J Larsen

The CD sounds like a worn out tape to me. This doesn't make me not like listening to it, but I'd welcome a remaster all the same.

Really??? Wow, was I off base! In that case, the X series does have a better picture, even to my not-too-obsessive eyes. I'd personally spring for the extra couple hundred bucks.

Well, I would. I get the point about it being "artfully murky," but all the same I'd be interested to hear a different take on this record. This is definitely something to look out for. Thanks for the heads up!

I'll go if the job allows.

My personal opinion, which others will doubtless say is insane, is that the X-series is not worth the premium over the S-series. It looks a little better, but not two or three grand better IMO. Then again: 1) I appreciate good video quality, but don't obsess over it 2) My budget may be different from yours 3) I'm also anticipating that the top-end technology today is going to look like the bottom-end technology in a couple years. IM somewhat informed O it will be a couple years before the rate of progress starts to flatten out.

Agreed. The only problem I have is that sometimes the audio and video get out of sync (the stereo amp processes the sound slightly faster than the TV processes the image), but there is a feature on the DVD player to adjust for that. Unfortunately, it seems that the A/V gap shifts a bit through any given DVD, but it isn't a serious enough of an issue to get me to listen through the TV (in which case the probem never occurs at all).

The odd thing is, I'm actually French/German/Welch. The name has to do with an adoption (and I wasn't even the one adopted).

Oh, I get it. Never mind.

This is likely my own ignorance showing, but did Chet Baker actually ever record for Blue Note? I thought he only ended up being reissued by BN because EMI bought Pacific Jazz and put it under BN's control.

Fine, then I pick Juju and drop Sunday Mornin and Go, and start working on plans to craft a raft out of ten jewel cases.

My initial reaction to the thread title was that I would take my chances and try swimming to a better island, but with the caveat that I get to change my mind later, my picks are John Coltrane - Blue Train Eric Dolphy - Out to Lunch Art Blakey - Free for All Don Cherry - Where is Brooklyn Monk Genius vol. 2 Wayne Shorter - Juju or Odyssey - gonna have to think about this... Cecil Taylor Unit Structures Andrew Hill - Andrew!!! Bud Powell - Amazing vol. 1 Jackie McLean - Let Freedom Ring Grant Green Sunday Mornin (yes, Idle Moments is better, but somehow this is the one I'd want) Dexter Gordon Go PS: I use the duodecimal system.

I still haven't figured out how to display DVDs in OAR, though. They always get squeezed down to 4:3 or stretched to 16:9. This is a little annoying.

On the Sony, yes. I have the TV speakers set to off and run the audio through my stereo. I would assume the other makes are similar in this regard.

On the topic of overlooked labels, Candid had some damned impressive records. Too bad their availability is so sporadic. I've gotten to the point where if I see something on Candid that I don't already have, I usually just jump on it. Haven't been very disappointed too many times.

Maybe Kirk Kerk just needed the dough to bid on the VU acetate.

I thought this was an interesting article when it was published: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/arti...talk_surowiecki I wasn't aware of this aspect of the US auto industry before reading this.

It's been mentioned above, but Vibrations is probably my favorite. Just adding another vote. Spiritual Unity and Spirits Rejoice are great records, too. I also like Witches and Devils more than most seem to. It gets above average play from me. NY Eye and Ear Control has always been a let down for me, but that's just me.

This again begs the question of what is meant by "overrated." Does it mean that a given artist is liked more than they "should" be? Or that they have "too many" fans? Or is it that their influence is overestimated? If an overrated artist is one that is liked more than they "should" be, then assuming that there is indeed some objective standard by which one can determine how much an artist is to be liked (which is clearly absurd), then it seems to me that Guy's statement is a tautology and therefore the value of the subject is questionable. Not a tautology. There's the possibility that a large number of people like an artist "just right", which I discount. Guy Then it depends on what you mean by "overrated by their fans," but frankly I think this is a silly discussion that we are taking to new levels of silliness, so back to work with me.

This again begs the question of what is meant by "overrated." Does it mean that a given artist is liked more than they "should" be? Or that they have "too many" fans? Or is it that their influence is overestimated? If an overrated artist is one that is liked more than they "should" be, then assuming that there is indeed some objective standard by which one can determine how much an artist is to be liked (which is clearly absurd), then it seems to me that Guy's statement is a tautology and therefore the value of the subject is questionable. If an overrated artist is one whose influence is overestimated, then you have some hope of having a meaningful discussion, but that does not seem to be the way the question was posed.

Actually, what made me think about this for some time is that it seems like every time any 60's Blue Note album is mentioned, people are jumping on and declaring it one of the great masterpieces of all time, regardless of title. I'm trying to stimulate people, especially some of the newer/younger guys, to think/listen through some of this. I mean, I love the Blue Note sound, but not every title is among the greatest. If there are 500 of them, then 100 of those rank in the bottom 20%. (BTW, I think 'Speak No Evil' is awesome). I disagree with this logic. In those 500, you have apples, oranges, pears, pineapples, etc. The idea that you can compare all 500 on a head-to-head basis doesn't make sense to me. On another note, if you had a thread on over- and under-rated titles, I bet there would be a lot of overlap in the responses to each.

One of my best friends from high school named her daughter Nessa.

Just kidding.

Blue Train.

I have a question. I have a new Sony LCD 16:9 TV. 16:9 = 1.78:1. I have a bunch of DVDs that are 1.66:1. My TV/DVD combo always wants to stretch these to 16:9 or compress them to 4:3 depending on which settings I pick on the TV. Is there a way to get it to show the movie in its true aspect ratio? It seems to me that this should be simple, but I haven't been able to figure it out. If it matters, the DVD player is also a current Sony model. The DVD player and TV are connected via an HDMI cable. I set the DVD output resolution to 1080i when appropriate and 480 otherwise. Thanks.

The hard part, I think, is that the "finest picture" is a very elusive thing. You'd really need to bring all of the TVs home and tune them to see what they can do. My Sony looks light years better than it did out of the box and it took hours to get it that way. I bought a 20" LCD a year or so ago and sat it next to my Sony to tune it. It was horrible out of the box. The colors were so far off...pink was showing up as orange, etc. It's a mess because they set these TVs are set up for the sole purpose of getting your attention. And most people bring them home and don't spend the time to get them right. Yep, I wasted a whole Saturday a few weeks ago setting up my Sony LCD. There are so many poorly and unexplained features in the new models it is ridiculous. I found that turning them all off is a pretty good start. There are DVDs out on the market designed to help you calibrate the color and brightness settings. I haven't used them, although I found the brightness adjustment test that Lynch added on as a bonus feature to the Eraserhead DVD to be helpful.