Mani, Thanks for your second reply, that's the info I was looking for, but somehow missed. I did go to the site right away (downloaded the plugin) but somehow managed to miss the info. I'll have to hunt it down, in case there's more.

In fact I was surprised by how little info there seemed to be, as I was pretty sure the Dynamic Range Meter had to be using some pretty specific and specialized criteria to come up with such small numbers. I think it might be useful if the meter also gave the complete dynamic range (excluding something like the lowest 5% and the the first and last few seconds of each track--to avoid fade outs/ins and the like). It would help differentiate all those 11-13 Dynamic range recordings.

-Chris

Hey thanks a lot Russ,

I figured he might be on the dark side, so I had resigned myself to a bit of a wait.

-Chris

Mani, if you don't mind, what program are you using to measure the dynamic range? And what exactly do the numbers mean?

In other words is the 19 or whatever the true dynamic range in db, or does it stand for something else. I ask, because even the best numbers denote a narrower dynamic range than I expected (if they denote actual db). Or maybe I just don't understand.

-Chris

Mani, Peter,

I just posted to CA on this very thing. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Scandal-Brewing-High-Resolution-Downloads?page=7#comment-93881 and then some. We have parallel universes going on.

-Chris

Hey Peter,
When is the new version of XX coming to your faithless, er faithful followers? I've heard (well seen) you mention it several times but... If I remember correctly you implied that it will be less tweaky and more streamlined; me, myself and I are really looking forward to that; I hope we're remembering correctly. 

And speaking of quiet around here, why is that? Paris in August, summer doldrums, dog days, lack of interest, something better? And speaking of something better (not really) but interesting. While waiting for the "new and improved," XX I've been playing most of my music through a small well-built inexpensive media player because it's just so easy, no tweaking, a remote and it means not booting up the pc. And it sounds really good to boot. (I tried to write about their ilk here a while ago but everybody just dismissed or pooh-poohed the thought/item.)

Peter, I still think you should investigate these things and write some really good software for one. After all they're computers without all the Windows drek and superfluous noisy electronics/hardware. They seem to me to be a much better starting point than pc's.

-Chris

So, what do you think the distortion is? I didn't really recognize it as distortion, but I do find it unlistenable. I'm always immediately irritated when I listen to their recordings. I've never once listened to a whole track through, nevermind the whole cd. And yet their recording process is super pure and simple. And some folks rave about their recordings.

By the way, shortly after I bought the cds (10 years ago?) I returned most of them, and wrote Mapleshade a letter telling them what I thought of their cds; it wasn't pretty. I never heard back from them and they continue to this day to send me their catalogue.

And yes agreed about the Bill Evans stuff; however they thought too highly of the bass, and why arrange the cd with 2 takes of the same number consecutively--didn't they read the rule book? The bonus belongs at the end!

-Chris

One of the best sounding jazz trios cds I've heard is "Changes," by Keith Jarrett, Gary Peacock and Jack Dejohnette. One of the minor problems with the Bill Evans at the Village Vanguard stuff is the balance of instruments, mainly the piano isn't prominent enough or the bass is too prominent, and there are just too damn many bass solos--the bass just isn't that interesting that it should be constantly featured--and I love the bass.

On the Jarrett album the bass sounds great and rarely plays by itself, but rather interplays with the other instruments. The percussion sounds fantastic, you can identify all the different cymbals (by place and sound), and the piano level is up there with the others and sounds as large.

It's an ECM recording, 1984 but actually recorded Jan 1983, Power Station, NYC. Engineer Jan Erik Kongshaug. Doesn't give anymore recording info. It's a short album, about 38 minutes.

-Chris

My version of Waltz for Debby (1987 Taratino Remaster) has slightly different times (as listed on the disk) and the cover is the same except for a 2cm x 3cm area on the lower right hand corner that says:

ORIGINAL
Jazz
CLASSICS
COMPACT DISC

-Chris

Alright, I'm listening to the Bill Evans, "Sunday at the Village Vanguard," 1987 Joe Tarantino of Fantasy Studios remaster. Label: Riverside. I'm guessing it's the original to cd transfer.

It's quite different than the tracks I've been listening to previously, of unknown origin. The hole in the middle is no more, and the audience which at times sounded like it was outside my window where I could hear distint chatter, I can now barely make out while the group is playing.
For those reasons it's much more pleasurable to listen to. As to the actual sound of the instruments, I'm not sure as it's been a few days since I heard the other version. I do know that in one of the songs there was this kind of constant cymbal haze which kind of got on my nerves, this didn't happen on this version.

-Chris

Nick said, "I feel your pain or should that be vibration . At least were not neighbours, I say this only because the spark system on the car used to make so much RF when I bought it that it would freez the picture on any televisions nearby. I wouldn't have wanted to add RF problems to the truck related wows of a fellow audio enthusiast."

Freeze the picture? Really, are you serious? And don't mention wow to this audio enthusiast. Ok, you can, I don't have a turntable anymore.

By the way, as much as I've gotten over cars (and trucks) through the years, I was really impressed by your sound system. And as much as those systems irritate when I'm listening to Astrid Gilberto or Sade, I love the sound of the just barely turning over bass burble of a 407 or Harley, or the sounds of street racing as in "American Graffiti."

