The mono/ stereo battle rages on. Or does it?
The received wisdom is that when it comes to old jazz albums, the mono version sounds miles (sorry) better than the piffling, for lightweights and those poor b#/^'3,*s who just don't 'get it'. In the case of Kind Of Blue, I submit the clearly lightweight and piffling opinion that this is a load of old pants. The stereo and mono versions, according to the sleeve notes, were recorded simultaneously, and as such, the stereo is not a fake, electronic, later add-on. In all the years I've seen reviews of Kind Of Blue, I've never once heard anybody moaning about how terrible it sounds 'because it's in stereo', including me. I have to assume that there's a reason for this, the most obvious being that it sounds great in stereo, and it does. Don't sweat it if you hear the mono version and aren't freaking out about your wasted years listening to that terrible pile of garbage that is the stereo version, because your years will have been spent listening to a 100% stone classic that just sounds a bit different. Don't let yourself be bullied by those who tell you you don't 'get it'. This double cd should confirm the fact that really, they both sound great, and you're hearing them remastered by the same company at the same time, so the actual quality of sound reproduction is the same. All that said, I think I prefer the mono version. Maybe.
Verified purchase: YesCondition: New