# Technology keeps changing our lives. How do you get your music these days?



## KJohnson

During the late 90s and early this century, I kept buying more and more CDs. (Must have spent between 10 to 15 grand in all.) In addition to that, I downloaded a lot of CDs from friends and libraries. I used to pride myself for having a huge music collection on my computer (exclusively classical). 

Just around 2005-2006, I found myself listening to Youtube videos more often than my own collection. Even if it was a piece that I had on my PC, I still founded it easier to just type the name in YouTube and get it right there, often with the option to hear different versions.

I think we have arrived a time in history, that instead of each person having their own collection, we have one huge collection for all.

I, for one, celebrate this. Any ideas?

Ken


----------



## Weston

I have thought this too. The same for books, movies, video games, etc. I don't listen to music on You Tube, preferring the idea of random play available on an iPod, but I subscribe to a streaming service. Much of my listening is done there. I think ultimately this is a good thing for music. It allows for artists to promote themselves.


----------



## Polednice

As there is the possibility of exposure to so many recordings through the internet, I would feel out of touch if I didn't constantly listen to music I don't own on services like Spotify and the Naxos Music Library. Inevitably, given the sheer size of their catalogues, I end up listening to them more than I do my own collection, and, though I treasure my own collection, so long as I have an internet connection, I suppose I don't need to stockpile CDs.

With regards to books, I've started more and more reading eBooks, but I feel so dirty and guilty for doing it!


----------



## jhar26

I'm still a cd guy. I'm to set in my ways to yet again (after vinyl and cd's) change formats. Youtube for me is for checking out stuff. I watch operas on Met player and concerts on MediciTV though.


----------



## Manxfeeder

This is an interesting time. I was at a party with some younger guys and ended up talking to them about Beethoven, so they whipped out their cell phones and listened to YouTube clips. They were able to follow up what I was saying with real-time examples. That's very positive.

Personally, as far as classical and jazz, I still like going to the CD stack and holding the liner notes waiting for the CD to load. It keeps my attention focused. R&B, reggae, et cetera, I put on my memory stick or mp3 player, because it's background to doing something else.


----------



## Art Rock

CD's for me too. Even the albums I download I burn on CD. I never listen to classical music on the laptop.


----------



## Ukko

Well, shucks. I didn't spend big money for speakers (>$2G) so I could listen to streams. CDs, SACDs, DVDs, I have them and listen to them.

!


----------



## petrarch

I am also a CD/SACD person. A good CD player still reproduces CDs and SACDs better than streaming hardware and a computer-based set up can't really compare.


----------



## TxllxT

The data on a CD are in computerterms WAV-files. These WAV-files can be processed to become MP3-files, but at the price of quality-loss. The quality-loss can be *heard* when you have speakers that are able to render low dark notes. Most of the speakers on the market are not and that's why most people are happy with MP3. They never heard the pedals of an organ. Now apart from MP3 there is also FLAC, which is claimed to be lossless. Does anyone have experience with FLAC how it handles pedal notes from a big church organ? My limited experience with FLAC leads me to suspect that the basses sound thinner....


----------



## haydnfan

I think that people still want to own music. Even though streaming is neat, and taking off there will always be a market for buying music whether it's on a physical disc or a digital download.

I rip all of my music, but I still play cds on my main system out of convenience and in my car since it's older.

TxllxT: flacs sound precisely the same as a cd because it's for lossless... except for one thing: if you rip a cd there can be error if you don't do it securely and it won't sound as good. For some reasons cd players never have trouble correcting for error on playback but pure data extraction on a pc can't compensate.


----------



## graaf

TxllxT said:


> The data on a CD are in computerterms WAV-files. These WAV-files can be processed to become MP3-files, but at the price of quality-loss. The quality-loss can be *heard* when you have speakers that are able to render low dark notes. Most of the speakers on the market are not and that's why most people are happy with MP3. They never heard the pedals of an organ. Now apart from MP3 there is also FLAC, which is claimed to be lossless. Does anyone have experience with FLAC how it handles pedal notes from a big church organ? My limited experience with FLAC leads me to suspect that the basses sound thinner....


It is easy to see that FLAC is loseless - you just need a few piece of free software and a few minutes of time. You rip data from audio CD to WAV files, then convert one of them (let's call it "original WAV") to FLAC, then convert that FLAC back to WAV (let's call that "latter WAV"). You can use foobar2000 for that (I use it), and there are many other alternatives available (EAC, CDex...), and you can get FLAC encoder from this link (although it's trivial to google it out).

When you compare "original WAV" and "latter WAV", you will see they are completely identical files. Notice, I'm not talking about comparing by listening, but comparing actual files (you can use Total Commander for that) - and they will be identical bit by bit. Turning WAV file to FLAC and back to WAV is like ZIP-ing certain file, and then unZIP-ing it - you get what you've begun with. FLACs are about half the size of WAV, so they're good for archiving without loss of sound.

Unfortunately (or not), internet is full of pirated music in FLAC format, which is not made from original WAV files (i.e. original audio CD), but from other (also pirated) MP3 files - those are known as "fake FLAC", since nothing can bring back the loss of audio data - it is equivalent or turning MP3s to WAV, and then "posing" as original. But that is another story...


----------



## KJohnson

People who still want to "own" their music are under an illusion, given the rate of technological advances and the already enormous online databases. The scale is not about to be cut down in size. Its growth is way to fast for us to catch up.

I think copyright laws too will soon break down. Societies might have to develop other ways of rewarding creative people.


----------



## graaf

KJohnson said:


> People who still want to "own" their music are under an illusion, given the rate of technological advances and the already enormous online databases.


Can you please clarify - do you mean the people who made the music (referring to copyright), or the people who buy CDs (referring to streaming)?


