Scott Dolan

Except that's a hell of a cover charge.

That, too.

It is indeed all in the mastering. Good masters will sound great in any format. Bad masters will sound shitty in any format.

It's this kind of hyperbole that amuses me. What you mean to say is that you like a little harmonic distortion to "warm" up the sound. That's fine, I love the way records sound as well. But calling it "not close" is absolutely absurd. Might as well say I prefer the cherry Koolaid over the grape, and it's not even close! Sure, they taste different, but they're both still Koolaid. I'll take the cold accuracy of digital any day. But even I'm not silly enough to say it's a runaway.

Wow, I have no idea how to even respond to this statement. If you believe something simply because you read it somewhere, that's going to lead to a horribly misinformed life.

I'd say the fans collectively woke up and realized what a shithole the place is.

Cry me a river, folks. I'm a Royals fan... 28 years since we last even saw the postseason. And this is the first season since then that we have a glimmer of hope to break that drought.

No worries, brother. My post was meant strictly for Mr. Clugston and his unnecessary sideswipe of iTunes. Reminds me of the time not so long ago when I challenged folks to compare a CD track to the same at the iTunes standard format (256kbps VBR AAC), and Mr. Lowe took me up on it. Even with his gear and ears he said it was to close to call. And in fairness, Daniel A feels that evidence points to 320kbps being the real point of diminished returns. Fair enough (and apologies to Mr. A if I'm not representing his view correctly). It's a point that I don't feel is necessary to argue since I can't hear the difference at the lower sampling rate while also taking into account I have mild to moderate tinnitus AND 44 y.o. ears. I honestly believe people have too many misconceptions concerning digital audio, much of it based on the horrid 96kbps MP3's that dominated during the Napster revolution. Yes, they definitely did NOT sound as good as 16/44.1 Redbook. But, the modern codecs are so advanced these days that one has to ask the age old question, "is it live, or is it Memorex?" (why not show our age a little? ) I also whole-heartedly agree with your assessment that both LP and CD have their advantages and limitations. Those strengths and weaknesses leave them both at even money, IMO. It's an over-generalization, but CD's will give you the cleanest reproduction (warts and all), while LP's will present a more pleasurable listening experience. Hey, there's something to be said for second order harmonics. But, I'm still kinda dubious as to why a LP produced from a digital master is problematic. As was mentioned above, I'd have to think the only weak link in that chain would be the DAC. Then again, unless it were some back alley company using a $100 DAC, I'm not sure why it would make a difference. Is there something else in this that I'm missing?

Foobar2000 if you're using Wind'ohs http://www.foobar2000.org/ ABXTester if you're using OS X https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/abxtester/id427554135?mt=12 Happy listening.

You hit the nail on the head. Most new vinyl I come across sounds terrible, but there are exceptions. A good rule of thumb is if the label isn't forthcoming about sourcing, mastering, etc., you are likely getting iTunes on a vinyl platter. Which would sound no different than CD to 99.99% of the populace. No vinyl is better than CD/digital snobbery, please. It's fine to prefer one over the other, but let's not descend into fooling yourselves that either is superior. And let's please bury the myth of iTunes somehow offering an inferior product.

I'm satisfied with everything I have. Be it CD or digital file. These 44 y.o. ears don't possess superhuman hearing, and I seriously doubt I hear over 15kHz anymore. So give me a CD, a lossless rip, or an iTunes standard 256 VBR AAC, and I'm perfectly content.

In theory, I guess. Unfortunately, high resolution sounds no better than good, old-fashioned 16/44.1 Redbook audio.

And I still don't buy any of that. I don't care which door they came in through, if they were dumb enough to fall for such a blatantly obvious piece of satire, the blame lies with the reader. Not the publication. Then again, I'm a very, VERY hardcore personal responsibility type. You have to ask yourself the most important question after reading that piece: do you honestly think Sonny Rollins feels that way about an art form he's dedicated 60 years of his life to? If the answer is, "fuck no!", then there you have it.

