Miles Davis

I first got this release as a CD set years ago and absolutely loved it as a comprehensive collection of Davis's work. As a die-hard analog guy nowadays, I sought this release and got two copies only to find out, with disappointment, that most of it was remixed digitally. However, I still enjoy it even though I have many of the original records from the compilation.

I was wondering what Miles' audiophile fans thought of this set sound-wise. Do you consider it a must-have or ignore it in favor of the original releases?
OK, what's the name of the Miles Davis record that you are talking about?
There is a European release of a large number of most of Columbia Miles Davis dirt cheap at Amazon. It is a great deal $$ if you do not already own them.
I have never bothered to worry about 'which release is the best'.(though I do like to own the original release if I run into it used, cheap..)
IMO it is a waste of money.
I have thousands of Jazz titles on each Lp and CD, and would way rather spend what money I have on new to me music, rather than chasing some 'pie in the sky' "best" releaseof some stuff I already own.
But to each their own..
For some reason the rest of the thread title got cut off. The set is Miles Davis - The Columbia Years 1955-1985. It's a 5-record compilation organized by themes rather than chronology - blues, standards, originals, moods, and electric.
FWIW I have a couple of Miles Davis LP's that were digitally remastered and would say they are worth having, but not true audiophile level. One of then was digitally converted to "simulated stereo", which is kind of unsatisfying.
I own In a Silent Way,Live at The Plugged Nickel and Kind of Blue on vinyl and these are the digital remastered vinyl versions and well I cannot stand them. I have In a Silent Way analog Mosiac box set on Vinyl that is stellar as well as Mosiac's Bitches Brew. I have an Columbia original pressing of Kind of Blue and just listening to this compared to the digital counterpart is like night and day. My question is where is the bass on these digital re masters cause the analog recordings have em.I gave my digital copy of Bitches Brew to a freind because he heard Miles at my house so I just turned him on to it.He had never heard Miles electric stuff.
Compilations never sound good.
Yeah, I agree with these observations. I think the concept is very interesting and the selection is beyond reproach. But the sound is just not as good as on the original albums. Why the hell did they have to mess with digital on this?!
Is there a US Blu-Ray of Miles 'Blue".
Compilations were never given an attention to quality. Combining and optimizing recording level and frequency patterns to create compilation is much easier with digital technologies that was probably done with pushing one button vs. brushing and matching via analogue equipment. Even if compilation is done with analogue mastering, it'll still suck unless MOST of albums are recorded in one studio. Compilations of band CAN is a good example where almos all of their albums had been recorded at their own studio. Compilations exist for introductions to listener and not oriented for sound quality.
Not on the specific topic, but my favorite Miles is "Tribute To Jack Johnson". Just sayin'....Mr D.
For the early Columbia releases, I seek out the six-eye LPs. Miles was probably the most popular act in jazz, so they are actually more common than you might assume.

For later albums, Bitches Brew being one example, I prefer the quad Columbia LPs to the Stereo issues, though they are a little harder to find and a tad dearer.

LPs that were released in mono should always be purchased in mono, as already mentioned, reprocessed for stereo is the kiss of death.

If you are looking for the early Blue Notes, Vol 1 and Vol 2 there are some nice Japanese pressings floating around by King. Originals, or the 10" wax, can be pretty pricy at this stage of the game. King also did a nice job on Cannonball Adderly's "Somethin' Else" which is arguably actually a Miles Davis album, but contractually he could not be identified as the leader.