Ultra high resolution

I'd have to personally know a used vinyl's history before I'd spend $60.00 on it. It may have been subjected to a second cutting lathe! I don't know how old DS is, but he was already a symphony orchestra performer(trumpet) when he quit to start Mastering Lab. He co-founded Sheffield in like 1970. He's no spring chicken, but still has great ears, and knows how to use 'em! Good info Mr. S- Thanx!

Thanks Shadorne.

Isn't Doug Sax amazing? How old is the guy? I've been looking for his name on albums forever it seems.

Indeed. Al Schmitt (double digit grammy award winning sound engineer and man behind your favorite Diana Krall sound - done with Neumann tube mics mostly) is STILL mixing on Doug Sax's original Tannoy/Mastering Lab modified speakers (~thirty years old).

Doug Sax just closed the original (absolutely famous to audiophiles) "Mastering Lab" in Hollywood a couple of weeks ago. He has moved to a new state of the art studio with Doug's choice of ATC Speakers and his brother's original designed and built tube EQ console.

Doug Sax Client List

Thanks buddy, I just ordered the single-layer, two-channel SACD of "Heavy Weather". I love Jaco and Joe, but strangely I've never collected any of their stuff, so now we begin...(Oh, the half-speed was 60-bucks used, so I went with the SACD).

Yes, well defined music, of all genres, is great.

Isn't Doug Sax amazing? How old is the guy? I've been looking for his name on albums forever it seems.

Dave

Hey Dave- I got the 'Cannon' yesterday. Gotta love those horns! Doug Sax has yet to let me down(took me right into the studio). I think it's great they brought Nancy Wilson in to do her bit on this tribute. The album she and Adderley did in the early 60's gave her the boost she needed to make it big. Her voice still makes me want to fall in love(even as jaded as I've become). Isn't(well defined) music great? Another great recording that will work out a system: The CBS Mastersound(half-speed mastered)'Weather Report-Heavy Weather'. The 'Birdland' cut makes the cost of the album worth it by itself. If you can't find the vinyl, Sony Mastersound burned a limited edition, gold(20bit/SBM) CD that captures most of it(just loses the absolute lowest bottom definition compared to the vinyl). They did a couple of Zawinul's tunes on the 'Cannon' album. Heavy Weather was his band, and he produced this whole album. I'll bet you'd dig it!

Hey Rodman, I'm listening right now to "Papa Was A Rolling Stone" from "a twist of motown". Yeah, that's slammin' bass with the electric bass and synth together. A really great cut. Thanks for the lead.

Dave

Make that, "definitely."

Something else that has been overlooked: Not all of us are Classical Music lovers. The vast majority of my listening/tech work is done in intimate club settings, smaller auditoriums, and/or done with vocalists/instruments mic'd(or direct). Many of the nuances that he eschews are quite present in the live venues that(I'm certain) a number of us frequent, and deninitely- the ambience you mention.

Mrtennis, to the contrary there is actually little dichotomy between accuracy of a recording and the live event.

That lowest of low level detail, the ambient or reverberant information of the recording hall itself where the magic of a live performance really lives and breaths life into the music is already embedded in even some of what we might consider our most inferior recordings. And if this is true then you might imagine what other magic is also embedded in the recordings.

I'm not saying there aren't inferior recordings. There are. But what I am saying is that there are far fewer 'inferior' recordings than what many of us currently believe.

And rather than look to the quality of the recording (yes it does matter) as the culprit one should look to the quality of the playback system itself asking why it is unable to retrieve and reproduce that lowest of low level information along with many other magical little nuances.

Even though this may seem preposterous to most any enthusiast who's been in this hobby for 10, 20, or 40 years the existence of this lowest of low level information can easily be demonstrated with most any Redbook CD.

In nearly every case our frustration must lie with the system. No matter how well-thought-out, how much was spent, how sota we think it is, nor how knowledgeable someone may seem the problems we experience are because of the shortcomings in our systems that were never properly addressed.

On the other hand, as somebody already pointed out you do have a dichotomy because you seem quite fond of last row seating. I've never heard of a company or engineer that places the recording mics that far back. So in your case, you probably could never get the 'live' perspective of last row listening from a playback system simply because such a recording mic perspective may not exist.

-IMO

Had you considered getting a digital delay or the like to lend a sense of distance to your recordings?

And some binoculars...like at the opera! (Just kidding MrT - I do understand your desire for a real concert hall perspective and it is just as relevant as those who want Diana Krall right in their lap...)

