Mo-Fi's "Kind Of Blue": Kind of Blah? (Updated 10/28/15)

Ed. note: I mis-read an interview in which Mark Wilder, who in 1997 produced the remix from the original three track tape used for this reissue, said he'd produced another transfer for the 50th anniversary box. That transfer was from the 1997 two track mix but done using a different playback deck. I mis-read it to mean he'd started again with the three track tape. Sorry for the confusion. So I've re-edited the review.

Donald Rumsfeld once famously said "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want". While reissuing Miles Davis' iconic Kind of Blue is hardly as consequential as invading a country, in context of our little musical and sonic world it probably is.

So it's important to keep in mind a few things: one is that Mobile Fidelity had to work with "the army it had", which was Battery Studios' Mark Wilder's 1997 three-to-two-track mix down to analog tape produced playing back the three track tape on a pristine all tube Presto deck and using a GML custom line mixer and producing a flat transfer at 15IPS using Dolby SR onto an Ampex ATR 102.

Greg Calbi used that mix to produce the lacquers for the 50th Anniversary blue vinyl version and that is what Mobile Fidelity used here. 913kindofblueP1010034.JPG

Photo of three track alternative master during playback at Battery Studios

So when Mobile Fidelity says it has used "the original master tapes" giving credit to "Remix engineer Mark Wilder", we know, despite the "message board" rumor mongers, that this was sourced from analog tape and not from digital.

We do know though that in the process of doing the first transfer from three track to two for Sony's 1992 gold CD, Wilder discovered a tape speed discrepancy produced by the main recorder's having run 1.25% slow during the original recording session for some of the songs, which produced a final original LP that played back side one faster than was accurate. The second back-up machine ran at the correct speed so Wilder used those back up tapes for all subsequent transfers, thus producing the correct pitch throughout, though the result was not "accurate" to the original pressing.

For more about all of this read former Stereophile writer John Marks' encounter at Battery Studios with the three track master tape here.

And be sure to read the review of the recent mono mixdown from the three-track tape produced for a Record Store Day reissue, because both the main and back up mono master tapes disappeared at some point from Columbia's tape vault.

But back to our regularly scheduled Kind of Blue reissue review! In 1997 Sony was still being generous with its master tapes and so Classic Records was able to get for Bernie Grundman one of the two three track master tapes—probably the original that had run slow during the recording session on some tracks. Either that, or Bernie purposely sped up those tracks to produce an 'alternative' disc that ran at the original pressing's elevated speed, along with a second disc that ran at the corrected speed.

If you read John Mark's above linked column, you'll learn that while all of the songs were performed and recorded without edits, the producer "slates" (announcements identifying the takes, etc.) tones, and other chatter had been edited out and splicing tape put in to produce the necessary spaces for the vinyl cutting process. However, the original pressings were not cut from the three track tapes. Instead, they were mixed down to two track tapes, with all fade outs performed during the lacquer cutting. For some reason, no one ever talks about or references those original two track tapes.

So Classic's two versions of Kind of Blue—one a double LP set with one LP cut at the original speed and one with the corrected speed versions of "So What", "Freddie Freeloader" and "Blue in Green" on one side and a previously unissued version of "Flamenco Sketches" (the only alternate take of any tune recorded during these sessions) presented at 45rpm on the other side, and the other a four single-sided 45rpm LP set—were cut from the three track master (or alternative master) and mixed "live" to two track, with Grundman applying the fades manually as he cut, which is how the original was produced from a two track mixdown.

Mobile Fidelity cut from a two track mixdown as was originally done and Classic cut directly from the three track—I figure the only time that was done. And of course Classic's cut was produced in 1995, two years earlier than either of the mixdowns that could possible have been used for this new 45rpm reissue. So why 45rpm? As I've previously written, these are licensing deals wherein the label owning the tapes can specify at which speed it is willing to issue a reissue license. So here it's possible that Sony was only willing to do a 45rpm deal, or perhaps Mobile Fidelity had a choice. We probably will never know.

In preparing this review of the sonics only (so much has already been written about the music that more would be superfluous. However I recommend Ashley Kahn's "Kind of Blue: The Making of The Miles Davis Masterpiece"), I compared to this new reissue: two original "6-Eye" pressings

as well as the Classic Records version at both 45 and 33 1/3 as well as two British pressings. One a late '60s orange CBS label edition and a 1998 Absolute Analogue version mastered by Ray Staff from what must have been the tape shipped to England back in 1959. Fortunately this is an album one never grows tired of listening to!

