DrJ

Thanks for the comments and suggestions so far, guys. Wolff, I haven't even gone to the dealers locally yet - wanted to get some thoughts first. I will most likely try to work with the same dealer that sold me my amp/DAC/speaker gear, he was a pleasure to work with and so far has yet to steer me wrong. He does servicing which I personally would find useful - timewise, it's unlikely I'll be able to do much restoration or adjustment work on a used turntable if it were required. I paid a bit more for my set up as it stands than I would have going strictly Internet, but it's been well worth it - for peace of mind and also the education and attention the dealer provided (that in my book is worth a little money - seems only fair). For example, I had a bad tube (fluke thing) early on that he replaced no charge/no questions asked. So I'll probably go the same route for the turntable. He gets good used gear of all types in regularly, so used or new will be an option. I will do some comparison listening, as much as possible. Nice thing is he has the Audio Note and Zingali set ups in his showroom so it will be very much like my set up without me necessarily having to haul everything home for demos (probably will try and do that when I have it down to the 1 or 2 finalists). Anyway, for now, please keep the ideas coming by all means! I'm listening...

This spring I will have had my tube amp and DAC and Zingali speakers for a year. I've been amazed at how much I've enjoyed getting back into vinyl with the great phono stage on this amp (Audio Note Meishu phono). All this has been with a rather workmanlike Technics SL1200MK2 turntable/Ortofon cartridge, with the stock built in cheap RCA connector plugs. I'm starting to look ahead at a serious upgrade to the turntable, currently the "weakest link" in my audio chain. I've heard about the usual suspects - Linn Sondek LP12, various Thorens models. But I really don't know the ins and outs of higher end turntables well and why these are so sought after (other than they probably sound good!). Who can help me get started with shopping? What features should I look for? Which models are too good NOT to listen to when shopping? What about cartridges? Any recommended tweaks? And what should I expect to pay for a high quality set-up that will match the quality of the rest of the rig? Just FYI I have a very nice Mapleshade Samson rack..the turntable is in a listening room with a VERY stable flooring (almost no vibration) out of the way so little to no foot traffic, and the Samson is like a rock...so vibration is a very small concern.

I just found this thread - I leave everything on (AudioNote Meishu Phono tube amp and Audio Note tube DAC, Richard Gray's Power Company power source) all the time. The manuals (as well as my local dealer) recommend this...and I hear a huge improvement in sound with doing this. Turning the tube amp on and off really resulted in dramatic fluctuation in sound until the tube stuff got properly warmed up again which I found took a bunch of time (couple of hours minimum). Yes, it probably does result in faster tube wear but if you care enough to listen to tubes and put out for a quality listening system it would seem to me worth a few extra bucks in replacement tubes. I have a much lower end solid state home theater system centered around a Denon AVR3300 in the living room and turn that off every night. I have never heard a bit of difference in this system whether it is left on for a long time or turned off (although that could be related to its overall quality rather than there not being a difference with higher end solid state gear).

So Dmitry, are you taking orders?

Wow, I missed this thread for a LONG time...until today in fact! I was gonna nominate Grimes myself. I scored the Hardee/Quebec BN Mosaic LP box a while back and in making a back-up CD-R copy listened again to all the material. What struck me this time through (possibly due to the better sonics of the LP set) as it never had before was the quality of Grimes' playing. It really made me sit up and take notice, this guy was phenomenal. I more recently found an LP called SOME GROOVY FOURS led by Grimes, a session from the 70s recorded in Paris that is a neglected gem. So nice to be able to hear his wonderful tone and ideas in good sound. Tiny was the stuff, no question. Paul Secor mentioned Oscar Aleman, and I'd agree with that one too. A contemporary of Django, but really sounds very little like him. This is a thread dense with info, so if this next one was mentioned already I apologize for missing it - I didn't see Sonny Greenwich (at least not a lot of discussion). I'll relook and edit my comments if I find them this time through. He deserves comment regardless.

I have been thoroughly enjoying a couple of Denny Zeitlin's early trio recordings for Columbia, mid-60s: CARNIVAL and SHINING HOUR: LIVE AT THE TRIDENT. This was a fine trio with Charlie Haden and Jerry Granelli, and Zeitlin has been a revelation for me. There are some inevitable Bill Evans influences, but he sounds very much like his own man, really I have a hard time comparing him to anyone else going at the time. I am hoping to track down the rest of his Columbia LPs - there were 4 or 5 altogether. This collective body of work would make a fine collection (Mosaic Select) although it's probably too little-known to attract much attention in that manner. I understand Zeitlin just recently did a new recording after some inactive years - I'm glad to hear it and look forward to hearing it!

I hear you Scott...but for me it's been hard to outguess BNs RVG plans using this approach.

I thought size didn't matter... -_-

Last Night: Steve Kuhn - LAST YEAR'S WALTZ (w/ Sheila Jordan)(ECM) This AM: Art Hodes Mosaic - Disc 1

The thing is, the whole "bit" thing really isn't so much the issue...resolution is part of the story, but even if you compare 24 bit remasterings by two different engineers they may sound a lot different. RVG versus Addey versus McMaster - to my ears - you get very different sounds even when stuff is done at 20 or 24 bit. Probably the biggest factor is whether or not they went to the original tapes, but there are a lot of other things...so all I'm saying is probably not a good idea to base "upgrade" choices on "bits."

To be honest I think this is actually a positive development. Water gives the "Rare Groove" type of material its proper due, with much better remastering quality (to my ears) and deluxe CD booklets (heavy, glossy card stock and extensive notes). The volume of releases seems to be quite steady too. So I think a win/win, good for the "little guys" to get some of the action.

