clarke68

Yeah, it is...although you can probably thank recent trends in fuel prices for that one.

Bob Ludwig said as much in a BAS article back in the '80s. Quoting the relevant part: Read the whole thing here. I wondered yesterday if the differences I heard between Tatum's playing style and Zenph's Tatum's playing style could be simply the presence (or absence) of tape hiss & noise on the recordings. I don't think that's the case, based on listening to better Tatum recordings...but it crossed my mind.

$20 a disc is a little high, but not insanely so if you're a fan of the group. I assume this is one they put out themselves (rather than a Nonesuch release), so a larger percentage than usual of the $$$ should wind it's way back into the actual artists' pockets. I only have their first one, the 3-disc job with Ornette Coleman tunes on it. Which of the others would you recommend?

As Adam pointed out, I only countered the critiques of people who judged the album based on theory, who hadn't really heard it beyond the Amazon samples. Whether it's better or not I'll leave to you, but ya gotta admit this is completely different than any of the "enhancements" you mention. In my bit above I left out the thing I most liked about the Zenph recording: it's really incredible that now you can hear every note. In all of the early Tatum recordings I've heard, his 32nd & 64th notes are either obscured by noise or they run together due to hall ambiance; here each is articulated & distinct. The Zenph thing may be the best demonstration yet of what a freaking monster Tatum really was. Now, whether or not that's an "improvement" is debatable. I suspect that Tatum's intent was to get as close to glissando as possible on the piano...I don't buy for a second Zenph's marketing materials that say this is "the way Tatum heard it". If he would have had sound like this, he probably would have stepped it up to 128th notes! I can see this recording being of real value to a serious student of Tatum. For a regular Joe like me, switching between this and the original recordings is a very enjoyable way of getting to know his music, although not the way I'd listen every day. That could be me...I actually never really listened to Tatum before yesterday.

I have to agree with adhoc here...blowing off this album after listening to the samples on Amazon is no different than some kid blowing off Tatum by listening to 30 sec. sound bites of the original "Piano Starts Here" and blowing it off because the sound sucks. This makes absolutely no sense. Sure, Tatum made some good sounding recordings, but Piano Starts Here was not one of them, and that's the album we're talking about here. This album is what it is. It's not Tatum, and no one is pretending that it is. This is no different than Gershwin or Rachmaninov "recording" piano rolls, except now we have the technology to do it from a recording, for the thousands of artists who never sat down at a pianola. According to Amazon.com, 20% of the people buying this new Zenph thing are buying the original Piano Starts Here right along with it...Tatum's genius is getting out there, and that's a good thing. I see no reason to be dogmatic about the process. That said... I just got done going through both albums, alternating tracks all the way through (real Tatum's "Tiger Rag", then Zenph's; Zenph's "Sophisticated Lady", then Tatum's; etc.) and yeah, this sounds (unsurprisingly I guess) like a player piano. It's most noticeable in the left "hand"...the notes end too abruptly, giving the whole thing a subtle mechanical sound. Some passages work better than others, but some of Tatum's more swinging moments have sort of a "drum machine" kind of swing on this. It's not all bad...I found I could "blur my ears" and still enjoy the performance, not entirely unlike the way I can listen through the murk on the original and still enjoy it. I was a bit surprised, as I really liked Zenph's Glenn Gould thing from a year or two ago. The problem with it was a bit more fundamental: Gould, like most great musicians, would alter his playing to suit the particular instrument in the particular room he was in. If he had recorded on that piano, in that hall in 1955, he wouldn't have played it that way. The album still moves me, though, perhaps because I'm less familiar with Bach than I am with jazz piano. Since this time around Zenph was recording in the same hall Tatum played in 1933, I thought the "hall problem" would be solved. But beside Tatum being absent, there's still an issue with the instrument. I'm nothing of a piano player, but in one of the classes I took in college I was playing a waltz, and the teacher told me to use the muscles in my shoulders instead of my forearms to play one part. I couldn't believe how much difference it made in the sound...warmer, slower, but more intense. Surely a guy like Tatum knew how to play the piano with his whole body, and I doubt Yamaha's robot piano can, no matter how sophisticated the software behind it. Still, it's an interesting effort that, I think, does more good than harm. Apparently Zenph has a robot bass & trap kit in the works as well, so if you hated this, wait until we have jazz trio re-performances! Completely disagree, but it only works if the recording is done well and your speakers are set up properly. When it's all right (and it is all right on a lot of albums), the band sounds like it's standing right in front of you, each musician in their place, spread across your room. I've read that you can get the same effect with mono: again, the recording has to be right for it; but you have to use just one speaker.