Firstly, the "magic" on the original pressing cannot be fully duplicated elsewhere in terms of the air and space available when the tape was fresh—even with the 3-2 mixdown and that's taking into account the high frequency "bump" produced when the tape was played 1.25% fast on side one's recorded tracks. The cymbal decay that seems to go on forever on the original isn't there to the same degree on any of the reissues. Drummer Jimmy Cobb is famously quoted as having said about the KOB recording " clearly hear the wood of the drumstick against the cymbal." And while you can on all versions, it's best presented on the original. On the other hand, the original is, as Calbi notes, "bright" as was the style of the day.

So the piano whether Evans's or Wynton Kelly's (on "Freddy Freeloader" only), sounds slightly cardboardy, but boy is there air and reverb behind both Adderley's and Coltrane's saxophones, even though as Marks reports, the reverb chamber "send" was only on the center channel on which only Davis and Chambers were recorded.

Going directly from the original to this Mobile Fidelity reissues makes obvious the speed difference—even to someone without perfect pitch. Also obvious is that the piano sounds more like a piano and less "cardboardy". There's plenty of "...wood of the drumstick against the cymbal" just not quite as much, which could be the result of the speed difference and the less bright overall equalization (or lack thereof). There's plenty of reverb around Miles's horn but the instrument sounds somewhat less "brassy". Whether this translates to greater instrumental accuracy or 'dullness' will be system dependent. As is usually the case, the brighter, faster version (the original) will sound more "exciting" but that's not the same thing as "more accurate"!

Moving to the Grundman cut, and comparing "sped up apples to sped up apples" the Classic reissue more greatly resembles the original in terms of air and space and tonality than the Classic resembles the warmer, richer Mobile Fidelity reissue. The Classic's corrected speed side at 33 1/3 more closely resembles the Mo-Fi in terms of tonality but the Classic single sided 45rpm version of "Freddie Freeloader" was definitely more open, spacious and transparent than was the Mo-Fi, but given that the former was cut directly from the three track and the latter was probably from a copy of the two track mixdown (Sony/BMG does not allow original masters off the east coast so Mo-Fi probably lugged its superb Tim DeParavicini designed R2R deck to Battery and made a copy), that is not surprising. On the other hand image focus, especially of the piano was better on the Mo-Fi reissue.

All of these issues that I compared sounded great but the speed issue makes direct comparisons difficult. The original, speed issue and all is "the document" and some people will want that because it is "the the"—though finding a clean copy isn't easy and it will cost you a lot of money! I thought the Ray Staff cut Absolute Analogue edition, cut from whatever source, sounded remarkably close to the original and I've seen those around for not much money.

Twenty years later, the Classic double LP set with both the incorrect and correct side one plus the alternate take of "Flamenco Sketches" is certainly a prize worthy of seeking out as is the four single sided 45rpm issue.

That said, considering the care that's gone into this Mobile Fidelity reissue, the high quality RTI pressing and the reasonably well produced booklet with great studio photos included (glossy, thick paper stock would have been nice instead of the matte finish), this reissue strikes me as a complete success. It does not sound like the original but consider that Mobile Fidelity went to war with the army it had, not the army it might have wanted. I think the "army" was Mark Wilder's admittedly warmer sounding transfer/mixdown and so if that was the case, this reissue is a complete success and as good as can be expected fifty six years after it's original release. I know the folks at Mobile Fidelity worked really hard and spent the money to get this one right.

I wish Mo-Fi would be more forthcoming about this critical reissue so I wouldn't have to be guessing and speculating here, but they were tight lipped, which left me no choice other than to guess about certain facts. And please consider that this was not really a "stereo" recording but rather three mono tracks with some reverb and microphone leakage. Of course it still sounds incredibly spacious and magical but don't neglect the mono version if you can find either an original or the RSD reissue.

BTW: I have the HDTracks high resolution download and it is very, very good but well you know where this is going so I'll let you finish it! As for the "blah" headline, well that was nothing but "click bait". Sorry.

Music Direct Buy It Now

mraudioguru's picture

I have both the Classic Records reissues and I like the new MOFI better. Just a personal preference, but if I had to call it, that would be my choice.

I agree, they are all very good and you can't go wrong with any of the mentioned copies.

madfloyd's picture

I can't believe how bad this reissue is. It has boosted 'rock' bass that seems to come from everywhere without articulation and the top end has been rolled off. I don't hear any 'room' or detail and the sound of sticks hitting the ride cymbal sound wrong as they don't have any of the upper harmonics.

