Jim R

The Houston Person track reminds me that I had heard him on the radio recently in a duet setting, and was very impressed. I think that was a tenor/piano duet, though. I need to check out his recent discography in more detail. Good stuff, Dan. Thanks again.

Well, the Higgins and the Willette vocals really took me by surprise. I never would have come up with those. I think I may need to check Snidero out a little further. Really dug that track. Thanks again, DG.

One of the reasons I included it in my group of favorite HH recordings is that I think Hawes is one of those players that excelled at interpreting the pop hits of the 60's (I would include Grant Green and Stanley Turrentine as two others who come to mind who got the most out of that music). I happen to enjoy that stuff more than some, because I grew up hearing that music on radio and tv. Anyway, I think Hamp's playing was in very good form at that time ('65 in this case), and for me this recording has stood the test of time.

The discovery component is certainly one of the great things about participating. The "guessing game" is a fundamental aspect, though, and since you're pretty much the only one here who is still guessing, I would have thought it interested you enough to make it worthwhile to engage you about it. Both of your guesses happen to be incorrect, but I don't know if you're interested in more clues, or...? Cheers.

Bill, at this point, you ought to go ahead and read everyone else's posts. It's customary to do that once you've posted all your ideas, and then engage in dialog about what you had right or wrong, what surprised you, etc etc.

Kellen Winslow, Sr. Dan Fouts Russ Francis

Noj, good question. From what I've read so far, my interpretation has been that the problem was caused by an error in manufacturing whereby foreign material (air?) gets in between the aluminum and lacquer layers during production, and the oxidation process begins pretty much immediately (and gradually worsens). As I mentioned, I suspect that my disc had a problem years ago (a sound problem that I dismissed as quite minor), but I never saw any visual evidence of a defect... and now look at it. On the other hand, I guess it's possible for damage to occur after a CD is properly manufactured, and the same rotting process can begin. One other thing... the photos I found when googling showed fogging on the label side of the discs, which is apparently the more vulnerable side in terms of scratching and damage affecting the inner layer. None looked as bad as mine, which is occurring on the bottom (less vulnerable) side. I'm wondering how many people here own the Wes Montgomery Complete Riverside box. For those who do, maybe you could inspect your discs. I'd be curious to see if anyone else finds anything...

Another attempt...

Thanks for the info, Bev. I don't know how many varieties of "rotting" exist, but I've had trouble finding info specific to my situation. I only found a couple of photos, but none that really matched the look of my disc. I did find this article, which explains the basic problem, and wherein somebody claimed that 15 to 20% of their CD's manufactured in the 1980's had begun to rot (believe it, or...). Fwiw, I took a photo of my disc. Hard to get this stuff to look like it's actually in focus...

Okay, this is slightly tangential (to the "pinhole" issue), but when I googled "cd rot" and found this thread, I figured it was close enough. If there's another thread, let me know, but... I recently pulled out my (1993) copy of Wes Montgomery's Complete Riverside Recordings, and found something disturbing. I had a vague recollection that there was one disc where there was a minor (very brief) sound problem on one track. I always figured it was in the mastering, and it wasn't enough to cause me to want to bother inquiring about a replacement. My recollection was that this problem occurred on one of the later discs in the set, but I couldn't remember which one. Well, when I pulled the set out today and picked up disc 11, I found that roughly a third of the inner surface of the bottom of the disc has gone "foggy" (I guess there's some kind of oxidation going on). The disc is now totally unplayable. I found another source for the music, so aside from this set being slightly devalued, it's no big deal, but I'm just curious how rare this might be. It's the first time I've ever encountered this. Maybe I should go look at the oldest discs in my collection...

Ball, Lucille Stryker, Dave

While I truly appreciate that there are folks with a different perspective, different desires and different needs (and I thank you, neveronfriday, for the effort that you obviously put into your posts), I think this may sum it up best for me. I'm sure there may be portable devices developed in the future that will offer significantly improved audio quality options, but (speaking of waiting for years to take action) I've already waited a long time to get my favorite jazz recordings ripped for convenience and portability.

I did NOT know that! Thanks, John.