----------



## KJohnson

I was responding to post #10. I thought it would be obvious.

But copyright also is not off the hook... I can very well image a time when no one will buy music anymore. Composers and musicians are more and more willing to share their music for free, because the modest sales aren't keeping them warm.


----------



## jhar26

haydnfan said:


> I think that people still want to own music.


I think so, yes. I do anyway. It's not because you can brag about your collection to other people. I suppose it's more a sentimental thing. You (well, I) relate differently to something physical - something you can hold in your hands. Downloading almost feels like requesting a song on the radio in comparison. Maybe it's a bit age related and for young(er) people who haven't grown up collecting cd's (or vinyl) it's not a big deal as long as they can listen to the music.


----------



## graaf

KJohnson said:


> I was responding to post #10. I thought it would be obvious.


If people want to own music (either CDs or digital downloads, as in post #10), and companies are ready to sell it to them - where's the illusion part? People will continue to own it, companies will happily sell it - the only illusion is when you think that online database is suitable for all.


----------



## Polednice

To be perfectly honest, I suppose the only reason that I like to own music is so that I can listen to it when I'm not at home on some mobile device, without having to pay for mobile internet.


----------



## KJohnson

graaf said:


> If people want to own music (either CDs or digital downloads, as in post #10), and companies are ready to sell it to them - where's the illusion part? People will continue to own it, companies will happily sell it - the only illusion is when you think that online database is suitable for all.


I can imagine us having this conversation 15-20 years ago, with you saying "If people like to send actual letters, no email is going to replace that". The human brain is not designed to imagine the exponential growth of technology. Regardless of how many people like to hang on to their CDs, time is going against them. You can't win by resisting the advancing technology; it will win you every time.


----------



## haydnfan

KJohnson said:


> I can imagine us having this conversation 15-20 years ago, with you saying "If people like to send actual letters, no email is going to replace that". The human brain is not designed to imagine the exponential growth of technology. Regardless of how many people like to hang on to their CDs, time is going against them. You can't win by resisting the advancing technology; it will win you every time.


I don't see how buying an mp3 from itunes, amazon etc is any different technology wise from watching a clip on youtube, streaming with naxos music library etc You are confusing choice of format with owning vs renting. If your thesis is "physical media is dieing" be my guest, but that has nothing to do with what I said or what graaf said.


----------



## Conor71

I like having my own collection but I welcome the idea of having d/l or streamed Music in the future providing:
1. Improved Streaming Technology (I currently find Youtube very slow on my Internet and would currently not consider using it as a primary source of listening).
2. Downloads at 320 kbps or better for Classical
3. Downloads being markedly reduced in price compared to Physical media - at the moment it is more economical to just have a physical disc and rip the music to MP3 format.


----------



## Ralfy

"Advancing technology" will not last given the threat of a resource crunch, particularly peak oil. Let us enjoy what we have.


----------



## petrarch

KJohnson said:


> I can imagine us having this conversation 15-20 years ago, with you saying "If people like to send actual letters, no email is going to replace that". The human brain is not designed to imagine the exponential growth of technology. Regardless of how many people like to hang on to their CDs, time is going against them. *You can't win by resisting the advancing technology*; it will win you every time.


There's the rub; you think appreciating having physical media is resisting technology, whereas it is nothing of the sort, at least in my case (I still buy perhaps a dozen CDs a month on average, but also have amassed about 400 GB of FLAC and mp3 files).


----------



## Potiphera

The quality of sound on youtube varies, and I don't find this a convenient way of listening to classical music anyway, unless someone recommends a piece to me, I will go and listen to it on youtube to see if I like it. 
I prefer my CD's for classical music, but best of all is going to a live performance.


----------



## haydnfan

Conor71 said:


> I like having my own collection but I welcome the idea of having d/l or streamed Music in the future providing:
> 1. Improved Streaming Technology (I currently find Youtube very slow on my Internet and would currently not consider using it as a primary source of listening).
> 2. Downloads at 320 kbps or better for Classical
> 3. Downloads being markedly reduced in price compared to Physical media - at the moment it is more economical to just have a physical disc and rip the music to MP3 format.


Conor, you should try mog for high bitrates (not terribly great classical selection but it represents the major record labels).
Eclassical now offers flac downloads, and I find the V 0 mp3s sold by amazon and the aac 256 sold by itunes good quality.
I usually buy cds for being cheaper, but check out Harmonia Mundi cds, priced at $17 a pop while the mp3 download is $9.


----------



## KJohnson

petrarch said:


> There's the rub; you think appreciating having physical media is resisting technology, whereas it is nothing of the sort, at least in my case (I still buy perhaps a dozen CDs a month on average, but also have amassed about 400 GB of FLAC and mp3 files).


Well, I didn't know anyone who does what you're doing. I myself don't see why one should appreciate having "physical media". Getting rid of the physical part of it and being left with just the music must be liberating. That's just how I feel.


----------



## KJohnson

haydnfan said:


> I don't see how buying an mp3 from itunes, amazon etc is any different technology wise from watching a clip on youtube, streaming with naxos music library etc You are confusing choice of format with owning vs renting. If your thesis is "physical media is dieing" be my guest, but that has nothing to do with what I said or what graaf said.


The point I'm making is that the sheer abundance of free music on the web will eventually crush the business model of paying to listen to someone's music. It's already is on its last legs.

It's interesting to consider that when YouTube was new, musicians fought hard to take down their music posted by fans. Nowadays try taking down the music of even some of the most successful artists off of YouTube. They will go insane. They WANT it there. I heard Eric Clapton on the radio recently saying that he loves his music being on YouTube. Even in the more business-minded pop world they are giving in to the trend.