Normally I don't mind a warm sound as I have a lean sounding system (Magico speakers) but I don't like mud.

I don't have the Classic pressing, but I do have an original 360 as well as the Sony 50th anniversary. They both sound very different from this reissue (as does all the digital versions I have). Someone took some license with the Mofi and editorialized.

If people support this type of stuff, I'm afraid we're going to see a lot more of it and that has me worried.

Sorry, had to rant.

Michael Fremer's picture
Glad you got it off your chest. However, when Greg Calbi mastered the 50th anniversary edition he definitely EQ'd the bass. This is a Calbi quote from an excellent emusician story by Ken Micaleff:

"We tried several different pieces of equipment to get the roundness we wanted on the bass. I ran the audio into a custom line-stage amplifier designed by Barry Wolifson, then into an EAR DAR822Q equalizer— boosting around 100Hz to get the bottom as full as possible—and then into the Muth console. Other than that, I didn’t want anything in my signal chain that might change the original relationships of the instruments. I didn’t want to start EQing and changing the tone of things. It was basically a transfer of the mix, but fattened up to get it as smooth as possible."

Grant M's picture

Michael, you started this MoFI review wondering about the source tape and stated - "Or was it another three-to-two track transfer created in 2009 for Sony's 50th Anniversary box set, that included ... a blue vinyl LP mastered from that tape at Sterling Sound by Greg Calbi (and probably sourced from a 96/24 digital file) that was unfortunately poorly pressed?"

Most of this statement of yours seems to be contradicted by Greg Calbi himself.
He said the 50th vinyl was created from the 1997 tape by Mark Wilder. So two points - what 2009 transfer? and why do you think the 50th vinyl was cut from a digital file?

It's seems like a properly researched article on source tapes of kind of blue would be very helpful.
From what i've read trying to follow this mess:

1. The 90s Classic Records mastered by BG used original 3 track masters and cut directly to vinyl.
2. In 1997 Mark Wilder remixed a new 2 track stereo master from the Safety 3 track master.
3. "Recently" sony had the 3 track masters transferred to 2 track stereo tape, and digital files,
and the original masters are now deemed unusable. (according to the 2013 KOB mono RSD article)
4. The MoFi 45 rpm used the 1997 2 track remix master tape.

Michael Fremer's picture
I have amended the review.
iyke's picture

You took the words right out of my mouth. This reissue is a sad disappointment. After numerous play back of this Mofi KOB I became convinced that those 4 years it took to release it were not spent making a better version of KOB, it was simply spent wrangling with the decision of wether or not this reissue was fit to be released. At the end of the day I fear bottom line consideration forced Mofi into releasing this flawed reissue. And that decision itself is a sad commentary on Mofi.

Even when it is clear as day that what one hears on this reissue is not from any master tape, Mofi Cynically has the nerve to fly their "Original Master Recording" banner over this reissue

Michael Fremer's picture
From the master tape that today exists produced using the 3 track original tape and mixed down to 2 track analog tape just as was the original master tape that's no longer useable.
audiof001's picture

'but boy is there air and revert'... Ya mean reverb, right?

Michael Fremer's picture
Damon or to spill. Will ficks.
dconsmack's picture

better than the Classic to my ears. The instruments sound more realistic, whereas the Classic 33.3 version translates the sound of the recording and mastering gear.

alexdias's picture

There are so many versions of KOB that I don't know where to go. I have an early press columbia but it's not in get shape, a reissue from the 2000 that is just OK.
Unfortunately I have a thing for 33.3 and not a fan of 45's. What should I get???

Michael Fremer's picture
Find the Absolute Analogue
alexdias's picture


isaacrivera's picture

Is Absolute Analogue the label? Discogs has no 1998 KOB releases :(

alexdias's picture

After Michael's recommendation I researched availability and price. It's incredibly rare and this version is not even amongst the 190 issues on discogs. I found a picture of the record on-line and one copy was sold last year on the UK eBay for £29.

john75's picture

I'm confused. The Absolute Analogue I was able to acquire after I read your review of the Mofi sounds much better in my ears than all other versions (Classic 33rpm 2lp and blue vinyl, Classic 45rpm and the Mofi) that I was surprised to find this review just a moment ago.
Anyway, I can start saving money for a VG++ original pressing...

"Still, if you can't find an original pressing, the Classic does the music and the recording justice. The Absolute Analogue version just glared, and the secondhand source (they used the original UK production master) was painfully apparent."