Dennis Moore (lupine express) The Priest The poor peasant husband

Interesting... I think my "greed for space" may push me to go with 128, unless I learn something new here pretty soon, but I do see your logic. Thanks for sharing the idea. Anybody else have any insights?

The red, red robin Bob N. A. Long

I should add that when I ripped at 128 and at 256, I had selected the "AAC" encoder. I just read this online discussion page, and most of it went right over my head...

Saw an interesting article in Maximum PC, where they performed a blind listening test comparing 128 to 256, using both the Apple earbuds and $400 headphones. The quality of the headphones mattered far more than the encoding rate. At the risk of putting my tech ignorance on public display, I'm bringing this back up to see if I can get some feedback. I just did a little experiment myself, and the result seems to match up with the aforementioned Maximum PC test. After nearly filling up my first iPod with downloads, curiosities, selected videos from Youtube, and music from a variety of genres other than jazz (generally everything BUT the music I love the most- all the classic jazz in my CD collection), I opted to buy another iPod and start ripping my jazz CD's so that I'll be more inclined to actually listen to them again. I know, I know. Everybody's got their own way of surviving in this cruel world. So anyway, with the price having dropped drastically since my original ipod purchase, I just bought another 160 GB model, and began pondering whether I can actually get most (all?) of my roughly 2600 CD's onto this thing. Apple's general guideline suggests 30,000 songs (4 min. per song; encoded at 128 kbps). Okay, so the first thing I realized is that I've never bothered to change the default (128 kbps mono, 256 kbps stereo) setting in iTunes. Oddly enough, one of the first CD's I've just experimented with ("Presenting Cannonball Adderley", on Savoy/Denon) is a mono recording, but iTunes is telling me that it was in fact encoded at 256 (and indicates "stereo") when used the 256 setting. Anyway, that's not what's puzzling me. I ripped "Kind Of Blue" three times, at 128, 256, and also in lossless. After ripping to iTunes, I synched all three versions to my new iPod. I listened carefully to all three in iTunes (using two different pairs of earbuds), and I literally could not detect any difference in sound quality- even playing the same tune in the 128 version followed immediately by the same tune in lossless. I tried the same experiment on the iPod, and the result was the same. The sound quality differs considerably in terms of comparing the earbud sound (and I already knew that), but comparing the three different bit rates on the same earbuds leaves me puzzled. Could there be some technical factor here that I'm overlooking? At any rate, I'm not very picky about sound quality anyway, and I'm leaning toward going with 128 kbps and maximizing my storage space, but if there's something I'm overlooking here and I can figure out how to get improved sound via lossless, I might rip some discs at that higher quality rate. Btw, I understand that a pair of high quality headphones might make me see (hear) things differently, but I'm not sure about that option yet, for a variety of reasons which I'll set aside for now. Interested in hearing about the experiences and points of view of some of our ipod veterans... Thanks.

Who knew?

You may be right. Did you see/hear this? It's taken from a CD titled "Television's Greatest Hits", and it has a slightly different feel (don't think I ever heard this exact take).

Van Dyke Show... "2nd Theme"...? This wasn't what I was thinking of, but I do remember it vaguely. Weird. Edit: Oops, you got back in before I got back in.

I'm thinking the Van Dyke re-arrangement coincided with the updated opening sequence where he side-steps the ottoman instead of tripping over it. But I could be wrong. I'm less sure about the McHale theme being altered, but I want to say there was at least a subtle change at some point (more subtle than the Gilligan's Island lyrics being changed on behalf of the Professor and Mary Ann)... (mmm... Mary Ann... )

"Ear conditioning", yes indeed. I haven't looked at the video yet, but it occurs to me that a lot of 50's and 60's tv themes were re-arranged, and my recollection is that McHale's Navy was one of those (the themes from Leave It To Beaver and Dick Van Dyke also spring to mind in this regard). Generally, I recall them being syncopated differently when everything went a little more hip (and I do mean a stronger jazz influence) as the 60's progressed. I always thought that the "I Love Lucy" theme was pretty advanced too, particularly melodically.

Great comedic minds thinking alike?