I stopped buying music when I stopped buying CDs. If I am going to have to go on Itunes to buy downloads, I might as well put the composer's name on the YouTube search bar. Chances are that I'll get what I need, and in multiple versions. The sound quality has improved dramatically and will continue to.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I have very little stored on my computer except for things I tend to want to access while I'm working. When I LISTEN to music properly, I want to be in a comfortable chair with my good hi-fi system playing, NOT sat in front of a computer at my desk through inferior speakers (although excellent speakers of their type). I can't see myself moving away from CDs until a satisfactory and SAFE alternative presents itself (eg if your hard drive self-destructs and you lose all your music files, what then?).


----------



## KJohnson

Ralfy said:


> "Advancing technology" will not last given the threat of a resource crunch, particularly peak oil. Let us enjoy what we have.


I have to disagree. The future of technology thrives on oil peak. The percentage of solar plants is doubling every year. About 8 doublings away from 100%. How's that for the future? It isn't so bleak afterall, is it?


----------



## KJohnson

Delicious Manager said:


> if your hard drive self-destructs and you lose all your music files, what then?


Dropbox. Couldn't be any simpler.


----------



## Llyranor

I buy CD's and import them into Itunes in lossless format.

I use youtube a lot to find compositions I'm not familiar with before I commit to buy them.


----------



## LordBlackudder

theres no reason to buy music it's all free on the internet.

if the artist want to make a profit than they could change this setup over night. but a lot of them don't seem to mind and some support free downloads.

ironically some of them only exist because of the internet.


----------



## Conor71

haydnfan said:


> Conor, you should try mog for high bitrates (not terribly great classical selection but it represents the major record labels).
> Eclassical now offers flac downloads, and I find the V 0 mp3s sold by amazon and the aac 256 sold by itunes good quality.
> I usually buy cds for being cheaper, but check out Harmonia Mundi cds, priced at $17 a pop while the mp3 download is $9.


Thanks Haydnfan, I havent checked out Mog or Eclassical before - sounds like they supply hq downloads, which will probably become standard in the future .


----------



## haydnfan

KJohnson said:


> The point I'm making is that the sheer abundance of free music on the web will eventually crush the business model of paying to listen to someone's music. It's already is on its last legs.


I disagree, and I think that you also don't understand why artists like having their music on vevo or youtube. When alot of people watch songs they like, the artist will receive more profit because a fraction of those people buy the music when they otherwise would not have. Get it? Youtube is the new radio. It serves crappy sound and picture quality to get people just to listen. And some people like you will be content to use youtube for everything, just as there were people that were content to listen to the radio only. But the reality is that the stores and youtube have a symbiotic relationship, and also just like the radio vevo (the channel pop artists use) makes money off of advertising.

Not only does youtube not threaten the music industry (which collapsed due to piracy and poor decisions not youtube) but it actually helps it.


----------



## Vaneyes

1. CDs
2. Cable feed.
3. LPs


----------



## KJohnson

haydnfan said:


> I disagree, and I think that you also don't understand why artists like having their music on vevo or youtube. When alot of people watch songs they like, the artist will receive more profit because a fraction of those people buy the music when they otherwise would not have. Get it? Youtube is the new radio. It serves crappy sound and picture quality to get people just to listen. And some people like you will be content to use youtube for everything, just as there were people that were content to listen to the radio only. But the reality is that the stores and youtube have a symbiotic relationship, and also just like the radio vevo (the channel pop artists use) makes money off of advertising.
> 
> Not only does youtube not threaten the music industry (which collapsed due to piracy and poor decisions not youtube) but it actually helps it.


I guess we'll live and see. I hope you're right and I am wrong.


----------



## petrarch

KJohnson said:


> I guess we'll live and see. I hope you're right and I am wrong.


Read this and see first hand how the artists welcome any avenue of dissemination of their work.


----------



## Llyranor

I can say first-hand that listening on youtube to some compositions I hadn't heard before has pushed me on many many occasions so far to purchase the CDs.


----------



## mmsbls

The majority of my current listening is through my subscription to Naxos Music Library and youtube. I use both to sample new works that I don't know or that I'm not sure I want. Youtube is great to get a sense of the music, but Naxos is much higher average quality (the variation is quite large on youtube).

When I find a piece or CD I clearly want, I purchase the CD through Amazon (usually). I copy the CD to iTunes and play the works from my computer when I work or play in my office.

When I want to seriously listen to a work, I play the CD on a good sound system. I also take CDs in my car to listen.


----------



## Delicious Manager

LordBlackudder said:


> theres no reason to buy music it's all free on the internet.
> 
> if the artist want to make a profit than they could change this setup over night. but a lot of them don't seem to mind and some support free downloads.
> 
> ironically some of them only exist because of the internet.


The ready availability of pirated material on the internet does not justify stealing musicians' music. How do you think musicians can pay their bills if everyone just illegally 'shares' it online? Artists have very little (if any) control on people stealing from them in this way.


----------



## Vaneyes

Delicious Manager said:


> The ready availability of pirated material on the internet does not justify stealing musicians' music. How do you think musicians can pay their bills if everyone just illegally 'shares' it online? Artists have very little (if any) control on people stealing from them in this way.


To play devil's advocate, What about out of print material, or estates/enterprises who live off of dead artists?


----------



## Delicious Manager

Vaneyes said:


> To play devil's advocate, What about out of print material, or estates/enterprises who live off of dead artists?


I am not sure I completely understand your question. A composer's music remains in copyright for a specific amount of time after his/her death (70 years here in the UK). Do you not think it correct that a composer's family should continue to benefit from their deceased family member's work after they have died? Or do you think we should say "Right, he's dead now and that's your lot - go and get yourself a day job."?

Making ANY music available to the public involves some kind of cost. Music doesn't magically print itself on free paper on free printing presses. It doesn't transport itself free of distribution and fuel costs around the world, or suddenly appear on a website where there are no domain charges, hosting fees and website design and maintenance fees. Can you give me an example of someone supplying music where the act involves no investment of time or money whatsoever?