Michael Fremer's picture
would you like me to hold you to what you said and/or wrote in the year 2000? That was oh, 15 years ago, and guess what? I was wrong!
Kpfeifle's picture

I really enjoyed the article and am trying to find all of the referenced versions on Discogs, I have found everything except thr Ray Staff Absolute Analog version. Can somebody add a link to that copy on Discogs please?

PeterPani's picture

As always from this era, the reel-to-reel is not to beat (if you have a tubed tape machine). But, be prepared to pay $250 for a good tape. By the way, I always wonder why 99% of my tapes on reel (I guess, I have some 400), including early mono-tapes from Furtwangler from the mid-50'a are still sounding like new without any deteroration, but all the master tapes are in bad shape? Anyway, my guess is the original vinyl still sounds better than todays efforts, because in the old days the whole replaying/cutting chain was all tubed.

kenkirk's picture

my experience with open reel tape from the late 50's and early to mid 60's is as yours. Hard to beat. I do not notice any loss of top end. The only downside to the 7.5 ips reels is the hiss. But its not riding on the music and sounds like a light rain outside. And I am always surprised at how good even the 3.75 ips reels sound from this era. So yea we have reel night every once in a while and just play tape. Its a special sound.


PeterPani's picture

I have got a tubed tone head amp. That helps against hiss that sounds - egrh - more digital through solid preamps. Additionaly you need the correct EQ circuits for the right reequalisation and the right guess on the tape used. If you go the whole way than tape hiss vanishes mostly. I mean, the tape hiss should also be on the original vinyls if done true to the source. So, tape hiss is no argument against tape. Moreover, missing tape hiss on vinyl is the first sign that something went wrong in the mastering prozess to vinyl.

Martin's picture

Can anyone tell me, definitively, was the Record Store Day mono reissue of Kind of Blue, was this digital or all analogue?

My understanding is it was digital at 192/24.
Anybody know any different?

DinaMoe's picture

Here is my short email conversation with the mastering engineer's (Ryan K. Smith) assistant at Sterling Sound back in May of this year.

"Hello Leigh,

I’m trying to get in touch with Ryan Smith, I just have a question for him regarding his fairly recent work on Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue that he did back in 2013 for Record Store Day. There has been SO much back and forth on the many message boards that nobody knows what to believe. I was hoping he could put it to bed for all us.

Could you pass this question along to him?

The 2013 RSD release of Kind of Blue in MONO. Was it cut from an analog mixdown tape, or from a mixdown digital file?




"Hi Michael,

Thanks for getting in touch about this. Ryan did cut from analog tape. Based on our records, it looks like it was ¼” tape. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Make of it what you will...

Martin's picture

From that cryptic message it could mean anything. But... it could well be that RSD mono issue was indeed done using the analogue transfer that was done along with the digital transfers. It would explain why it sounds so good. I have one and it really does sound good. Easily comparable with the 1D/1D mono original I have. The RSD is - to me - somewhat clearer and more transparent.

DinaMoe's picture

Cryptic for sure. But I'd bet money that she's referring to the analog transfer that you mentioned. And it's nice to know that it compares to a 1D/1D!

Michael Fremer's picture
The recent mono is a prize.
John G's picture

I'm finding these 2013 RSD Mono recordings of Miles Davis to be very good sounding and a great value. I recently started with Jazz Track followed by Someday My Prince Will Come and have Miles Ahead on the way.

Grant M's picture

I can't say definitely, but we do know that Sony made likely the "last" copies of the original 3 track safety tapes, (at the correct speed) according to Steve Berkowitz and engineer Mark Wilder. These copies were formatted in High rez digital, as well as 2 track stereo and mono tapes were transferred, so we know analog tapes exist.

The somewhat interesting fact here is that MFSL responded that the new 45rpm stereo version was made from the 1997 Wilder remix 2 track tapes, and not the more recent transfers. I wonder what possible reason there would be for that decision?

Michael Fremer's picture
There was not a more recent 3-2 transfer. My mistake. I misread the emusician story. I've amended the review.
firedog's picture

I'm not a rare vinyl collector. I have a Columbia vinyl LP from the early 70's which isn't great.
I also have the DSD rip of the SACD reissue (2009 remaster from original tape to SACD).
The DSD sounds orders of magnitude better than my "average" LP version.
I can't comment on any of these special vinyl versions, just giving some perspective.