I think Chauncey's point, overstated tho it is, is more that these articles should be linked to, rather than cut & pasted outright, so the the author('s website) can see some of the resulting clickthrough/ad impressions/income/whatever. I'm with you that I wouldn't see a tenth of these articles if they weren't pointed out here or on JC...and despite the quality concerns Chauncey brings up (maybe more other place than here...the Taylor article wasn't bad), I see no issue with mentioning an article about Cecil Taylor in a thread about Cecil Taylor, with or without commentary. Very cool Taylor will be playing SF again this year...I heard he all but cleared the room the last time he played Grace Cathedral in 1991. I've only seen him once, at the North Sea Jazz Festival in 1990 (with Tony Oxley and William Parker, I'm pretty sure), and was profoundly blown away. I'd love to hear him with this recently introduced (?) spaciousness in his playing...hopefully I can make the gig in October.

I have an i-deck for my bedroom system...absolutely love it. For $150, it's probably the best sound quality:dollar system I've ever heard.

Thanks for sharing...musta been a great festival regardless. Did you catch the Will Dixon performance, 17 Musicians in Search of a Sound: Darfur? I've heard it was amazing. Aum has that coming out soon, too (available now only at aumfidelity.com).

The whole piece has an Egyptian vibe to it. It may be based on actual North African scales/modes for all I know...I haven't read the liners because I don't own the disc (yet...just listening on Rhapsody for now). The set list is: 1. Akhenaten (Amenophis, Amenhotep IV) 2. Aten and Amarna 3. Pharaoh's Revenge (Akhenaten) Intro Part 1 4. Pharaoh's Revenge Part 1 5. Pharaoh's Revenge (Tutankhamun) Intro Part 2 6. Pharaoh's Revenge Part 2 7. Sunset On The Nile

The vote is still out on this one for me. I've spun it up almost half a dozen times, I can't decide if I like it or love it. Campbell's playing is excellent: smooth & soulful; and the proceedings have a nice laid back groove. Just might be a bit too laid back to be a true keeper. Anyone else heard this and have any opinions?

Fascinating thread...thanks to all who have contributed. I'll join the minority opinion, I like the "CIMP sound". I only have two albums of theirs: a Trio X and a solo date by Jay Rosen. The Rosen is particularly amazing, it puts a live drum set in my living room better than any other recording I own. I completely disagree with the notion that you need a $xxxxx system for these recordings to sound good...I put my system together carefully and it's not mass market stuff (most of it), but it's far from the nosebleed section of the price continuum. In fact, I played the Rosen CD on a friend's (much better, much more expensive) system, and it didn't have the same magic I get at home. I think it's fair to say that the "minimalist" sound is not for everyone, it is distant and somewhat lacking in impact, but its advantages (the immediacy, clean instrument timbre and holographic soundstage) more than make up for it. CIMP makes their aesthetic pretty clear, you should know what you're getting before you lay down your $$$. That said... These are great points. Perhaps these opinions are very common in the recording industry, but I've never heard them stated so succinctly, and I find them remarkably refreshing. As much as I like all (well, most of) the CIMP, Chesky, & Mapleshade albums I own, I don't actually listen to them as often as more "normal" sounding albums like what the other Jim A. does. I'm glad people are active doing this minimalist miking stuff, but I'm equally glad that not everyone is doing it. What's with the vitriol? I mean, fine if you don't like the label or whatever, and maybe I'm out of touch with the impact they have (very few people I know have even heard of CIMP), but do you really think the world would be a better place if these 500 or so releases didn't exist? Some people say the same thing about Manfred Eicher, Wynton, Norah (and by association, Bruce Lundvall), etc. but I hardly think any of them, regardless of whether or not I like what they do, is doing more harm than good.

I don't know if this is near your price range or not ($650), but I've heard great things about the Outlaw RR2150. No mono switch, tho.