----------



## KJohnson

Delicious Manager said:


> How do you think musicians can pay their bills if everyone just illegally 'shares' it online? Artists have very little (if any) control on people stealing from them in this way.


This is going to be a challenge society will have to be faced with. New social reforms may be the answer. The point is, wishing that people didn't grab free available music in order help pay artists' bills is not at all a guarantee that it will be the case. Downloading free music is so impersonal that no public campaigns can make people think they're really committing theft...


----------



## Delicious Manager

KJohnson said:


> This is going to be a challenge society will have to be faced with. New social reforms may be the answer. The point is, wishing that people didn't grab free available music in order help pay artists' bills is not at all a guarantee that it will be the case. Downloading free music is so impersonal that no public campaigns can make people think they're really committing theft...


Authorities in many countries are slowly getting to grips with this crime and many people have received extremely hefty fines for pirating music. People think they are anonymous on the internet - they're NOT - your IP address can easily be traced back to your machine. This is a step in the right direction and, if it continues and people see that others are suffering severe penalties for piracy, the deterrent will grow. Like any crime, we will never completely eradicate it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all do our bit in fighting it.

Remember that some of the world's worst atrocities have been perpetrated by others standing back and doing nothing. I exaggerate to make a point!


----------



## Vaneyes

Delicious Manager said:


> Authorities in many countries are slowly getting to grips with this crime and many people have received extremely hefty fines for pirating music. People think they are anonymous on the internet - they're NOT - your IP address can easily be traced back to your machine. This is a step in the right direction and, if it continues and people see that others are suffering severe penalties for piracy, the deterrent will grow. Like any crime, we will never completely eradicate it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all do our bit in fighting it.
> 
> Remember that some of the world's worst atrocities have been perpetrated by others standing back and doing nothing. I exaggerate to make a point!


******

Regarding my earlier post, I responded to your, "How do you think musicians can pay their bills if everyone just illegally 'shares' it online? Artists have very little (if any) control on people stealing from them in this way," with a larger/longer view. Immediately, you begin getting personal with pointblank one-sided questions, which was rather stupid because as "devil's advocate" I was generally responding for many who take issue with paying and paying and paying in various ways.

I have some personal misgivings on the topic, that I would've gladly shared. Too bad.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Vaneyes said:


> **********
> Regarding my earlier post, I responded to your, "How do you think musicians can pay their bills if everyone just illegally 'shares' it online? Artists have very little (if any) control on people stealing from them in this way," with a larger/longer view. Immediately, you begin getting personal with pointblank one-sided questions, which was rather stupid because as "devil's advocate" I was generally responding for many who take issue with paying and paying and paying in various ways.
> 
> I have some personal misgivings on the topic, that I would've gladly shared. Too bad.


Don't take it so personally. If you post a deliberately provocative statement, then don't get upset if someone rises to your bait. Perhaps I seem over-zealous (but an e-cop?), but this comes from more than 30 years as a manager in the music profession seeing financially-struggling musicians getting ripped off time after time. Yes, this subject induces a passionate response from me, but I make no apology for it.


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> It is easy to see that FLAC is loseless - you just need a few piece of free software and a few minutes of time. You rip data from audio CD to WAV files, then convert one of them (let's call it "original WAV") to FLAC, then convert that FLAC back to WAV (let's call that "latter WAV"). You can use foobar2000 for that (I use it), and there are many other alternatives available (EAC, CDex...), and you can get FLAC encoder from this link (although it's trivial to google it out).
> 
> When you compare "original WAV" and "latter WAV", you will see they are completely identical files. Notice, I'm not talking about comparing by listening, but comparing actual files (you can use Total Commander for that) - and they will be identical bit by bit. Turning WAV file to FLAC and back to WAV is like ZIP-ing certain file, and then unZIP-ing it - you get what you've begun with. FLACs are about half the size of WAV, so they're good for archiving without loss of sound.
> 
> Unfortunately (or not), internet is full of pirated music in FLAC format, which is not made from original WAV files (i.e. original audio CD), but from other (also pirated) MP3 files - those are known as "fake FLAC", since nothing can bring back the loss of audio data - it is equivalent or turning MP3s to WAV, and then "posing" as original. But that is another story...


And what is an AAC file?


----------



## Almaviva

I listen to CDs and my iPod in my car which has a high-end sound system.
At home I watch opera DVDs and Blu-ray discs, listen to my iPod again (with noise cancelling headphones), and almost never listen to a CD any longer.
I listen to YouTube a lot, both on my laptop, and on my TV which is Internet-capable.
If I throw a party the music now comes from Pandora radio playing on my TV. I don't even bother with playlists any longer, and much less with CDs for party music.
Other than for convenient portability in my car (it's often easier to pop a CD into the slot than to browse the iPod while driving) I don't see any use for CDs any longer. Regarding older technology like vinyl, tapes, or VHS, it's been years the last time I used any of them. Currently I don't even own a turntable and got rid of my entire vinyl collection (classical, rock).
I know that by almost completely skipping CDs or sending their content to the iPod I'm often limiting myself to less than ideal recordings or to loss of sound quality. But I'm busy enough with my other sources of music, there's just no time left for CDs.

About piracy, I try my best not to engage in any. I pay for everything that I own (iPod tracks come from either my own CDs or Amazon.com mp3 purchases), and when I listen to online sources like YouTube and Pandora, it's just listening, I don't download anything. I have even stopped buying opera from vendors that may be violating copyrights (which unfortunately limits my choices since I can now only buy the traditionally available products from the main houses, and many operas are just not offered by these).


