m4a

DR11 -3.99 dB -20.12 dB 03 - Miles Davis - The Pan Piper.m4a

DR12 -0.97 dB -16.56 dB 04 - Miles Davis - Saeta.m4a

DR11 -1.70 dB -16.84 dB 05 - Miles Davis - Solea.m4a

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of files: 5

Official DR value: DR12

 

I'm not so sure here... The 1999 SACD sounds so natural to me. And it has crazy good DR. I'll reconvert the later issue to compare. Do you think it sounds fuller due to Eq'ing or due to a better transfer? I know it had worse DR so I have to assume it's louder and processed at some level? Ok, I'll re-run the #'s on it to compare and then listen... Thanks.

 

DR Peak RMS Filename

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR18 -0.76 dB -24.01 dB 01 Concierto de Aranjuez.m4a

DR15 -3.97 dB -22.71 dB 02 Will O' The Wisp.m4a

DR14 -2.66 dB -19.48 dB 03 The Pan Piper.m4a

DR14 -2.16 dB -19.57 dB 04 Saeta.m4a

DR13 -0.96 dB -17.91 dB 05 Solea.m4a

DR12 -2.27 dB -17.79 dB 06 Song Of Our Country (issused take).m4a

DR16 -2.65 dB -23.32 dB 07 Concierto De Aranjuez (Adagio-part one, alternate take).m4a

DR12 -2.95 dB -20.85 dB 08 Concierto De Aranjuez (part two, alternate take).m4a

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of files: 8

Official DR value: DR14