One of the best around for a clean, accurate sound is the Benchmark DAC1.

Hey Jim! Just wanted to say I've been a fan of yours for years, but I didn't know it. I've always loved the sound on those David Murray DIW albums, and on the Masada studio albums...I always said to myself "man, those Japanese dudes really know how to record...". After I found this board I looked you up and realized it was you all along! Anyway...question for you. What do you look for in a home audio system? Many audiophiles go on about the importance of accuracy, flat frequency response, etc. (of course many others go on about tubes, single drivers, euphonic distortion, etc.), but the general consensus seems to be that studio gear is too "clinical". I've perused the thread and found your preference for Genelecs and Meyers in the studio...do you like those when you listen for pleasure also? Is there a difference in your mind between a "monitoring" setup and a "listening" setup? Thanks in advance. Really grateful for your presence here on the board.

No problem, and as it happens, we are in complete agreement on the matter. There's enough interesting observations and bunko quackery on both sides of the subjectivist/objectivist debate to prevent me from thoroughly aligning with either camp.

I assure you that I am not Greg. I'm as new to Organissimo as my post count suggests.

LOL. I mentioned this in response to your "questionable, from a psychological perspective" comment, only to point out that there's a limit to the quality of research we can expect in this area. I don't have issues with anyone's trivial pursuits...obviously I'm interested enough in the sound of power cords to be talking about it here, and I design banner ads for a living!

It's probably a good, heavy gauge shielded Volex. They may be more than $20 now that the price of copper has gone through the roof. This is an interesting question. Here's a link that explains that "acoustic memory" is part of short-term memory, which by definition is 3-20 seconds in most people. However, I think the type of memory Kevin is referring to is technically "sensory memory" (the ability to maintain an exact copy of what is seen or heard), because that is what would be required to detect something as subtle as a difference between power cords or whatever, and it's only about 300ms. The ability of a child to recognize her mother's voice is, I believe, something else entirely. If I'm understanding this correctly, "acoustic memory" is more the ability to remember things you hear, like what your professor just said in a lecture, and we forget all that stuff unless we transfer it to long-term memory by repetition or writing or something. The objective vs. subjective argument in audio has been raging for decades, and I'm convinced at this point that no study or test of any kind, no matter how well designed, will ever end it. If someone hears something, I don't think it's possible (or even worth the time) to try and convince him that he can't. Most of the people doing real research on hearing, perception, and the brain are on to much more important subjects than the things audiophiles geek out about.

It has been done, to predictable results. Note that this is the article where jazz1 found his quotes below. Can you provide links to reviews of some equipment that measures "wonderfully" and also "does not sound good"? Apparently there are "countless" numbers of them, so they should be very easy to find. :-) Obviously, you'll be hard pressed to find any reviews of equipment that "does not sound good". You can find many cases where a reviewer prefers one unit to another, but that has to do with the unit's price more often than it's measurements. I realize these are not your points, but this one is particularly silly. I'm a listener accustomed to the sound of live acoustic performance, but I'm not above being "captivated" by a good, swinging tune played on a cheap boom box. How is this supposed to support the notion that $300 power cords make a difference? Seriously, tho...the most common case where audiophiles prefer equipment that does not measure well is with tube amps, which often demonstrate large (1% or more) percentages of 2nd order distortion. 2nd order distortion is very difficult to hear, and when audible, can come across as "warmth" or a subtle, pleasing "bloom" to the sound. No secret there, but alluding to that fact to justify the sonic effect of power cords is seriously reaching. It's true, measurements can't tell you how a component sounds. However, that doesn't make them irrelevant...every legitimate designer of audio gear uses measurements extensively during product development. Also, the pieces of gear you are probably referring to: amps, CD players, etc.; are several orders of magnitude more complex electrically than a power cord, and vastly more susceptible to the vagaries of implementation, part choice, etc. There are indeed many mysteries about the mind and our perception of sound. There are very few mysteries about line transmission theory and how electrons move through wire. These are completely different. Our foremost experts on brain research suspect that we might know 5% of how our brains work. Any time you get in a serious conversation with one of these guys about things that are interesting to audiophiles (like, why can I hear a difference between amplifiers when I'm just listening, but I can't when I'm doing an A/B test?) you are quickly informed this is an area that no one understands. The more knowledgeable the expert, the more emphatic his line in the sand will be. If you can hear a difference between a $300 power cord and, say, a Volex 17604, the chances are much more likely it's because of what's between your ears than what's between your audio system and your power mains. The power of suggestion and confirmation bias is well known (but impossible to measure), but I've yet to see too many audiophiles give these things more credence than the money and/or time they spent on their latest upgrade.