----------



## science

For now, I still buy CDs, which I upload to my computer, and listen from it or from my Ipod. When I can store my library in the cloud and access it (as well as the liner notes) remotely through my "mobile device," I will surrender my attachment to the physical object.


----------



## haydnfan

Almaviva said:


> And what is an AAC file?


AAC is a lossy codec like mp3 (albeit slightly better), in fact it was designed by the same people that created the mp3 codec, Fraunhoffer Institute.


----------



## AlbaCountertenor

Semi-seriously considering whether a tablet can replace the reams of sheet music I carry around with me. A tablet would weigh less than my bulky folder, is much thinner and I can carry far more in a smaller space. Against that is the fact that tablets need battery power, the sheet music on a tablet would be harder to make notes on and the fact that the tablet is expensive and delicate. OK, maybe it's not quite there yet but in 5 years time when the technology gets lighter and the battery recharge time improves it may be a more serious option.


----------



## KJohnson

AlbaCountertenor said:


> Semi-seriously considering whether a tablet can replace the reams of sheet music I carry around with me.


You be sure about that! Tablets aren't going anywhere, they're here to stay.... getting thinner and cheaper each month.


----------



## dvdwant

I have a dedicated pc connected via fiber optic cable to my amplifier and via HDMI to my plasma TV. I use XBMC to play flac files ripped from CD's and the sound is indistinguishable from a CD played through the same setup on a high end Marantz CD player. It's wonderful - my entire collection searchable by conductor, performer, orchestra, composer, label, genre. So I can spend 10 minutes compiling a playlist that will last for hours and if I'm looking for specific piece of music, let's say Bach's mass in B minor I can instantly see every recording I have and play them immediately in perfect CD quality without leaving the sofa. I love technology.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Vinyl LPs and Compact discs, I don't particularly approve of mp3s.


----------



## haydnfan

I've been reripping my cds into flac, and today is the final day. I connect my laptop to my hifi with optical cable and enjoy my entire collection! The convenience is awesome.


----------



## Monte Verdi

I listen to mostly vinyl these days with 2-3 thousand records on hand and still collecting. Strings never sound natural to my ears with digital playback and I have heard High End machines such as Burmester, DCS, FLAC from computer systems and my own SONY SCD 1. I also prefer tubes in the chain as this seems to be the most natural way for instruments to have that unbelievable texture, transparency and sound stage depth. 

Now, I realize I am out numbered here with the likes of Digital fans but you really owe it to yourself and the music to listen to a fine turntable/vinyl tube system sometime. Yes, digital has gotten far better and it does sound good, just different worlds, that's all. I like some solid state gear as well such as :tiphatASS LABS, Klyne, early Levinson, Blue Circle and Accuphase to name a few, IMO they sound exceptional for various reasons and would never scoff at there sound. Lastly, I imagine that most of you had a classical collection once on vinyl and you took it to the thrift store, oh well...

Ramon


----------



## emiellucifuge

KJohnson said:


> You be sure about that! Tablets aren't going anywhere, they're here to stay.... getting thinner and cheaper each month.


I actually often play scores from IMSLP with my iPad on the piano.


----------



## kv466

It's always nice to have the actual cd sleeve with the liner notes and all but, of course, it is also pretty great that we can simply think of something or hear about it in passing then type it into a search bar and enjoy.


----------



## Guest

About 90% SACD, 5% CD, and 5% MP3.


----------



## itywltmt

The following are my musings on digital music, with apologies to other members who may have offered similar comments - as I have not reviewed the thread is extreme detail.

More on my TC Blog @ http://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/itywltmt/200-how-do-you-get.html


----------



## Compoza

I do everything on my iPad, we need to embrace the new technological capabilities.
Here's the latest app that I bought for classical music, really amazing to see what these guys are doing
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/classic-melody-book/id428803118?mt=8


----------



## Jwags818

petrarch said:


> I am also a CD/SACD person. A good CD player still reproduces CDs and SACDs better than streaming hardware and a computer-based set up can't really compare.


 I used to think the same thing. I have a nice cd player NAD C542 and last year I bought a Music Stream II+ . A little DAC that plugs into a PC USB port and gives an analog output. it also will play 24/96 studio master files. This little gadget just blew my CDP away! I have a very nice high end headphone amp and a pair of HD600 headphones and can tell the difference. It amazed me how that $300 DAC made my PC sound as good or better than my friends 1200$ SACD player. Give it a try. it's amazing.

Jeff


----------



## Philip

petrarch said:


> I am also a CD/SACD person. A good CD player still reproduces CDs and SACDs better than streaming hardware and a computer-based set up can't really compare.


Not true. a computer with a decent sound card will sound just as good as any cd or sacd player. once you attain a certain sound quality threshold (low noise/distortion) all audio is transparent and sounds the same.



TxllxT said:


> The data on a CD are in computerterms WAV-files. These WAV-files can be processed to become MP3-files, but at the price of quality-loss. The quality-loss can be *heard* when you have speakers that are able to render low dark notes. Most of the speakers on the market are not and that's why most people are happy with MP3. They never heard the pedals of an organ. Now apart from MP3 there is also FLAC, which is claimed to be lossless. Does anyone have experience with FLAC how it handles pedal notes from a big church organ? My limited experience with FLAC leads me to suspect that the basses sound thinner....


Another myth, placebo effect. the data on a cd is actually pcm, wav is a windows file format that supports pcm. flac is completely lossless and sounds the same as its source. if you don't believe it i suggest you do an abx test... and do one with a high quality mp3 or aac while you're at it... you might change your mind...


----------



## GoneBaroque

I probably have close to 2,000 CDs acquired over they ears but have not purchased any in a couple of years. Of late I have been downloading videos from YouTube and listening on the pc through headphones. In most cases the sound in more than satisfactory. Plus there is the opportunity of finding something that you would probably not have spent the money to buy, and you often turn out liking it. Of course, no recording medium can remotely compare with being in the hall for a live performance. There is inevitably some loss.

