# CD or YouTube



## Aurelian (Sep 9, 2011)

I have not bought a new CD in several years. YouTube has been convenient...and is free.

How is it with you: CD or YouTube?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

you tube to sample, CD for serious listening.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Neither. Always ITunes.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Taggart said:


> you tube to sample, CD for serious listening.


The cds we've bought in the last six months have all come about as a result of exploring YouTube & listening to samples.
I love opening the jewel box!


----------



## Pip (Aug 16, 2013)

I'm with you Taggart, the quality of most YouTube items is poor to fair. It's the nature of the beast. No one is going to upload flac files for us to take. 
However, it is great for finding live events that may have passed us by, and the occasional hard to find movie that is no longer available.
If you don't want to buy the CD, then download flac or aiff files instead. Then at least you are getting the full recording.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

CD for me, because I can play them in the two places I can't really do YouTube - in the car and at work. I do the bulk of my listening in those two places.

I also have never been able to quite get past the sneaking suspicion that some YouTube content is not really put out there without copywright infringement.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Youtube for me is like the listening booth of the record store. Even when I play whole cds its still with the ultimate aim of assessing what I should order or grab when a physical copy presents itself.

Its also good for making connections and recommendations, in various ways, that I might otherwise have missed.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Vesteralen said:


> ...
> I also have never been able to quite get past the sneaking suspicion that some YouTube content is not really put out there without copywright infringement.


You have a point. I've several times embedded something on my Facebook page, put it on a week or so later, and found that it's disabled for copyright reasons.


----------



## Bas (Jul 24, 2012)

Youtube kills the audio with their compression algorithm. It is very nice for checking out what is available, though. I have some very nice recordings (SACDs) and if I want somebody to listen to them (here, or 'real live friends') and can find a fragment on youtube it usually is very poor compared to the cd. I like owning something physical, but theoretically I have no problem with paid downloading in lossless quality, but nothing compressed...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I've found that lush strings in particular are ruined by YouTube making it almost unbearable for real listening, even with my aging, rock concert assaulted ears. Its undeniable contribution is in championing and discussing music in these forums. 

Physical storage is getting to be a problem with CDs these days. My own preference is becoming purchased mp3 files, but only when the encoder doesn't split a continuous piece into multiple files as when two or more movements are run together. I know mp3 players have so called gapless playback, but that does not work in the random mode I usually prefer. If there are continuous gapless movements I then prefer CDs to make my own mp3 files.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Vinyl by a long shot!, even if I use them, those anti tactile internet based media's seem so sterile to me! 

I mostly use youtube to find rare films of artists i dig, if it where the only alternative for my daily listening I think I'd loose interest in listening cuz of the indiscriminately poor quality of the majority of stuff harboured there!

/ptr


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

I usually buy CDs - I like listening to small samples and then being 'suprised' to hear the rest of the CD if I decide to purchase it.


----------



## Geo Dude (May 22, 2013)

Taggart said:


> you tube to sample, CD for serious listening.


This.

...................


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

I tried to break down my listening:

CD on CD player at home/car 80%
iPod playing ripped CD 10%
Smartphone playing ripped CD 5%
Spotify at home/work 3%
Other (Youtube,Pandora, concerts, FM radio, podcasts, etc) 2%

The biggest reason I don't listen on youtube is the sound quality.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I use You Tube to sample music in order to decide whether I want to purchase it. If I feel it is worth having longterm, I _always do_ purchase it. Ten or fifteen bucks for me to be able to hear it whenever I want... I don't need to give it much thought. I am happy to support those who make this great music. In the past, I felt that prices were ridiculously high, but nowadays, through wholesalers on Amazon Marketplace, new CDs are mostly very fairly priced, so there is no reason not to buy.


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

I agree with a lot of the consensus her: youtube for exploration/sampling/sharing clips.

CDs for quality/collection ----> digital for listening (high quality ripped cds or FLAC 320mp3 downloads). Why? Because I can always have *500* albums with me; in my car, at work, while running... God bless technology!!!


----------



## chrisco97 (May 22, 2013)

I personally prefer to actually own my music...not sure why, just do.

If there is an album I am considering purchasing, I will get on Spotify (if it is on there) to listen to it. If I am impressed, I usually purchase it. Some other albums (The Naxos series of Kraus' symphonies for example) I save as a playlist and put them on my to-buy list.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

For me, it's CD or Spotify. I've been using Spotify a lot recently, especially to listen to operas. Operas are expensive and I don't know how long it will be until I decide to listen to one again, so Spotify has been the perfect solution. I do use YouTube to sample pieces or view live performances sometimes, though.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I like YouTube to get the flavour, indeed, but my serious listening is done on disc. I stalk discs for ages before I purchase, by the way. I read reviews, listen to YouTube, mull over them, sup coffee, nibble biscuits distractedly, then buy.