MBishop's picture

Hi, Michael.
There is yet another "Kind Of Blue" re-release that had a considerable amount of work put into the remastering and manufacturing processes and that may be worthy of serious consideration in your review of the various versions. Sony Hong Kong, in conjunction with Winston Ma and First Impression Music, asked me to produce a new CD master of "Kind Of Blue" about three years ago. Working again with a transfer of the analog masters performed by Mark Wilder, I made a new UHD-32 CD master for Sony Hong Kong that was used to produce a limited run of Ultra HD CDs, manufactured under license from First Impression Music. This limited edition is available in the U.S. at Elusive Disc -

Other Sony Hong Ultra HD titles we mastered with the UHD-32 process, using the best analog or digital sources we could track down, include the Dave Brubeck Quartet's "Time Out," Sonny Rollins "The Bridge," Al DiMeola "Friday Night in San Francisco," Yo-Yo Ma "Japanese Melodies," Harry Belafonte "Belafonte at Carnegie Hall," and Jascha Heifetz "Double Concertos."

I hope you have a chance to listen!

Michael Fremer's picture
Sounds interesting. I should get the KOB and compare it to Mo-Fi's new hybrid SACD. The CD layer of that sounds kind of blah...
wgb113's picture


I'm surprised you didn't touch on the bass in the MoFi vs the Classic, as it seems much more prominent in the former but not, to me, in an overdone sense rather how it always should have sounded.
I know that'll get some panties in a bunch but I sometimes wish on a lot of these reissues that we'd get a more modern mix that didn't have to take into account the quality of mainstream playback equipment of the 50s and 60s.


labjr's picture

You got me!

Smokey's picture

They get digital files from Sony. And this is what they replied me regarding the limited 2014 blue vinyl release.

"We received and used high res audio files (192 KHZ / 24 BIT) of the 2014 re-master by Steve Berkowitz."

Consoleman's picture

My only point of comparison is the Legacy 180g reissue (don't know how that was sourced) but this is a whole different recording. Spacious and magical is an apt description. It's a keeper.

Martin's picture

So I'm very interested in what I'm getting.
But that RSD mono reissue, If that is digital, I can't tell. So if digital, it must be 192/24. I would assume.
I actually have 3 original monos, the 1D/1D, a 1J/1J and a 1AC/1B (go figure).
The speed issue isn't really a problem, using Feickerts platter app on the iPhone you can correct, by reducing the testtone 1.25% from 3,150Hz to 3,111Hz to get side one on pitch. But it's fiddly and the RSD issue is so good, I can just put it on play. No fiddling with the speed control.
I'm looking forward to getting this issue of Kind of Blue. From all the reviews and commentary since it came out, it is sounding like it is really good.

elvis's picture

I believe the Original Mono LP had no speed issues. It was running on a different machine than the stereo.

Grant M's picture

What amazes me is that it took until 1992 for someone like Mark Wilder to discover the stereo vinyl records were too fast on side one. Nobody before that compared an original mono to the original stereo? Surely Japanese collectors who love mono vinyl must have found out there was a pitch difference between them? Obviously Wilder had access to the tapes to realize the problem, but for over 30 years there were collectors with the vinyl in their hands. Nobody noticed?

randybass's picture

I've been delighted to see transcripts of interviews from Teo Macero, one of two producers of Kind of Blue along with Irving Townsend, and his reaction to the speed correction hub bub. In 2002 he stated: "Teo—Even the 'Kind of Blue' album. They went back and put in the alternate tracks. It's not right.

Interviewer —You really have a problem with that. There was a speed correction also done to the mastering.

Teo — Yeah I know that. It's like they were criticizing me. Miles didn't object to it. Gil (Evans) didn't object to it. The musicians didn't object to it. It was some body at Columbia that said they discovered it. Now if you listen to the original its much better it's a better groove".

In 2004 Macero implied the quicker speed of the original was intentional: "And then we had a lot of special equipment that I had CBS invent for me. I would say, “Look it, I have a crazy idea in my head. I want to be able to change the pitch, change the speed.” They said, “Teo, we can’t do that. We hear they’re working on that in Europe.” And I said, “But I want to move that beat, just off, so that if we slow it down just a little bit it will put it into the right, as the guys now say, pocket. That was a lot of favorite expressions of these guys, put it in the pocket. So, what I would do, I would put some tape around the cap stand and slow it down just enough to give it a better groove. . . Now, I did this so frequently with Miles that it was like second nature for me because I didn’t have to worry about anything because I knew that there was one record that we did with, Kind of Blue. You’re all familiar with that. Well, that record came out and was a huge success. Much later, maybe about ten years later somebody said, one of the trumpet players who happened to come to the studio said, “I can’t play with this thing because it’s just off pitch.” “Aw,” I said, “Really?” Laughs.

