Miles Davis - Kind of Blue Mono Speed Issues

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Fortune, Nov 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. e630940

    e630940 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Canada
    The Mono seems a little slower than the 70s stereo versions I have, but faster than the speed corrected CD

    1st track: So What duration (approx)

    Legacy 50th Anniversary CD
    (Stereo from 3 track, correct speed)----9:20

    US Columbia MONO
    (CL 1355) stampers -1J ----------------9.06

    Sony Japan Stereo 70s re-issue
    (25AP 755)-----------------------------8:58

    Columbia Canada 70s reissue
    (WPC 8163)----------------------------8.55
     
  2. Fortune

    Fortune Senior Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    USA
    The speed corrected cd has extra music at the end of So What that's not on the original so you have to account for that.
     
  3. e630940

    e630940 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Canada
    ^oh - I didn't realize that, sorry to account for that would be too much effort for me.
     
  4. 2xUeL

    2xUeL Forum Philosopher

    Location:
    Albany, NY
    Thread revival via a conversation at London Jazz Collector:

    So @tlmusic concluded that the side 1 of the original mono vinyl release of Kind of Blue is pitched up about 3.5-4.0 Hz in comparison to the pitch-corrected modern stereo remasters? A4 sharp is 26 Hz higher than A4 natural, so we're talking about an error of about 14% of a half step. But the funny thing about the whole "study" in this post is that no one ever broke out an original stereo pressing to check the speed variation with that and compare it to the mono. I can only guess the speed variation on the original stereo vinyl is significantly greater than 3.5-4.0 Hz.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2014
  5. TLMusic

    TLMusic Musician & record collector

    I've never owned an original six-eye Kind of Blue in stereo.
     
  6. AaronW

    AaronW Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    What, you didn't break out an original stereo to test? :winkgrin:
     
    2xUeL likes this.
  7. AaronW

    AaronW Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Time to fill that gap!
     
    TLMusic likes this.
  8. TLMusic

    TLMusic Musician & record collector

    How many copies do you have?
     
  9. AaronW

    AaronW Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Original mono (essential)
    Original stereo (essential)
    Classic Records (essential)

    None are leaving my shelf anytime soon but it's been ages since I've spun any of them!

    PS - IMHO this whole speed variance issue has been blown way out of proportion.
     
  10. 2xUeL

    2xUeL Forum Philosopher

    Location:
    Albany, NY
    Have a listen:

    http://www.divshare.com/download/26325112-25b

    I compared the original mono LP with the original stereo LP and the Legacy remaster...the original mono and stereo LPs sound pretty darn similar to my ears, and I can hear the pitch drop with the Legacy. I also compared the lengths of the first bar of "Freddie Freeloader", and if we take the Legacy version to be the absolute, the mono is about 1.64% shorter time-wise i.e. faster, while the stereo is about 2.17%.

    This is interesting because first, Mark Wilder and Hoffman have claimed that Columbia recorded to both full-track and three-track decks simultaneously, and secondly, all the talk has been that only the master three-track deck was running fast during the session. The original stereo does appear to be a bit faster than the mono but still it's interesting that the mono is a bit fast too (if we're taking the three-track backup used for the Legacy reissue as the absolute).
     
  11. edb15

    edb15 Senior Member

    Location:
    new york
    Still find this topic fascinating. The speed increase we're talking here, it's like a Rega Planar 3--1 to 2%, just enough to goose everything a little bit.

    Is it possible a Columbia tech calibrated the mono and stereo decks wrong? And why is Time Out fast too? And why didn't they use the test tones when they mastered--not even once--not even when they first transfered to digital?

    The nonexistence of any mono master--is that per chance because it was not used, but rather a mixdown from the three-track? Or did Wilder destroy it or hide it in his basement in 1992 in order to perpetrate a marketing hoax that propelled Kind of Blue into multiplatinum status? (kidding)
     
    2xUeL likes this.
  12. 2xUeL

    2xUeL Forum Philosopher

    Location:
    Albany, NY
    This is certainly a possibility, but here's the thing: it seems pretty obvious that mono master tapes exist for Columbia albums from the late 50's and early 60's, a time when they were recording to three-track tape at the very least (Miles' other Columbia albums from this period, Bob Dylan, etc.). So are these mono masters mix-downs from the three-track tape or are they dedicated full-track recordings? Wilder seems confident that Columbia recorded directly to full-track tape alongside the three-track machines, and our host has said the same thing in the past...
     
  13. captainsolo

    captainsolo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    I just listened to my new 6 eye mono and Side 1 seemed like the pitch was a bit different. Then I found this thread.
     
  14. Starquest

    Starquest ‎ ‎ ‎

    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    Because I'm extremely bored, I've set out to create a custom strobe disc that would allow me to set my TT's speed to play my Kind of Blue 70s reissue at the correct speed. But I read thru this thread and it doesn't seem like there was a consensus as to the amount of error. Am I wrong?

    I suppose what I could do is just record the first 30 or so seconds of So What and slow it down using software, and then try to compare by ear the correct speed recording. Flip back and forth. That would at least get me in the ballpark, and then we would have something approaching a definitive error.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
  15. captainsolo

    captainsolo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    I wondered about trying to fix it with my sl-1200 pitch slider.
     
  16. Starquest

    Starquest ‎ ‎ ‎

    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    I recently got an SL-1500MK2 for dirt cheap. It has the digital pitch control on it, so I figured that would be ideal for this. I did a crude stopwatch test between two points on So What and it seems to be roughly 1.7% fast, so I slowed the TT down by that much. Sounds great!
     
  17. johnnypaddock

    johnnypaddock Senior Member

    Location:
    Merrimack Valley
    I recently picked up an original mono six eye pressing (1J/1J) and decided to compare side A with the recent mono reissue mastered by Ryan K. Smith. For the second track Freddie Freeloader, the original came in at 9:27, compared with 9:36 on the reissue. I don't find the difference to be huge, but it's definitely there. For me it's most noticeable when Trane comes in for his solo. That said, it could just be that I'm listening closely for the difference, or it could be suggestive hearing (considering that I know which pressing I'm listening to each time). Either way, I found this thread interesting so I figured I'd contribute my thoughts.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2015
  18. Starquest

    Starquest ‎ ‎ ‎

    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    So your calculation came in pretty close to mine. If we figure it's about 1.7% too fast, then you can use this custom strobe disc generator:

    http://www.conradhoffman.com/TemplateGen.zip

    and make a 32.766666666 RPM disc. It needs 220 bars on the outer ring instead of 216.
     
    kt66brooklyn likes this.
  19. captainsolo

    captainsolo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    After hearing for so long that the mono should be correct it's very strange to put it on and find that's not the case and that it may actually be different from the stereo speed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine