Until a Blu-Ray version of Blue is made we will never know the compromised issues. So, get on Sony's tail.
26 responses Add your response
You are definitely not alone. In fact, welcome to the club!
I'd be willing to bet that Kind of Blue, regardless of the specific release, has led more people to question either their equipment, their hearing, or their sanity than any other jazz recording ever made. People tend to assume that Kind of Blue must have terrific sonics because the recording is so famous; however, it's the performance and the place of that performance in the history of jazz that make Kind of Blue so highly regarded. The sonics of the original recording (and consequently all subsequent releases) leave a lot to be desired. Ironically, Kind of Blue is a perfect example of an 'audiophile gotcha.'
It's one of those recordings that may actually sound better on less revealing, lower end equipment.
Well, it's not that obvious. I did put a different music on, and didn't hear the distortion
But, that was exactly the case when my CDP output stage tubes
went sour- I only heard it on one of the Tom Waits tracks.
It manifested itself only with a particular type of music, that I guess was more challenging for the failing tubes to amplify???
Do you have "Kind of Blue"?
I played my Sony 'SBM' ordinary CD via Sennheiser HD800 earphones and Rudistor RPX33 mk2 headphone amp. From my Sony SCD333ES to Adcom DA700 to VAC Standard to Bryston BP-26 tape out to Rudistor RPX33 mk2
Yes as soon as the trumpet comes in some crackling distortion. Clear as day.
Most likely from microphone being used. (at least my guess)
Bravo for tearing your hair out over it!
I think you win the Grand Audiophile Nervosa award.
(I never think twice over any bad noises in a single recording.)
Personally Kind of Blue is great music. This tidbit will not dampen that opinion.
In fact it strengthens it via the great 'audiophile rule of recordings':
All recordings whch are great music do not have perfect sonics.
And the Audiophile corollary: ALL the recordings with truely great sonics SUCK as music,
Thank you much for confirming I'm not hallucinating, really.
I guess, i have to work on my methodology, when faced with system- related "problems".
The second part of my question actually was about the other peoples experience with "Kind of Blue"- the noise/distortion is so obvious, I'm surprised, it hasn't attracted anyone's attention yet
I only listened for the odd sound due to your post.
My Sennheiser/Rudistor combo is totally revealing. Otherwise i would never have thought about it.
I generally do not listen for sonic errors. I am paying attention to the music.
Sorry to say it seems the op is listening to the equipment at least as much as to the performance.
That is a real curse.... In my experience anyway. So I avoid paying attention to sonics and just enjoy the musicas much as ican.
I do not try to own the best edition, or best reisssue of a recording. i own a copy of it, probably both LP and Cd for a lot of stuff, but other than that I play what i got.
Like i wrote, constantly listening to the sonics is a curse. A really hard to break curse (i have been there..)
Best to ignore the stuff altogether once you got it playing well.. Then, eventually the equipment will just stop being what you hear.. And you can enjoy the music you play ALL THE TIME..
(including great performances with dreadful sonics. No problem, they just sound wonderful...)
The thread by Warrenh, "Kind of Blue" you mentioned, really put things into a different perspective for me.
Everyone there seems to be ecstatic about this very version (K2 HDCD)sound quality, without any mention of the glaring distortion.
Just one example-"K2HD CD is really quite good and noticably better than any other version I've heard. The bite of the saxes is astonishing and all around very musical. I've not heard any SACD version."
They do "bite", alright.
Funny thread because I was just listening to "Kind of Blue" for the first time in years and really the first time on a good system. I put it on and my immediate observation was that it sounded just plain bad. That didn't lead me to the lengths your describing, Maril. I know my system is pretty good. My conclusion was that this 1959 was "compromised," as you well worded it.
Just don't put on Led Zeppelin IV. You'll wonder why you ever upgraded from a boombox.