"Circles, my mind is going round in circles......"

and getting nowhere, just like this thread.

LOL- Be nice!

i understand the arguments favoring reproducing what is there, no more no less, but very often, a recording is so far removed from reality that you either want to throw the recording out the window, or "edit" the stereo system.

i understand your analogy of the art gallery. although i think you exaggerate, the art gallery represents reality, as does the concert hall. while i prefer sitting in the last row in the orchestra at concerts, at an art gallery, i could stand 20 to 40 feet, but would not distort my vision if i did not like the painting.

MrT, with a concert hall preference that you have, it is no wonder that that you find difficulty with the perspective that the recording industry presents!! Most label give you somewhere in the neighborhood of front row center. Usually the perspective is higher than the seats would be though.

At any rate this is not a resolution issue. You simply don't like most recordings because you prefer a distant perspective, about as far away as you can get while still in the same room, from what I can make out.

Had you considered getting a digital delay or the like to lend a sense of distance to your recordings?

Well, the last Shadornes' insightful post high light the gist of audiophile dilemma and indicate that indeed there are no absolutes in high end audio. There is wide range of sound between 'accurate' to recording and life like sound reproduction.

It is easier to discern what sounds like life- like as compared to ' accurate' ( unless you happen to be recording/mastering engineer). Even after recognizing that not too many audiophiles go to live acoustic performances on a regular basis.

Hence it is easier to tune the system that sounds close to life -like ( both you are there vs they are here perspective) v/s neutral, transparent or accurate. High rez equipment help achieve this goal certainly to a great degree but not necessarily.

hi shadorne:

you have confronted the dichotomy facing serious listeners, namely: accuracy, as input=output, or musicality, as approaching the sound of live music.

one is not right or wrong.

i understand the arguments favoring reproducing what is there, no more no less, but very often, a recording is so far removed from reality that you either want to throw the recording out the window, or "edit" the stereo system.

i understand your analogy of the art gallery. although i think you exaggerate, the art gallery represents reality, as does the concert hall. while i prefer sitting in the last row in the orchestra at concerts, at an art gallery, i could stand 20 to 40 feet, but would not distort my vision if i did not like the painting.

the audio issue is taste and i respect both positions. if your standard is to respect the artist intention, then accuracy of reproduction is the criterion for assessing the merits of stereo systems. if your standard is the natural timbre of instruments, some voicing of a stereo system is logically consistent.

there are two standards and both have merit. live and let live.

04-30-08: Mrtennis said:
"hi dave:

resolution is not the issue. an overly focused unnatural presentation of the sound of instruments is the problem."

I think we totally agree here. There's nothing "high resolution" about "overly focused unnatural presentation" and I think we agree that this is all too common and often passed off as "high resolution."

Dave

i will leave it to the more philosophically inclined to analyze the principle of trying to accurately reproduce an inaccurate recortding, as compared to editing an inaccurate recording. in both cases, the result is inaccuracy.

MrT. You and many others are missing the point. The idea is not to reproduce a live event - that is not the goal of "accuracy". The reason for pursuing accuracy is so that you can enjoy the music as close to what the artist/producer/sound engineer intended on the media you bought. Often the intent is NOT to recreate a live realistic situation but something even more impressive and involving! Often the intent is to simply create pleasant sound and your CD (which has inherently extremely high accuracy) has already been passed through a myriad of devices and techniques to create desired effects (including deliberately added harmonics from tubes and special microphone placement and mixing techniques). Furthermore the studio which is working on the next CD of your favorite mega successful artist is probably using facilities and gear that are well into seven figures! Worse, every studio engineer is carefully selected by the artists and will put a different "spin" on the work - such as the way Daniel Lanois has heavily influenced albums such as Peter Gabriel's So, Bob Dylan's Oh Mercy and U2's All that you can't leave behind. Why would you not want to experience this work fully? Why would you not want to fully enjoy the famous "gated drum" sound invented by Hugh Padgham ( of Police fame ) and Phil Collins (even if it is not "real" in the purist sense). One of the most famous 'audiophile" albums ever - Pink Floyd's DSOTM only exists as a studio engineered product by the the band and Alan Parsons and more recently re-engineered by Guthrie.

Why then would you want to choose inferior gear that colors the sound and disguises what the studio/label originally heard and issued from their facilities?