Rob


----------



## petrarch

Jwags818 said:


> I used to think the same thing. I have a nice cd player NAD C542 and last year I bought a Music Stream II+ . A little DAC that plugs into a PC USB port and gives an analog output. it also will play 24/96 studio master files. This little gadget just blew my CDP away! I have a very nice high end headphone amp and a pair of HD600 headphones and can tell the difference. It amazed me how that $300 DAC made my PC sound as good or better than my friends 1200$ SACD player. Give it a try. it's amazing.
> 
> Jeff


We're talking a different league of CDPs. My Squeezebox 3 is comparable to $2000 CDPs. It doesn't beat my Esoteric, though. But for the price, a streaming solution is usually better since it has none of the challenges of reading the data from the CD and none of the mechanical parts.


----------



## petrarch

Philip said:


> Not true. a computer with a decent sound card will sound *just as good as any cd or sacd player*. once you attain a certain sound quality threshold (low noise/distortion) all audio is transparent and sounds the same.


Define 'decent'. For the usual sound cards out there, this is simply not true. For one, jitter compensation is typically poor in your vanilla consumer sound card, to speak nothing of the clock. That's why a _good_ sound card will set you back a few thousand, there is just no way to skimp on part quality and that costs the manufacturer.

As for 'all audio is transparent and sounds the same'... you can't really compare a NAD CDP (to mention the CDP mentioned by the other poster) with (say) a dCS, and to say they sound the same is just ignorant extrapolation.


----------



## Philip

petrarch said:


> Define 'decent'. For the usual sound cards out there, this is simply not true. For one, jitter compensation is typically poor in your vanilla consumer sound card, to speak nothing of the clock. That's why a _good_ sound card will set you back a few thousand, there is just no way to skimp on part quality and that costs the manufacturer.
> 
> As for 'all audio is transparent and sounds the same'... you can't really compare a NAD CDP (to mention the CDP mentioned by the other poster) with (say) a dCS, and to say they sound the same is just ignorant extrapolation.


Sorry but i don't buy that. there has been countless reports of blind experiments stating that dac's, cdp's and amps, operated within specs, are all indistinguishable to the ear. the comparison of sacd vs cd yields the same result, they both sound identical. if you know of any papers indicating otherwise, please point me to them...

By "decent" i mean up to today's standards in hifi audio, ie. reference measurements of frequency response, snr, distortion, jitter, etc. eg. 120dB s/n will sound the same as a hypothetical 150dB s/n rated dac, all else being equal.


----------



## petrarch

Philip said:


> Sorry but i don't buy that. there has been countless reports of blind experiments stating that dac's, cdp's and amps, operated within specs, are all indistinguishable to the ear. the comparison of sacd vs cd yields the same result, they both sound identical.


I would very much like to read a couple of those countless reports, especially since high-res audio provably is more coherent in the time domain (e.g. the filters for 44.1 and 96 have different designs), so you get less transient 'smear' (the AES has articles on this). But, since you weren't specifically talking about resolution, but commented on jitter and clock, I wonder why so many professional studios choose to have their digital audio interfaces slaved to an external clock, such as the popular Apogee Big Ben.

Anyway, anecdotally, I once compared my DVD player with my CDP playing normal CD audio material. The differences were obvious (the DVD player was much worse). I guess the DVD player was 'below spec', which is strange for a midrange player from a reputable manufacturer.


----------



## Philip

petrarch said:


> I would very much like to read a couple of those countless reports, especially since high-res audio provably is more coherent in the time domain (e.g. the filters for 44.1 and 96 have different designs), so you get less transient 'smear' (the AES has articles on this). But, since you weren't specifically talking about resolution, but commented on jitter and clock, I wonder why so many professional studios choose to have their digital audio interfaces slaved to an external clock, such as the popular Apogee Big Ben.
> 
> Anyway, anecdotally, I once compared my DVD player with my CDP playing normal CD audio material. The differences were obvious (the DVD player was much worse). I guess the DVD player was 'below spec', which is strange for a midrange player from a reputable manufacturer.


i know hydrogenaudio has a compilation of tests found on the web: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82777

i agree that during recording, or more specifically in the A/D stage, high sampling frequency and bit depth (96k~192k, 24~32bit) are very important for signal processing and editing, and any measure to enhance precision such as an external clock is probably justified.

on the other hand, in sound reproduction (D/A), the digital signal contains the clock within itself and is less subject to non-linearities. a sample rate of 44.1k is enough for the audible range 20~20kHz (although 48k gives the digital lowpass more headroom), 16bit has also proven to be sufficient for listening purposes.

did you do your comparison in a blind test? what were the results?


----------



## Oskaar

You tube is mostly really bad compared with the streaming service I use..spotify. 

The only thing that restricts spotify from cd-quality is the sound card of my computer. cd from my stereo is the best, but a good recording on spotify is so much better than a bad recording on cd. 

I use good headphones, linked from computer to stereo (but trough soundcard). The pleasure of having a millions of tunes on my hand gets over the fact that cd is bether... I can only listen to one at once, I know, but spotify gives me freedom, extreme ability too music, and great posibilities to explore music. Spotify is only avaiable in a few countries due to copyright issues.


----------



## samurai

oskaar said:


> You tube is mostly really bad compared with the streaming service I use..spotify.
> 
> The only thing that restricts spotify from cd-quality is the sound card of my computer. cd from my stereo is the best, but a good recording on spotify is so much better than a bad recording on cd.
> 
> I use good headphones, linked from computer to stereo (but trough soundcard). The pleasure of having a millions of tunes on my hand gets over the fact that cd is bether... I can only listen to one at once, I know, but spotify gives me freedom, extreme ability too music, and great posibilities to explore music. Spotify is only avaiable in a few countries due to copyright issues.