They made such a big issue out of it, I said, “Look it, what they hell do I care? I couldn’t care less!” I said, “If Gil Evans, who is the daddy of them all. And Miles, who made it, and a few of the musicians and myself, we like it. Then it must be right.” He said, “But you know, the tape is regular speed.” I said, “Look it, I have no control about that.” They said, “Well we’re going to change it.” And they changed it.

Now, if you listen to the new one, you’ll find out that the groove is not exactly right".

p.s. in the first interview Teo talks about digital vs. analog, cd vs. vinyl:

wao62's picture

What an insight that the speed bump of the original was intentional & "...if you listen to the original its much better it's a better groove."
On Youtube there are some excerpts of Teo Macero interviews from a film in production called PLAY THAT,TEO that are well worth watching.

lukpac's picture

This comment is a few years old, but it's worth addressing.

First of all, Macero did not produce Kind of Blue, Irving Townsend did. He was not "one of two" producers, he wasn't a producer. It's Townsend's voice on the session tapes and name in the studio logs. Not only that, by Macero's own admission, the first album he produced was Dave Brubeck's Gone With The Wind. Which just happened to be recorded on April 22 and 23, 1959, in Los Angeles. April 22 was also the date of the second Kind of Blue session - in New York. It's clear Macero had no involvement with the original recording. He *did* produce the 1987 remix for CD, but obviously that's something very different.

Second, the Mastersound CD from 1992 was the first release to use the correct speed safety tapes. That release incorrectly credited Macero, but interestingly, had this note about the speed issue:

"Over the years. many musicians have noticed that the first side of Kind of Blue (So What, Freddie Freeloader and Blue In Green) is about a quarter-tone sharp, and wondered what Miles could have had in mind. According to Teo Macero, the speed change was not intentional, and it is corrected there for the first time, using the safety tapes."

Grant M's picture

I've been reading Ashley Khan's book, the making of kind of blue, and they reference only a 3 track prime and safety tape, and on page 101 ot says Columbia used the 3 track prime to produce both the stereo and mono records. So with only two ampex 3 track machines in the studio, a prime and safety, it's not possible for the Stereo and mono records to be different speeds since they came from the same source tape.

iyke's picture

"I wish Mo-Fi would be more forthcoming about this critical reissue so I wouldn't have to be guessing and speculating here, but they were tight lipped, which left me no choice other than to guess about certain facts."

In response to your words above, I proffer that it is been the experience of this vinyl lover that anytime a reissue label maintains radio silence about the source of their reissue it is an indication that they are embarrassed by the source itself or they are trying to pull one over on the buyer. Why else would an analog reissue label wish to hide their source material. Surely it is not because record buyers will feel cheated if they learn that Mofi or any other label cut a reissue from the original analog source?

In the case of KOB we all know from reporting that the tape is in terrible shape, which makes the situation even more questionable.

Auric G's picture

Possibly, they don't want to set a precedent, i.e. once, one reissue's source is given, then any other reissues that are less than forthcoming will be suspect. That's why I purchase Analogue Productions reissues w/o hesitation.

elliotdrum's picture

I bought Kind of Blue(mono) the first time in 1960.
I had at that time a Voice of Music record player.
The first track -So What- had a skip at the start
of Miles's Solo and skipped three beats.
I now have 3 different cds and the Classic Records
33/45 set and none of them sound right without the

jazz's picture

Michael, you named a few reissues you compared the new Mofi to. What about Kevin Gray's Stereo reissues for Sony?

Michael Fremer's picture
Where those produced?
jazz's picture

Kevin Grey remastered the Sony Legacy reissue in 2010 and in case they ran out of KOB since then he probably did it again

john ryan horse's picture

Think I'll pass on this edition. For perspective, I recall hesitating to buy the 2001 Van Gelder "Birth of the Cool" (1st time original master tape used!!!) after buying the double CD edition Sony issued two years earlier (w/never released live disc!!!). I couldn't believe a 52 year old 1st generation master could sound so full deep and luxurious..So much better than the 1998 edition. So I do think Mofi should be more transparent - just as I felt 20 yeas ago when they put out gold cds clearly not sourced from the original masters..