AllenLowe

I admire Hemingway - but have really been unable to listen to him since I heard him on a gig that required straight 4 timekeeping - and he could not do it, kept turning the beat around and drove the saxophonist crazy, as Hemingway did not even realize he was doing it -

yes, and I also had nothing to do with that poor greeting (quick, delete past entries)... but all seriousness aside, as Steve Allen used to say, via your challenge: "And Allen... I'm still waiting for you to recommend a Cd, made with Cedar, from a vinyl transfer, that sounds good - and since you haven't answered, I'll up the ante: The CD has to be a full range recording of 'modern' material recorded in a 'modern' way. That is wildly open to interpretation of course but I welcome your suggestions" actually I was thinking of historical material that had been issued on vinyl and than CD - as for contemporary or other full-range recordings, I don't really know as I don't listen to much and most of what I have is from original sources and not vinyl - my point in that challenege was that there's tons of beautifully mastered historical material on CD that has used CEDAR, which is indispensible for such things - one other thing I'll add, relative to older recordings, and I hope this does not make me seem like a Luddite - as long as the mastering is clean and straightforward, I do not worry about high resolution on old (maybe pre-1980) recordings, and I'll tell you why - I listen to the music as both a fan and as a historian, and I prefer to listen to it in much the same way that people were listening to it at the time it was issued - this is impossible, I know, but I like to get as close as is remotely possible - it gives me more of the original experience - and I like that - (particularly with rock and jazz lps) -

interesting post... the other thing to mention here, and I am ONLY speaking for myself - the majority of music I listen to these days is over 40 years old, so we should make the distinction between music recorded, say, from 1970 on and from 1970 before - with current mastering techniques, CD offers a lot of good sound for older music-

this is why I use a boom box - but seriously, the only way to resolve this is to have you both in the same room doing an a/b on the same sytem with the same recording - I'm neurotic myself when it comes to sound, but I understand the dilemma here. I would, agreeing with Seewhy, be cautious of any lab studies - that is, things in which sound is measured by looking at technical results, not listening to the actual source - I don't know if this is the case with these studies, but I wonder... .

not to add a new wrinkle, but I thought I would mention one thing, as we discuss transferring our beloved vinyl to DVD or CD or CDr or whatever - the most reliable storage medium for sound that we know of is vinyl - easy to store safely, lasts for a LONG time, will play over and over if cared for properly - will last forever if we handle it right - there is no digital medium I would trust half as much - so just keep all this in mind -

ManwiththeGolden Arm: feel free to post the pic here again - might help sell those damn Cds -

Teddy Wilson/Raymond Scott - pretty much the same -

thanks - I'll eat the evidence if need be -

my humble apologies for my previous thread - I would delete it but cannot figure out how to - these are still for sale: (yes, the only thing that can make me apologize is money): Jim - feel free to delete the previous offender: These are CDs for sale, prices include shipping: Bud Shank: The Bud Shank Quartet with Claude Williamson. Nice Japanese Import, Pacific Jazz, rec. 1956. $15 shipped. Sun Ra at the Village Vanguard - with John Gilmore, Chris Anderson, John Ore. Rec. 1991. Rounder. $9 shipped. Raymond Scott: The Unexpected: The Secret ? 1960 sorta jazz session with Toots Thielemans. $9 shipped. Buddy Guy Stone Crazy. $8 shipped. paypal or money order or check - paypal address is ammusic@maine.rr.com; email me at alowe@maine.rr.com -

that might work -

agreed -

intersting, NOF - you told me to shut the fuck up, but I should not make too big a deal of it - but you can make a major deal of my (more mild and joking) attacks on a fellow member - well, I can admit that I was probably out of line, but this is obviously something that would never occur to you - -

Never on Friday - mind your own business - honestly, Jim, there is no easy way for me to trace every thread on every post, but the guy has made a habit of disagreeing with me in snide ways - however, in the interst of organissimo harmon y I will cease and desist, as this is not worth the trouble for me - notice, by the way, that Never on Friday (and others) has used profanity towards me without a whimper of critcism from you or anyone else -

Jim - you're coming a bit late to this and that question of spam has already been dealt with - and I'm entitled to express my reaction to a post, and expressed my belief accordingly, and stood, later, corrected, without a problem and without need of your intercession (try reading the whole thread). As for expressing my dislike of a fellow member, funny you should direct that at me and not Couw, who has made a point of posting after me on more than one occasion to offer personal and direct criticisms -

if there's enough raw info, I'd like to read this book - interesting parallels with Lenny Bruce, vis a ve police harassment - Kempton's a bright guy but there's mistakes in his book on gospel -

3 Stooges - 3 Sounds - coincidence or conspiracy?

that first was PBS tribute to Dizzy, as I recall, and Al was very proud to be on it - good ol' Diz - a real charmer -

Chuck wrote: "BTW, on two differet occasions I saw Diz treat Al Haig like shit. Both times Haig just took it and played impeccably." I'm very curious - what year was this?

from reliable witnesses (Al Haig, Dick Katz) they were astounding every night - don't worry about the contemporary critics, most of whom had their heads where the sun rarely shines -

she was the object of the song Aint She Sweet - her father wrote it specifically for her -

I have no problem with any of that - I was really answering kevin - at any rate, the other thing to consider is the orignal transfer - because if you transfer an LP and someone else transfers the same LP there will be considerable difference in sound - and you are right, it is essentially audio restoration - not unlike the craft of restoring old paintings -

also, to add - I know at least one Mosaic engineer who has got the whole system and it is most likely he used de-click and de-crackle on his Mosaic projects - but as I said, they are similar (I've used 'em all) -

by the way I own a de-clicker - which is very similar to the de-crackler, only slightly less invasive. But, fellas, this is all noise reduction and that boat has already sailed. CEDAR is the standard -

nono nonononononononoonno- EVERY sound restoration person in the world, for the last 15 years, has used the phrase "noise reduction" to refer PRIMARILY to the removal of clicks and pops and crackle. This is not even an arguable point, and I'm sorry if that sounds arrogant, but I have known or spoken to some of the major people in the field (John RT Davies, Seth Winner, Doug Pomeoy) and that is the acknowledged terminology - I have done work for Sony and Rhino and Ryko Disc and Venus Records, and NPR and many many m,any others , and that is the terminology used - sorry to sound so weary here, but that is it - when CEDAR first came into use it's prime reason for being was de-crackling, declicking and de-popping. I know some of the first engineers who used it, and this is absolutely so - and on top of that I live about 3 miles away from the US distributior for CEDAR, and that is the terminology tTHEY use -

if the Sarah Vaughan contained pre-tape sources than I am certain CEDAR was used - however, I don't know that set-