@Oskaar, I really envy you and all those in the other nations of the world who have access to spotify. It really sounds like a great service indeed! :trp:


----------



## petrarch

Philip said:


> did you do your comparison in a blind test? what were the results?


No. I just decided to give it a try. It was less refined and sounded reverberant, with instruments less well defined in the 'stage'. My wife was in another room and noticed the difference immediately, as she asked at once what happened to the sound.


----------



## Guest

Until a couple of weeks ago I was a simple CD-and-Radio 3 person. The future was whizzing past me and I didn't care...!!!

Then I investigated Spotify. Lord! What's not to like???!! At least for discovering new stuff, it's unbelievable. I need to make some technical tweaks (and possibly give up work) then I'm diving fully in. I also fear a trip to Richer Sounds may be rearing it's ugly head.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I am waiting for the in head music chip that has all your favorite music, is easy to load more to, plays by mind control, and gives you concert hall sound.


----------



## jimeonji

gog said:


> Until a couple of weeks ago I was a simple CD-and-Radio 3 person. The future was whizzing past me and I didn't care...!!!
> 
> Then I investigated Spotify. Lord! What's not to like???!! At least for discovering new stuff, it's unbelievable. I need to make some technical tweaks (and possibly give up work) then I'm diving fully in. I also fear a trip to Richer Sounds may be rearing it's ugly head.


Agreed! I usually find myself searching up pieces on Youtube only to find super grainy recordings, but Spotify has so many old recordings in great quality.


----------



## bigshot

YouTube has upped the quality of its compression settings a couple of times over the years. If you look at the date that the video was uploaded and it is within the past two years, odds are it sounds pretty good.


----------



## Guest

As I feared, apparently I need a bluetooth dongle. Sounds like some item of Nordic porn but will enable me to stream music from spotify off my phone through my beastly floorstander speakers. Bring it on!!!!!


----------



## mtmailey

I rather listen to mp3s but it is hard finding a good mp3 player today i had one it did not sound great.


----------



## SixFootScowl

mtmailey said:


> I rather listen to mp3s but it is hard finding a good mp3 player today i had one it did not sound great.


What brand was it? Also the particular earbud you get can make it sound great (if it has bass) or horrible if it is tinny. But an adjustible equalizer as on my Sansa Clip is very handy to help boost bass.


----------



## bigshot

The impedance of the headphones you plug into a player can make a difference. A DAP can have perfect sound, but if you plug the wrong in ear monitors into it it can sound awful. You need to make sure the DAP has the correct impedance for your cans, or get a headphone amp to correct for it.


----------



## SixFootScowl

bigshot said:


> The impedance of the headphones you plug into a player can make a difference.


 A big difference in fact. I run 16 ohm earbuds and once got a 32 ohm set. The 32 ohm set was all treble, no bass. And even that was tinny sounding.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Florestan said:


> I am waiting for the in head music chip that has all your favorite music, is easy to load more to, plays by mind control, and gives you concert hall sound.


By the time we get it, most of the music that people will upload on those chips will be of such quality that Justin Bieber will be Mozart compared to it.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> By the time we get it, most of the music that people will upload on those chips will be of such quality that Justin Bieber will be Mozart compared to it.


What's with the Bieber/Mozart theme!!??


----------



## Triplets

I am a Physical Media guy. I have a high end system and love my SACDs, DVD Audios, Blu Rays, etc. I never got into downloads beyond a few I tunes and mp3s for my phone. I do listen to Spotify and use it to screen new releases for purchase.
Quobuz, however, when it gets released in this Country (US), may change my mind.


----------



## SixFootScowl

SiegendesLicht said:


> By the time we get it, most of the music that people will upload on those chips will be of such quality that Justin Bieber will be Mozart compared to it.


----------



## bigshot

I may be aging backwards. When I was starting out as a hifi nut, I resisted digital audio and swore I was going to stick with LP records. I held out like that for over five years. Now in my second half century of life, I am fascinated with multichannel audio and digital file formats. My CDs are all ripped and in boxes in the garage, and I am exploring how to do that with my DVDs and blu-rays now. Technologically, I am ahead of the curve even among my friends in their mid 20s.


----------



## SixFootScowl

bigshot said:


> My CDs are all ripped and in boxes in the garage,


HORRORS!







In the garage! I don't even keep my motor oil stash in the garage!


----------



## bigshot

tens of thousands of them out there


----------



## Centropolis

I have been listening to CDs mostly since the beginning of my CM journey. But recently, Spotify launched in Canada and I paid for the premium service. The more I use this service in the past few weeks, the more I can see the reason why some people would not buy as many CDs as before. I mean, for about $10 a month, you get a lot of stuff to choose from. Having said that, I'm still buying CDs because I don't feel like I own anything on Spotify. I understand this is just something to get over. In the end, it's available for me to listen to even if I don't have a CD. 

However, I am not read to go full online streaming yet.


----------



## Markbridge

I have found myself downloading mp3s from Amazon & iTunes. I still purchase cds, but not like I used to. For opera recordings, I've turned to buying used. Frankly, I love the fact that the Internet has opened up so many options for classical music lovers. The iPod is a godsend. I can just about have everything I own on two iPods (one classical, one opera)! I can take my music just about anywhere and have complete access in my car. As someone who grew up when cassettes were just introduced, and I would install players in my cars anyway I could, this era feels like i have reached nirvana!


----------



## Vaneyes

dogen said:


> As I feared, apparently I need a *bluetooth* dongle. Sounds like some item of *Nordic* porn but will enable me to stream music from spotify off my phone through my beastly floorstander speakers. Bring it on!!!!!