What you are proposing is akin to going to an art gallery to enjoy seeing expensive artwork with heavily tinted eye glasses with lenses that are dirty, scratched and distorted and, on top of it, asking the gallery to dim the lights too! Perhaps you prefer everything seen with a yellow or brown tint through distorting lenses with dim lighting - a pleasant atmosphere indeed - but are you actually seeing everything the artist/producer intended - what are you missing when your speakers compress the music dynamics, roll off the bass or "BBC dip" in the midrange?

MrT. It is you and other audiophiles that are missing the point when you compare recordings to 'live music' only as a reference. The fact is the recording studio is an integral part of the overall artistic product. Reproducing realistic live music is just one particular goal of audio reproduction and I enjoy it very much too but it is not the ONLY reason.

Becuase "all audio reproduction" is inherently inaccurate compared to the real live event does not negate the usefulness of accurate audio reproduction. Would you say that accuracy in eye glasses is philosophically pointless because none are quite perfect as 20/20 vision?

hi dave:

resolution is not the issue. an overly focused unnatural presentation of the sound of instruments is the problem.

as you said in an earlier post, i might enjoy your stereo system and our "positions" may differ to a degree, as based upon my preference for a rear hall location and your preference for rows 1 to 5 ?

MrT, are you saying that you don't like the harsh, shrill sound of many CDs and most CDP? Well, we can all agree on that. There are players that will eliminate that on most CDs (some old stuff from the 1980s just can't be rescued, IME). That's not hi rez sound, IMHO, it's an inferior attempt at hi rez that merely substituted one inaccuracy for another.

As for calling a recording (I'm assuming a good one) "an inaccurate representation of a live performance" consider actually attending a live acoustic performance. It'll sound different from every seat in the house. Those of us that like detail sit closer and you that like a homogenized sound sit further back. Neither position is "more accurate", it is what it is. Recordings are no difference.

Mic coloration in classical recordings, these days, tends to be very small. The Tacet recordings, in particular, are very cleanly recorded. I heard Reference Recordings from the hall and on CD or vinyl and they're very, very close. Played in high resolution, these recordings are simply wonderful.

Hi rez does not include, uptilted highs, high frequency haze or artificial harshness, IME. Many high end (read as expensive) systems DO have uptilted high, high frequency haze and artificial harshness, because there's some failure in the sytem, IMHO. This is not unusual and I'm thinking that this is what you've heard and rail against. I don't blame you.

Also I understand your seeming disgust. There's a dealer here in the Denver area that sells poorly set up Sonus Faber speakers. If you were to listen in their showroom you'd probably wretch at the etched, harsh sounds coming out of the system. When questioned, they sniff and say that's how they're supposed to sound and lots of people buy them because they're so good. I'm frankly amazed that they sell anything. Trouble is, the Sonus are not the problem, it's that dealer's poor setup.

That attitude is fairly persistant in the audiophile world and it's hard to find a really sweet sounding hi rez system (there usually in someone's home) but when you hear it, it can be a revelation.

Dave

i don't think it is noble or necessary to suffer withen listening to some cds.

one has two choices, if one finds it unacceptable to tolerate unpleasant sound. one can avoid listening to some recordings or adjust, i.e., voice the stereo system so that what is heard through a pair of speakers is tolerable.

obviously, such a situation implies inaccuracy or coloration. yes, that is what it is.

why object to inaccuracy when a recording is an inaccurate representation of a live performance. consider the microphone, wire, and electronics.

i will leave it to the more philosophically inclined to analyze the principle of trying to accurately reproduce an inaccurate recortding, as compared to editing an inaccurate recording. in both cases, the result is inaccuracy.

Actually, Atmasphere, it is resolution and in certain cases some might even consider it ultra high resolution. It just may not be refined or beautiful sounding resolution.

But when you mentioned detail with added brightness, you neglected to include negative sibilance, harshness, glare, hash, grain and perhaps a few other negatives. All of which is also revealed and all of which can be either absolutely minimized or possibly eliminated altogether while maintaining the highest resolution imaginable.

As you probably know a truly resolving playback system should reproduce everything with tremendous accuracy.

Whether it be beautiful music, AC grunge coming from the wall, digital noise coming from the CDP/DAC, time-smearing ics, or a combination of a small host of other shortcomings (pick your poison) a truly revealing system is going to reveal every last shortcoming along with the music.

That is resolution. Albeit, unrefined.
-----------------------------------------------------

Hi, Mrtennis. I've enjoyed your posts so please don't take this the wrong way. I couldn't disagree more with your strategy because based on your logic in your posting above and the direction you're heading, you're likely to end up with an expensive transistor radio.

