Miles Davis - CD, Lp, pressings comparisons

I have Kind Of Blue on Classic Records 180 gram vinyl and a Sony 20 bit gold remaster. The record sounds more organic to me overall with warmer bass and a sweeter cymbal sound. That could have something to do with my cartridge of choice as it leans thataway. You should have both. Miles in Tokyo (CD) has been remastered and is out. I have an original copy and it's a burner. A case could be made for this being one of top two or three best live recordings Miles ever made.

I have Kind of Blue on Classic Record's 180 gram vinyl and a 20bit Sony remaster gold CD. Vinyl sounds more organic to me with warmer bass and sweeter cymbal sound. My cartridge of choice may have something to do with that. Miles in Tokyo has been re-released on CD and it's a burner.

Has anyone compared the Mosaic vinyl with the Mosaic CDs? The presumption, of course, is that the vinyl is better, though I'm curious if anyone has checked it out. I've also heard conflicting stories about whether the vinyl comes from analog or digital masters (although I think the last thing I saw indicated that they are analog for the Lps).

The Mosiac 200 gram Vinyl box set from the Bitches Brew Sessions are outstanding too.

Try the hybird SACD of blue. Amazing sound in that it recreates the original master tapes three channel mono capture, no mixing. This assumes you have a three channel set up. You play it as it was. I have the other cd's and lp's and they all do not match the hybird. The sound stage, depth of image is so real.

More comparisons to report on my end: I compared an early Bitches Brew Lp to the recent version of Bitches Brew on CD (from the Complete Bitches Brew sessions set). Both were very good, very listenable. The Lp had a bit less bass, and the treble was softer, very natural, and easy on the ears. The soundstage was wide, and there was good midrange warmth. The CD, on the other hand, was as good as CDs get. As with the later Prestige release of Bag's Groove, described above, it was as if the engineers/producers recognized the ways in which CDs can annoy, and "tuned" the production to avoid that. The treble was crisper than the Lp, but not annoying. The bass on the CD was better grounded than the Lp. The soundstage was a hair narrower, but quite good, and the midrange was warm and cozy. The highs on CDs can sound somewhat artificial and "splatty" (to me)...there was almost none of that on this CD. Finally, if this CD was missing the detail of the Lp, it was not particularly noticeable. I just got caught up in the music. (What I did was started Pharoah's Dance on the Lp and CD at the same time, and just switched back and forth. Not very scientific, but good fun.)

Oops! Made an interesting mistake. What I called the "RVG remaster" of Bag's Groove was NOT an RVG remaster, but was a 2001 Fantasy "20 Bit K2" remaster, not unlike the XRCD, BUT, the XRCD was remastered by Akira Taguchi and shows a 1987 copyright, whereas the Fantasy K2 remaster was by Shigeo Miyamoto and shows a 2001 copyright. As noted, the sound is quite different.

They don't make this easy, do they?

After I wrote the above, I dug some records and CDs out and was able to some modest comparisons myself. I compared 2 of the 70's Prestige Two-fers (Lps of course) with CDs from the Miles Davis Chronicle box (Prestige 1987)and (in the case of Bag's Groove) with the related XRCD and the later RVG remaster.

The pure analog Lps were warm and pleasant, but were rolled off in the highs (perhaps for noise reduction purposes?). They were very easy to listen to but some (many?) would find them objectionable because of the roll off.

The '87 remastered CDs were arguably better (better highs, though less warm), but the XRCD was clearer, cleaner, and better detailed (though one could argue it was slightly unpleasantly bright, or right at the edge of that). It's easy to guess both were made from the same digital master, but the XRCD benefited from better CD mastering and production.

The RVG was noticeably different. It was warmer and fatter, less bright, but better detailed than any of the other versions. It's as if RVG fully understood the things that annoy many of us about CDs, and set out to make a very "analog" sounding CD, while at the same time doing whatever could be done to get the most out of the original source material. He did a darn good job.

What I don't know is how the RVG holds up against any of the other Lp competition...all I have is the Prestige 70's remaster. Though I have developed a preference for vinyl generally, I think in a blind A-B test I would likely always go for the RVG as having the better sound. (If you told me it was an audiophile Lp, I'd probably believe it.)

(Equipment used: Linn LP12 with Koetsu Black, EAR 834P, GNSC-modified Wadia 860, Joule LA150 MkII, ARC VT100 MkIII, and Harbeth Monitor 30's, all wired with Cardas Cross.)

Those are my observations. Who else has done some comparing?