-Chris

Ok, I listened to parts of the Mapleshade albums I have, and it wasn't much fun. Now I remember why I haven't listened to them in a long time. They make me impatient, I'm just thinking "get on with it already." And you're thinking "get on with it already, what do I care that you're impatient." Well I say patience and I'll soon be a patient if I have to listen to more of this Mapleshade stuff.

Ok, it's not that bad (yes it is). It's the SQ stupid. Ok, ok.

Thurman Green; "Dance of the Night Creatures," Has some examples of startlingly realistic stuff on it, mostly percussion. But it's here and there. The music is also fairly listenable, who knows you might love it. But as a whole I think this kind of recording makes a mess of things. The instruments individually sound good to great but as a whole, no. I think one does need to use a bit of processing. They don't even use mixing boards, or at least didn't on any of my cds (from 90's thru 01)

"Cat's are Stealing my $hit," is kind of interesting. It's very simple for the most part, which works better for this kind of recording. And the music (if one can so classify it) is more interesting now that I listened to the rest of my lot from Mapleshade. I think I sent back the cd's that would have made the best examples for what I said in my earlier post. The music was so startlingly realistic  (saxophones if I remember correctly) that I sent it back. It sounded like somebody practicing in the room around the corner, not what I had in mind.

I think there's a fine line between truly realistic sound, and imagined realistic sound. In other words I might have an image of a nice jazz band in a cafe playing "All Blues." I've got the scene all set, the sound as a whole, a nice sound picture in other words. However I don't want the real band playing in my living room no matter how much I might think I want realistic sound.

Mapleshade doesn't quite have it down realistically of course, but it has some elements in place, which in my opinion makes it worse. Now we've got some realistic or near realistic sounds and some not; so it becomes kind of a mess, unbalanced and confused. Or maybe I'm just dreamin'.

-Chris

Peter, Here's a blurb from Mapleshade's site and the url:

"Our recording technology is equally radical. We design and build, or custom-modify, all of our electronics from microphones to tape recorders to wires. All must meet standards well beyond commercial state-of-the-art. We record live to two-track analog, transfer to digital at a rate 100 times faster than the CD standard, and use no add-on EQ, reverb or noise reduction electronics. Our recordings are made with only 2 to 4 microphones and no cables longer than 20 feet. The resulting sound has startling, "in-the-room" clarity, brilliance, spaciousness and dynamics. People with $150 boomboxes, as well as audiophiles with $100,000 systems, tell us our CDs convey far more of the music's excitement than any commercial studio recordings. Mapleshade has 40 current releases and many more in the can waiting to be released. These albums document the music of more than 175 musicians including both noteworthy new talents and established artists such as Randy Weston, David Murray, Woody Shaw, Gary Bartz, Larry Willis, Hamiet Bluiett, John Hicks, Clifford Jordan, Walter Davis Jr., Leon Thomas, Drink Small, Sunnyland Slim, Slide Hampton, and Shirley Horn."

http://mapleshaderecords.com/main/catalog.php

They have some free sample mp3s you can download from their site, here's some info regarding that: http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/main/freemp3s.php, I haven't listened to any of them so I don't know how they sound compared to the cds. By the way, the cds are rather inexpensive.

They're also a bit of an "out there," company when it comes to audio products, in my opinion. They make some really crazy or wonderful (your choice) stuff from cheap to very expensive. It's worth getting their catalog in any case, to browse their recordings and to read their audio equipment philosophy.

Two recordings I listened to recently "Cats are stealing my $hit!" Warren Smith and others, "Swingin' and Burnin'," John Cocuzzi Quintet. I'm not sure if these are the best examples of what I said. I'll listen to a few more in the next few days and then I'll be able to give you a better opinion/choice.

-Chris

Peter, have you ever listened to Mapleshade recordings?

I have a few and they're not my favorite music, but I think they're doing something in the recording process which is like the 60's only updated for the 2000's. In fact sometimes I think they've gone too far in that direction, some of their stuff sounds too real, particularly when it comes to reed instruments.

We may think we want our music too sound real when we turn on our music systems, but we don't want a real jazz quartet, (particularly if it includes drum sets and saxophones) playing in our living rooms. Yet that's what parts of Mapleshade recordings sound like, or almost sound like. I think it's actually the much ballyhooed dynamic range that's making it so (they use no compression); could it be that dynamic range can be too wide at times?

In case you don't know, they record directly to tape at 15 ips (or at least did through the early 2000's) then transfer to digital. They don't use any effects.

-Chris

"As for the "out of the window" Chris, I sure recognize this from the Debby album as well. Especially when you are not in the sweetspot, those voices may come from anywhere at the sides (very explicitly). Btw, I assume you meant windows at the sides."

Nope, I meant the window right in front of me, between the speakers. There does happen to be a window there, but it's closed with an air conditioner in it.

-Chris

I was just looking at Amazon for "The Wall," out of curiousity. I can't believe how many versions there are, including a remaster which will be out in September. Even the Israel Symphony Orchestra and the Ninja Turtles do "The Wall." Ok, maybe not the Ninja Turtles but we do have Pink Floyd En Bossa Nova. I bet they've got a hi-res version too.

-Chris