In a similar thread about a month ago I responded with the following comment:

"So if some potential detail rears its ugly head out of sequence or too prematurely in the evolutionary process, then the first thing we want to do is call it evil and squash it rather than nurture it."

I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

-IMO

Seems to me there is a message vs the messenger thing going on here.

If the message is bad news I don't kill the messenger, in this case, the stereo. The message is the music. IOW I won't fault a system for playing it like it is- that is resolution plain and simple. OTOH resolution is **not** 'detail with added brightness'; I call that 'detail with added brightness' :)

IME a system with a bright or clinical quality is obscuring the musical message. That's not resolution!

my favorite cd labels for classical recordings include the following:

glossa, opus 111, mirare, accent and harmonia mundi.

there are some older london orchestrals that have a mid to rear hall perspective as well. i don't remember westiminster recordings as having a distant perspective. however, i will consider your statement as fact. i have several westminster cds. i will listen to them. i have some lps as well. thanks for the tip.

MrT, it seems to me that you would be a fan of the Westminster label. They had a distant mic perspective. Am I right?

hi stehno:

you make a good point at distinguishing the message from the messenger. consistent with my last post, i don't blame a "relatively" or "virtually" neutral stereo systenm for reproducing what is on the recording. i may not enjoy listening to a recording or do not want to suffer through it. in that case, i will attempt to alter what comes out of the speakers by voicing the other components to minimize the effects of recordings whose sound i don't like. hopefully, i can do this in such a manner so as to restore a "neutral" character when recordings represent the sound of instruments in a natural manner. thus i would have a "chameleon-like" stereo system.

ideally, one might have a way to alter the sound of the stereo system or not alter it, to suit one's taste and/or respond to the nature of recordings.

Actually, Mrtennis, if the recording hall and playback system are up to snuff then wouldn't you expect the opera singer to fill the entire soundstage whether live or during reproduction with minimal localization?

As for hearing an entertainer breath, that is almost entirely up to the artist(s) and sound engineer (and quality of the playback system's ability to accurately reproduce).

You seem to be well aware some music is not intended to be closely miked. But you also must know some music is intended for intimate settings.

There's certainly nothing wrong with preferring rear hall seating or not wanting to hear an artist breath, etc. but if these are indeed some of your preferences then it seems illogical to blame a potentially highly resolving playback system by stripping away what little hope of magic it may provide when in fact the system is nothing more than a reproducer (good or bad) of the recording microphones' perspectives (good or bad) of the live performance.

Isn't that kinda' like blaming your ice-maker for poor tasting ice when your water supply is coming from a sewage treatment plant 2 miles down the road?

-IMO

Nicely said, Mrtennis. That's what I thought you might mean.

I don't have panel speakers, BUT I bet you a bottle of fine wine that you'd enjoy my system, with the right recordings and at the right distance. ;-)

Dave

hi dave:

you have misinterpreted my position:

reality is based upon distance between musician and listener, including the perspective of another musician and/or someone sitting in the audience. i respect your desire to hear the breath and note the source of the vocalization of an opera singer. that's fine for you and it is indeed part of reality.

i prefer tnot hear breath, turning of pages or be close to an instrument. it is to jarring and intense. i like music to sound like it is floating. i prefer distance.

having performed with other musicians in the past, i can understand why you prefer that perspective. i have a musician friend who also prefers a "forward" perspective.

live and let live. if i presented myself as dogmatic and a generalist, i apologize. my perspective is very liberal. reality encompasses many experiences. enjoy your stereo system. if you have panel speakers, i would enjoy your stereo system as well.

I might have to help her hold it... ;-)

Dave,

As talented and generous a musician as you are, I'll wager that you wouldn't mind helping Diana Krall learn to play your trumpet. ;-)

04-28-08: Mrtennis said:
"hi dave:

as i understand, music is pitch, timbre and dynamics.

breath is not music.

yes, my tastes have been documented and i admit to them."

You say that with such certainty. As with religion, when I hear someone speak with such absolute certainty I can't help but question their judgement. (BTW, I AM religious, just not absolutely certain about anything). It's one thing to say you'd prefer not to hear this or that, but to say that "breath is not music" is to impune those of us that hear it as inevitable part of a performance.

Do you attend operas? If so, can you hear when a performer switches between head and chest voice? Do you sometimes hear the resonance that a truly great artist can create by virtue of their incredible breath support, stress free throat and projection into the head? If not, you're missing something that opera virtuousos work decades to perfect. IMHO, it what takes them from being mere "singers" to being truly great artists, that and their interpretation.