Q. Why is it called Bluetooth?

A. Harald Bluetooth was king of Denmark in the late 900s. He managed to unite Denmark and part of Norway into a single kingdom then introduced Christianity into Denmark. He left a large monument, the Jelling rune stone, in memory of his parents. He was killed in 986 during a battle with his son, Svend Forkbeard. Choosing this name for the standard indicates how important companies from the Nordic region (nations including Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland) are to the communications industry, even if it says little about the way the technology works.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/bluetooth1.htm


----------



## pentaquine

I mainly do streaming now, Google Music specifically. But I still collect CDs and play them occasionally. It's a good feeling putting the disc into a player.


----------



## ingrast

GoneBaroque said:


> I probably have close to 2,000 CDs acquired over they ears but have not purchased any in a couple of years. Of late I have been downloading videos from YouTube and listening on the pc through headphones. In most cases the sound in more than satisfactory. Plus there is the opportunity of finding something that you would probably not have spent the money to buy, and you often turn out liking it. Of course, no recording medium can remotely compare with being in the hall for a live performance. There is inevitably some loss.
> 
> Rob


Well rounded up. 
I find amazing how the interaction of technology with society spawns the unexpected. In Internet's dawn, the Google phenomenom could not have been foreseen. Neither did quick advances in bandwith - which promised streaming video - forecast the You Tube paradigm. Nor Facebook or Twitter for that matter.

For the time being You Tube is most of the time lacking in quality as compared with CD for audio or DVD / BlueRay for video, but that will change.
And the convenience of fingertip availability on the spot to check this or that piece by this or that artist has no match. I did discover gems I should probably never met otherwise.
I will keep my CD's for serious listening, but there is no doubt in my mind streaming services will prevail in the not so long run

Rodolfo


----------



## Saintbert

Most of my CD's are stacked away but I have them ripped and listen to the music on a portable player. Lately, I've become more interested in sound quality and such conditions, and I'm not satisfied with listening to classical music on the go. I find the ritual of putting a CD on more interesting and involving than picking a track on a screen. What I miss about a portable music player or computer is the ability to create my own playlists. I would consider adding a hard drive-option to my stereo system for that convenience. Generally when I listen to music, I like to keep it very simple and non-intrusive... no flickering computer screens because I get enough of that.


----------



## Bulldog

It's good not to be a slave to technology.


----------



## Polyphemus

Almost exclusively CD's. An evenings listening usually takes the form of a concert Overture/Tone Poem followed by a Concerto and finishing off with a Symphony. This can vary of course depending on what's on the menu. A String Quartet followed by a Requiem. the choice is of course endless.
For outdoors I have a media player but I do prefer a comfortable chair, well positioned speakers a glass of my favourite tipple and bliss is mine.


----------



## bigshot

Bulldog said:


> It's good not to be a slave to technology.


Better technology helps you not be a slave to technology. When I think of all the time I spent finding records in the stack, carefully taking them out and cleaning them, putting them on the turntable and lowering the needle, then changing the side every 20 minutes... I am SO happy to be able to say to myself, it's time to listen to Schubert's 9th and take my phone out of my pocket, type in "schub" scroll down to Symphony 9 and hit play and enjoy it without interruption.


----------



## Bulldog

When I see a large crowd of folks waiting for hours outside the Apple store to buy the latest and greatest device, I'm looking at slaves to technology.


----------



## bigshot

I'm able to do things I could never do without them and I'm not even breaking a sweat!


----------



## Baregrass

It's back to the future with me. I listened to classical on cd's for a long time. Even cassette tape a long time ago. Lately it has been back to LP's. A good LP with a properly set up system just sounds better to me. And even though new vinyl prices are skyrocketing there is a lot of very cheap good quality used stuff out there if classical is what is wanted. Pop and rock, different story. MP3's for classical just don't cut for me. 

However there is a really god format out there which I feel is promising and that is flac, both regular and hi res. I have been backing up my cd's for a while using flac. The problem at this point in playing flac files through a stereo system without spending a fortune on equipment.


----------



## Albert7

Honestly I am a semi-audiophile. I use lossless for backup mostly but I prefer the iTunes mastering whenever I get a chance. Plus just easier to load into my iPhone and iPod and Android phones.

Right now i'm trying hunt better headphones. Apple Store seems to have some fabulous choices. My Sol branded ones are durable but not very balanced.


----------



## Wunderhorn

If it is available in surround sound, I buy SACDs - Otherwise I buy downloads. I do not care about lossless/Flac. There is no audible difference for me.
I like having my music collection at home (on hard drives and CDs), in case the internet connection drops. My collection feels too much like a treasure to me


----------



## pavelissa

THere was a time when I was a CD-Puritan (if there is such a thing) but i looked down upon any other source as my music other than the CD. But eventually with the abundance of mp3s in the market and the easy availability of some recordings in mp3 (in pirated versions) which were difficult to get other wise in their original CD format; I ultimately gave in. Ever since youtube and its huge library for classical music (and its free) I do listen to alot of my music on youtube.


----------



## pavelissa

Albert7 said:


> Honestly I am a semi-audiophile. I use lossless for backup mostly but I prefer the iTunes mastering whenever I get a chance. Plus just easier to load into my iPhone and iPod and Android phones.
> 
> Right now i'm trying hunt better headphones. Apple Store seems to have some fabulous choices. My Sol branded ones are durable but not very balanced.


Did you finally decide on which pair to get. I have recently ordered Sennheiser HD 598 with a FiiO E10K Headphone Amplifier and DAC after much research on audiophile forums. I am anxiously awaiting for these to arrive.


----------



## bigshot

The Senn 59x series is designed to be the best headphone they make that doesn't require amping. You might not need the headphone amplifier.


----------