I recommend the Sony SCD-CE595. It's $150, and turns up refurbished on sonystyle.com every now and then much cheaper. It doesn't do HDCD, but does an great job on SACD for the money. I also have an Oppo 980 that I like, but it sounds a bit mushy compared to the Sony. Horses for courses.

In that particular case, I think it means you have the remastered Rolling Stones albums, "secretly" released as Hybrid-SACDs. Back when Sony was promoting SACD, they converted their Terre Haute plant to the (full time?) production of SACDs, and started working the labels to convince them to support the format. Whichever label it was that produced the Rolling Stones remasters you have (Abcko?) got behind it, but thought that labeling the discs "Hybrid SACD" might make people think these were only for audiophiles, and thus hurt sales. SACD has since (unfortunately) failed to take off, Sony no longer promotes it, and the Terre Haute plant's SACD output has been reduced to one day a week, last I heard. Those Abcko SACD remasters are OOP, getting pretty rare, and aren't ridiculously expensive on eBay yet, but getting there.

Just found this from the link in the more recent Hat thread. I've been looking forward to the reissue of Wilisau (Quartet) for years. It's been on his "coming soon" list for a while...I've been starting to doubt it's ever going to see the light of day. Hopefully...I have money set aside for it and everything. I've had attitudes with Hat over it in the past...when the thing starts going for a couple hundred bucks on eBay, you wonder just what the guy is thinking. Just the same, if anybody cared about all the projects I start & don't finish (or don't start at all) enough to post about it on the web, you'd all have worse things to say about me than ol' Werner X. It would be interesting to find out if any offers have been made for the catalog, by artists or other labels. I always thought the digital downloading thing would be great for labels' OOP catalogs...hopefully somebody makes money from DIW putting all of David Murray's stuff up on eMusic and the idea catches on. FWIW...I like the Hat packaging, although perhaps its better for storage than for shipment (I've never had a scratched disc). And while the cover image selection seems somewhat random, the overall design really couldn't be more Swiss.

Kind of funny, those things are called "Spiral Trash Effects" cymbals. I'm completely out of touch with the price of cymbals, but they aren't as expensive as I would have guessed: about $180 at Musician's Friend.

Okay, just did the the comparison between the "Let's Get Lost" SACD and redbook (that I got from the library) on my friend's system. We used his modded Sony player for the SACD and a Marantz CD5001/Benchmark DAC1 combo for the redbook, playing through his Linkwitz Orions (best speakers I've ever heard). The difference was very subtle. Nothing really stood out in the overall presentation, but the SACD sounded a touch more lifelike. On redbook, the singers seemed to be standing a few feet in front of the band, but on SACD they seemed more integrated. I would think the differences would be more obvious to you since you're very familiar with the recording/performance. Not sure if an average listener on an average system would be able to tell.

If said PhD thesis was about the impact of suggestion, pricing, and perceived value on psychoacoustics then yeah, that could be interesting. The engineering aspects of the whole matter, on the other hand, barely warrant a pamphlet, let alone a thesis. Electrically, a cable has three properties: resistance, capacitance, and inductance. These are the same three properties influenced by a speaker crossover, so yes, cables certainly can change the sound of your system. If you don't want them to, you want cables that have the lowest RCL values you can find. What the boutique cable "manufacturers" seldom tell you is that cables with vanishingly low RCL (particularly at the insignificant lengths used in most home audio systems) are very common and very inexpensive. The real cable manufacturers, like Belden or Canare, have been working on this for decades, and their cable can be found almost anywhere (e.g., the cable in the Black & Decker product mentioned by the OP was probably made by Belden). There are cases where the most expensive cables in a boutique company's line introduce more distortion into a system than their entry-level options. Presumably, this is to sell to audiophiles who feel they should "hear a difference" if they spend more.