BTW, my favorite perspective is as conductor. I didn't focus on that path, so I don't get to do it much at all, but it's incredible when working with a good band or orchestra. There ARE some recordings that give you this perspective, particularly the stuff Sheffield put out in the '70s and '80s. The first trumpet on the LA Phil/Wagner stuff will part your hair. Duck...

Your position in valid, but you're way of arguing it is flawed, IMHO. Some people, no doubt including you, prefer the sound from the back of the hall and want their 2-channel systems to mimic that. You just seem to be saying that the opposite is not right and the things that others of us listen for (somnetimes) are not part of the music. Instead, I'd say, anything that adds to the emotional impact of the music is part of it and for me, that includes Diana Krall smacking her lips and resonating her chest to get that husky sound.

Dave

hi dave:

as i understand, music is pitch, timbre and dynamics.

breath is not music.

yes, my tastes have been documented and i admit to them.

the notion of reality has to take into account where you are sitting in relation to where musicians are playing.

in a concert hall setting, filled with people, a rear hall perspective is accompanied by attenuated treble and some homogenization. while such a listening position may not be preferred, it is real for those of us who sit there. it may be perceived as boring for some or pleasant to others.

Dazzdax,

A TRL (Tube Research Labs) amp, either their monster tube designs (there is an ad for one on Audiogon right now) or their solid state designs will deliver ultra resolution and transparency, but will not sound aggressive and will actually be very musically accurate (see the recent thread by Grannyring on the ST-225). I have been using the D-225 solid state amp in my system for 2 years now.

Yeah Rodman, I looked around at some of Mrtennis' other posts and that seems to be a constant theme of his. As you say, he has his right to his opinion.

He's so vociferous about it I wonder if he's got "short man syndrome." ;-) However, I have empathy to some degree, since I've heard a lot of nasty sounding high rez systems, due usually to poor set up. A low rez system is going to be way more foregiving. I CAN agree with him that I'd rather have a low rez system than a poorly set up hi rez system (assuming I weren't allowed to move the speakers or change cables on the high rez system).

Man, how can anyone say that Diana Krall's breathing isn't music????

Dave

By the way: A system that WILL reproduce a vocalist's breath and the resonance of their chest will also reproduce breath over the reed of a sax, or the texture of the bow rosin across the strings of a 1715 Klotz Bass AND the woody resonance of it's huge body. To some of us, this is part of the gestalt of music, and the art of the recording engineer. If the information is present on the recording, I want my system to deliver it to me accurately and without adulteration. I can focus on individual voices(whether human or instrumental), or the entire performance as I choose. Generally speaking- I find music too enthralling to sleep to. BUT- I WILL let Jathintha, Diana or Norah lullabye me to sleep from time to time.

04-28-08: Dazzdax said:
"Is any of you familiar with a poweramp that has ultra high resolution (without sounding overly aggressive)? If you do, could you specify which amp you have in mind? In my opinion 95% of all amps (tubes or solid state) don't have this ultra high resolution. So this is a very rare breed indeed."

Chris, the Jeff Rowland Design Group Continuum 500 integrated amp will meet your goal, as will several others.

HOWEVER, I'm worried that you may not have your speakers properly set. The very best equipment will "shout" at you if you haven't set it up to minimize intermodulation distortion. IM distortion from the speakers is due to conflict between the two speakers (assuming a 2-channel set up) and/or the speakers and the room.

See my Review of the Sumiko Master Set. Also Guidocorona mentions it recently in his review of either the Rowland Capri or set up of his Vienna Acoustic Mahlers. After a Master Set you'll find yourself listening around 10 dB higher and the system stress will drop 100%, better than if you spent another 10-grand on equipment.

So, do a speaker set first, then consider upgrading your equipment.

Dave

I just cut/pasted this from a thread Mrtennis started a while back in the "digital" forum: (i like a dull, veiled, laid,back, boring sound capable of putting me to sleep. i hate treble and i don't like detail. i like subtractive coloration to such an extent that all recordings sound the same. you can talk about detail, neutrality all day long.if you don't tap your foot, it doesn't matter. i want to relax, not bothered by detail or dynamics. veil the sound and cut off the highs. darkness and dullsville is my motto, by choice. thick caramel syrup makes me happy) My purpose IS NOT to indicate there's anything wrong with his listening tastes in his personal listening environment. That is no one's business, but his own. What's interesting is how he seems to enjoy trying to convince others that his love for a lack of reality is correct. Stehno- I completely concur that those conditions generate anxiety and frustration. I've said it before though: If we all had the same tastes, this would be a really boring world.