Works for me, Larry. You're not being tedious, but perhaps reading something into Capt. Howdy's statement that wasn't really there. Or maybe it was, and I'm not seeing it... Just my two cents...

Had a similar situation once, many moons ago. My story really won't help you, but this thread triggered the memory. This cat started calling our house out of the blue. He wasn't really abusive, or harassing us in what I would consider a criminal fashion. Just constantly calling us and making all sorts of nonsensical comments. Very strange cat. This went on for about a week or two. Luckily, we had caller I.D. so I knew his name and phone number. With a little due diligence I found out where he lived, and took a little trip over to his place one morning. I didn't confront him, or anything like that, just soaked in a good description of his house and got his license plate number. The next night he called. I answered, and greeted him by name. I then told him where he lived, described his house to him in detail, gave him his license plate number and told him if he called our house again, I'd be paying HIM a house call (which, even as bold as I was, I probably wouldn't have ever done). *click* Never heard from him again. There are some seriously damaged goods out there, folks. Soul, my resolution doesn't strike me as being an option for you, but I would highly recommend you take the advice Kevin and leeway have offered. And good luck. It's a really crappy situation to find yourself in.

An on-line interview with Gold (see post #158) makes it clear that the piece was all his bright idea, not something that the New Yorker asked/assigned him to write. So he wasn't "merely doing his job" in the sense you seem to mean. That strikes me as a rather weak argument, Larry. His job IS to come up with pieces to write. It's the editors jobs to review/vet pieces submitted to them. Do they tell Borowitz what to write? Though, I do disagree with Captain Howdy that The New Yorker is at some kind of fault for not identifying the piece as satire. They've never identified The Borowitz Report as satire, as far as I know. And like any of his material, the Gold piece was so outrageous that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have figured it out.

Very well said, Capt. Howdy.

I hear that, xybert. I could say the exact same thing. Steve Lacy and Joe Lovano would count as woefully underrepresented in my collection.

Oddly enough, I have The Fisher King in my Netflix queue. I saw it when it first came out and just didn't get it, but resolved to watch it again. Might have a little more gravity to it now...

I know... I think that may be one of the reasons I never got into him. I was probably right on the tail end of putting together my Coltrane collection of almost 100 discs... My wallet was already in ashes.

What makes me even sadder than this horrific story is that it reminds me of the fact that I only possess ONE Cecil Taylor album, Dark To Themselves ( I bought it mostly because Marc Edwards was on it, and he and I used to chat regularly on the old FreeJazz.org message board). I'm going to have to do something about that post haste. Have always wanted Nefertiti, The Beautiful One Has Come but just never picked it up for some reason.

You know what I thought was a really underrated movie of his? Patch Adams. They marketed it as a comedy movie, but it was actually quite serious. And well done, IMO. He was a much better actor than many think. His serious roles were very well acted.

Well, there is Smooth Jazz...

I think the "art form 90% of the people in this country already consider long gone" part is crucial. It's about semi-idle resentment that anything "we" don't care about anymore even exists and that we've also been told that it's inherently noble and good for us. About the Marsalis-Crouch and "Jazz Is America's Classical Music" shticks, I take your point, but that sort of stuff might well echo somewhere in the backs of the minds of people who never paid much if any conscious attention to it. Again, it is (or it might be) the "nanny-ness." Jazz as spinach. OK, I can live with that. I think you , jazzbo, and ejp are all making very salient points.

My point is that it just seems like such an off the beaten path subject to use, especially when trying to scare up a cultural squabble (which it seems these "authors" are trying to do). Why use an art form 90% of the people in this country already consider long gone for such a purpose? Hell, that doesn't even make for good rubbernecking material. I mean, ultimately, aren't we Jazz fans the only ones who truly get any mileage out of the Marsalis/Crouch thing?