Browsing Discogs, I see mention of a pressing defect causing a skip on some copies of the 40th
1 Like
I’d seen that too.
My 45th repress of the 40th is fine. I don’t much like the gold vinyl, but it sounds good.
2 Likes
Curiously and interestingly there is a 2020 remaster done at Air Studios (same as the 40th & 50th) which is cheaper and has some good feedback on Discogs. Possibly the same HiRes source is my guess but without the controversial Half Speed process. Both the 50th and cheaper 2020 are cut by the same engineer at Air.
I will also consider the 2016 recomended by @krautnaimie and maybe earlier copies but finding them in good clean condition online is an issue.
Similarly I’m interested in a good Aladdin Sane
1 Like
I thought the 40th was AAA sourced, not from HR?
Might be mistaken - I didn’t look too closely into it as I had my old good non-digi copies. But I don’t mind a bit of digital in the chain so long as the result sounds excellent.
I think you misunderstood Stevie, my last comment referring to the 50th and a cheaper 2020 remaster also on sale at Juno that I found whilst writing. Their both cut at Air by JW, my guess being from the same HiRes source with the only difference being the half speed cut for the 50th.
Not sure from what I’ve been reading that the 40th is proven to be AAA? remastered from analogue source could mean anything. Apparently I read somewhere that Tony Visconti said that the Bowie masters had been transfered to HiRes as the tapes were in declining condition. So could the 40th be from HR? the remastered from analogue source is a pretty vague description which could suggest a digital cut.
I agree though, I’m not too concerned about AAA vs Digital, if it sounds good it is
2 Likes
so trial and error 
At Juno you could send it back I think?
1 Like
According to Discogs,
Original 1957/58 pressings were Mono
(a stereo pressing came out later in 1972 under a different title and sleeve - Councelation)
Not until 1984 with OJC were Stereo pressings common.
So if you have an original its probably Mono.
If the above information is correct then perhaps its fair to say that Mono is how it was originally intended and maybe playing a stereo copy with the channels summed (using mono button if your pre amp has one, as I suggested to @Richard.Dane) might be a better way to hear it.
1 Like
According to the sleeve notes it was recorded by Roy DuNann using a pair of AKG C-12 microphones. I guess they would have summed them to mono for the mono release.
1 Like
Yes and no. I wouldnt send a record back unless it was faulty. Juno are a great independent online retailer with a great service but I wouldnt feel comfortable sending stuff back just because I didnt like the sound (unless it was down to dodgy mastering or something).
I would have no such qualms with Bezos’s outfit but I avoid buying from there anyway.
1 Like
Sure, (My Mono of Art Pepper Rhythm Section states multiple microphone technique featuring AKG C-12 microphones) but using a pair (or more) microphones for a recording doesnt neccesarily mean that they were prioritising a stereo mix. (Apart from stereo two or more mic’s might be used in a studio to better capture individual instruments whilst recording to a full track mono tape)
The information I drew from Discogs (assuming it to be correct) would suggest to me that Mono was where it was at at the time. Maybe as perhaps few people had Stereo playback equipment then, engineers were still thinking in Mono with Stereo a secondary thought. For example Rudy Van Gelder for many years continued to monitor his recordings/mixes in Mono whilst mastering for “stereo”.
An interesting article here, although its specifically about Blue Note this caption perhaps better explains my point
When it comes to recording equipment though, the terms “mono” and “stereo” can be misleading. When recording studios first implemented two-track tape recorders in the 1950s, they weren’t always utilized with the sole aim of creating a stereo “field” or “image”. So these tape recorders and their tapes were not typically referred to as “stereo” but rather “two-track”, and single-track (mono) equipment and tapes came to be referred to as “full-track”.
In the dawn of stereo, before the format had proven itself a viable commodity, many producers and recording artists still focused on the mono “mix” of a recording. In many of these instances, both the mono and stereo releases of an album were derived from a single two-track tape, but the producers and recording artists only gave the mono version their undivided attention. This was the case with The Beatles’ earliest recordings, for example.
1 Like
Same here, first press (mint and fabulous), later press (not so mint but still excellent) and the 50th Half Speed Remaster (mint and amazing) IMHO😉
1 Like
LOL, amazing…
Glad you enjoy it!
Proves we all hear differently I guess 
1 Like
Different perceptions, systems etc. Some people like Marmite…
I’m just streaming a 2012 remaster to get an idea
Agree on the Wayne Shorter, maybe Tony Williams Lifetime. To be honest though on first glance theres not much that really jumps out at me.
1 Like
Whats the difference between fabulous and amazing?
Not a lot, but I do hate using the same superlatives more than once in a single statement. It shows a lack of imagination and linguistic skill😉
As for the 1st press original vs the 50th Anniversary Half Speed etc… they are both excellent and carry a different signature.
If you were to make me pick, I would take the 1st press, but I honestly enjoy them both differently and yet the same🤷🏽♂️
2 Likes
Fabulazing! Cheers 
1 Like
I felt similarly when I read through the upcoming releases. Nothing that was a “must have” but who knows? Maybe some gems in there that I’m yet to discover…?
1 Like