I got both of the U.S. CDs OLD WINE... and GREAT JAZZ STANDARDS - back when they did the "Collectors Choice" reissue series in the mid-90s. The sound is pretty bad (sounds like source material problems) but certainly not unlistenable. The music is fantastic, my favorite of Evans' recordings I've encountered outside of his collaborations with Miles.

I would agree with Lon's assessment -those Katz collaborations represent a pinnacle of Merrill's artistry and of jazz singing in general. I also think her run on the Emarcy and affiliated Universal labels in the 80s through now has been pretty fantastic, too.

Up as I just discovered some of this material myself - picked up the CARNIVAL and SHINING HOUR - LIVE AT THE TRIDENT LPs last weekend. Really, really remarkable stuff - Zeitlin is amazing, really sounds - well like nobody I've heard. And Charlie Haden and Jerry Grannelli were really sympathetic partners. I am eager to track down the other dates including the two sidewinder mentions ZEITGEIST and CATHEXIS. This material would make a nice Mosaic Select...

As a corollary to what B-3er says (which I agree with): It's also ridiculous that the mass-produced CD playback stuff out there is so crappy. They've up and oversampled themselves into oblivion. Just design a nice simple 1x oversampling unit that has quality electronics throughout the whole chain, thank you.

Pretty funny stuff! Now if they would have just placed the word "Foxtrot" underneath the song title, it would've been even funnier...

Leeway beat me to it - I was just going to say, for the type of movies my wife and I generally watch, surround sound is useless (but hey, if you really want to hear those wine glasses in the European cafe clinking behind you it's neato!). But we do enjoy surround when we watch the occasional "big Hollywood job." Having a child, it's pretty often we do that now - FINDING NEMO does sound pretty spectacular in surround, I must say. I've come 180 degrees on the SACD issue. A couple years ago I was convinced it might fill a niche, but now I'm firmly in the "get stuff to make your regular old CDs sound as good as possible" camp.

Amir if I can respectfully but firmly continue to disagree with you: seems to me that the strong reactions (agreeing and disagreeing) with Metheny are more about the people having the reactions than Pat. I think this should be obvious to anyone...for example, speaking for myself, I was using his quote as a springboard for discussion of my own impression (not attributing my ideas to Metheny), as were others. I honestly do not get what your issue is with this, you're in fact the one who is overreacting in my view. It seems you are arguing that the use of quotes made by celebs/artists/politicians/whatever as a launching pad for discussion - something that has been done since the beginning of time, and when it does the quotes are nearly ALWAYS taken far from their original context as the years go by - is to be abandoned. I'm not buying it.

Ike Quebec / John Hardee Mosaic - Record 4

Hmmm...so let's get this right. You have a public figure, a musician and entertainer - Metheny - giving a quote to a reporter or writer of some kind, who has asked him about something and whom Metheny I assume knows is going to disseminate said statement in an article or press release or the like. Thus I would also assume that he gave some thought to his statement, at least a passing one or two, knowing that it will be recorded for posterity. Sounds to me like this qualifies as a (ahem) "topical 'quote' conveying broad meaning or intent," one worthy of (mostly) thoughtful discussion as pursued here. Or do we go with your implied logic, and conclude that Metheny was just flapping his gums, making shit up, saying things without reflection and hoping that nobody would hear him babbling and put it down in writing? Talk about scary and ridiculous...

Check out some hilarity on an Epinions review (I found this in doing a search on Dewey Redman). Go to the following link... Don to Dewey to Joshua to Chance Then scroll down and read the comments regarding Track 12 of the CD being reviewed. Learn something new every day!!!

There was a typically heavily qualified review of this set in the new Jazz Times, where the reviewer basically spends the majority of the review afraid to say anything too positive about Peterson for some apparent fear of incurring the wrath of anyone hip or cool or "in the know" about "real" jazz. Even with all that baggage, he found it impossible to avoid saying some really nice things! I'm interested...not a huge Peterson fan but certain recordings really hit me and those I'd rank very highly indeed. This seems like a great opportunity to get acquainted with later period Oscar.

Yes, Mike, you have confirmed what I suspected based on people's posts - different remasterings altogether for the LP and CD. Thank you. And sorry about the confusion of terms "matrix" and "issue" numbers. Mea culpa, I learned something about the terminology, a finer distinction that I wasn't aware of. But unfortunately none of this actually sheds any definitive light on the central question here - mono versus stereo on the LP set? Have to say, though, if I were a betting man, I'd say it sure is looking like the LP set, not being from original tapes, would most likely be either true stereo (consistent with the Candid reissues of various vintages) or possibly really tarted up mono that would sound like stereo, consistent with what my ears are telling me. For my part, I'm really at this point only interested for academic reasons...as I said clearly in my first post on the subject, I could actually give a crap, the point is the LPs sound fantastic, whether mono, stereo, quadraphonic, whatever. RVG did himself a very fine job here.

Possible, but given that we're talking Mosaic, unlikely - that's the type of tweaking that they routinely "undo" by going back to original masters. So I doubt it. I just listened to a few tracks again. My LP set is stereo, no question about it - often you can hear a particular instrument in both speakers but there are huge differences in volume and tonality and "placement" in such cases. I guess it could have been done with EQ trickery but I doubt it...seems far more likely that it's a stereo mix and you're just hearing the natural placement of sounds at different points in the room. In doing some Web searches, the only time I've seen mention of "mono" attached to this set is in reference to the CD version, which as we know also added a couple of missing alternates. So it's definitely possible there could be a difference in terms of source tapes being mono or stereo between these recordings, too.

She has, already! Luckily I don't ever really have too much splainin' to do about my record buying habit with my wonderful wife.