Dazzdax, under the right conditions the Nuforce Ref 9 SE V2 amps should easily fit into this ultra high resolution category.

Mrtennis, for a lover of music there is nothing so therapeutic as a playback system that comes infinitely closer to the live event. Anything less brings frustration and anxiety which is counter to being therapeutic.

If one had such a system and they wanted to relax, they would simply listen to the appropriate music that suited their mood. Rather than swap out (downgrade) cables or components to strip away resolution, dynamics, intensities, etc..

-IMO (I am a Nuforce dealer)

Is any of you familiar with a poweramp that has ultra high resolution (without sounding overly aggressive)? If you do, could you specify which amp you have in mind? In my opinion 95% of all amps (tubes or solid state) don't have this ultra high resolution. So this is a very rare breed indeed.

Chris

music can be therapeutic. there are different reasons for listening to music and many purposes for owning a stereo system.

i sometimes think a stereo system can help relive tension or put someone to sleep, as well as help to lower blood pressure. too much intensity and complexity--all of the stimulation that is generated when listening to music as if you are on stage or in rows one to 5, is not always conducive to satisfying the psychological needs of some listeners. someone's breath and other sonic artifacts are not music.

Don't try to understand them Dave. I want to hear Diana's breath, and the resonance of her chest. My VK-D5(with 6 NOS Siemens CCa's, well isolated) delivers the goods. I wouldn't think of unloading it, except perhaps for a Linn CD-12, the right Lector or maybe that Meitner piece you mentioned(sure-I might want to hear it first). With the DCC2, it would cost a hair more than a Linn(if you could find a Linn for sale).

That makes sense to me. I've never heard a non-musician call it "sizzle".

Speaking of hi rez, I pulled out my DVD-Audio version of Dave Grusin's "Two For The Road -- The Music of Henry Mancini". Compared to the Grusin CDs, the DVD-A really is "organic" and "transparent". The CDs sound really good until you compare them to the DVD-A (24/96 in this case) and there's one last layer of stress stripped away. (Makes me think about getting one of those up-converting Emm Lab players).

Anyway, every last detail is there on that DVD-A when played on my system. The bass slam, the piano tone, pristine sax solos, organic harmonica solo, every husk of
Diana Krall's husky voice, all glorious. I'll never understand people that don't want to hear that.

Dave

My father played trombone in a big band that used to play during the old dance hall days. I used to play clarinet and I'm currently working on drums as you will see in my system here.

"Sizzle" is a trumpeting term and you used it exactly right. Are you a player? I am.

Dave

Harry smokes.

Indeed he had great "sizzle"...a very nice sound and yes he did smoke (cigarettes) too...

There you go. The absolute first disk I pulled out after I brought my Pro-ject RM10 turntable home was Sheffield's "King James Version". That's the most realistic big band sound I've heard on recording, from the perspective of the conductor. Harry smokes.

Later in the same day, "Squibcakes" from the TOP D2D LP took center stage. Wow!

Dave

I must second both Shadorne & Dcstep... Homage To Duke is still one of the best recordings ever to my ears, and long-term reference...

It has slightly more bass then it should, IMHO, but it is the realistic dynamics that make this such a gem. To me it is this lack of compression which is what makes this so enjoyable and realistic. Piano sounds real. Drums sound real. Sadly 99.99% of music is squashed to suit the inferior playback systems in most homes and never has the dynamics that one expects of real instruments or anything remotely close to what CD's are capable of dynamically.

Harry James and his big band on Sheffield labs is another recording that has realistic dynamics. Tower of Power albums are generally all good too. Occasionally on pop music a rare piece will slip out...such as "Murder by Numbers" off the Police Synchronicity album...

I must second both Shadorne & Dcstep... Homage To Duke is still one of the best recordings ever to my ears, and long-term reference...

Anybody tried Joey DeFrancesco's "Singin' And Swingin'"...??? Far the best recorded organ, ever!!!

Yeah, I love the Duke Homage album. I've had it a long time. Thanks for mentioning it.

Dave

Hah, I ordered "Twist of Motown" this morning, plus another Grusin album and a Ritenour.

If you don't yet have Dave Grusin's Homage to Duke then you are missing an absolute GEM!!! One of the best recordings out there bar none.