Kind of like a woman shops for scarves and shoes, actually..


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

CD is the highest quality, obviously. So I'd choose the CD whenever possible. But if I want to listen to something that I don't have on CD, Youtube would be the next obvious choice. That, or Spotify. I wish I was still subscribed to the Naxos Listening Library, but I'm not a college student anymore. It's too expensive.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

I buy CDs. Period! 

I don't do digital down loads or streaming, even though (ironically) most of my own royalties, such as they are, are generated through Spotify, iTunes & Amazon.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

Streaming + mp3/flac media. I don't like physical media, I don't have enough space for it. I don't even buy physical books anymore, only on Kindle. Also I like the fact that I backup everything, so I will never break or lose it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2013)

Digital downloads, preferably at 320kbps.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I'm not a very big fan of YouTube for music. I think it's a great tool for many interesting things but music on YouTube sounds flat to my ears and does not have the sonic depth I want for classical music. I much prefer CDs for their superior sound quality but I also like LP recordings (even with the pops, crackles and hiss) and Spotify is also an amazing host for discovering new music.

Kevin


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

I dont really get into Youtube - Its mainly because of the ads and also I dont have an internet capable phone/iPod to stream the music when Im away from home. I think until such times as internet coverage in Australia is better I wont make the switch to listening to streamed music. I also like knowing that I own the music and I always have a copy of it to listen to if the service provider decides to remove the recording (Ive noticed iTunes removes Discs that arent popular and assume other services do the same?).


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

I use Youtube to hunt around for new music, but then buy whatever strikes me as something I want to discover over and over again.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I can't really afford CDs, so YouTube it is. I note with interest that lots of posters in this thread say they often buy CDs of whatever they first saw on YouTube. This effect is often ignored when the cost of piracy is calculated. I get the impression that all the YouTube piracy is in fact doing the record industry some good!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I almost never go to YouTube for music. I only use it to preview movies I am considering purchasing.

YouTube's audio codec is 192/AAC, which is the bare minimum I will tolerate. Most of the time, I just don't bother.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

Unfortunately for a broke teenager like me, You Tube. I only have a few CDs of my dead grandpa, and when I ask my dad for buy me CDs, he said why? If I have internet for listening to music. But he has a sophisticated equipment that he uses to listen his c**p music, and I have to listen my music with the poor quality of You Tube, and in a radio who sounds poorly.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Two words for poor kids... public library


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Two words for poor kids... public library


In a country like mine, no way.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Two words for poor kids... public library


You are assuming that everyone has access to excellent libraries. At least here where I live, I have to search long to find anything worth reading in the public libraries, and their collection of classical music is not worth bothering with. It's all donated stuff, i.e. for the most part CDs so scratched they don't play anyway.

Lucky thing is that in a lot of classical music, the beauty lies as much in the structure of the work as in the purely sensual enjoyment of the tone colours, so one can make do with less than great audio quality. We have really become very spoiled with this: even with YouTube, you have access to better audio quality than the very best that was available to, say, Bartok. And it's all for free.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

I either buy CDs, or burn other formats onto CDs, be it LPs Cassettes or MP3 downloads. It suits my current hardware set up.

However, this is starting to become a bit of a chore, and with the rise of economical downloads combined with my resurgent interest in vinyl, it will only become more onerous.

So what options do I have if I wish to hear MP3 files directly through my Receiver, rather than burning a CD first? At the moment, I can detect a considerable fall off in sound quality if I connect my laptop by HDMI or I-Pod by USB.

I'm not sure, maybe I should have started a new thread with this.


----------



## Bas (Jul 24, 2012)

hayd said:


> I either buy CDs, or burn other formats onto CDs, be it LPs Cassettes or MP3 downloads. It suits my current hardware set up.
> 
> However, this is starting to become a bit of a chore, and with the rise of economical downloads combined with my resurgent interest in vinyl, it will only become more onerous.
> 
> ...


This is probably due to bad DA conversion in your laptop. You could consider a DAC.


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

The great thing about YouTube is that you can get a link to Amazon or wherever so you can get that exact same performance you just heard and loved. In many ways that's the best part.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

brianvds said:


> You are assuming that everyone has access to excellent libraries.


Two more words... interlibrary loan


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Two more words... interlibrary loan


Doesn't help much: the other libraries are just as bad. Or actually, they are not bad. Just not on the same kind of standard as ones in America apparently are.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Spotify 95% of time. Old Itunes purchases 5% of time. There's no way I could afford the thousands and thousands of dollars I would need to listen to all the music I do without Spotify. I stay away from Youtube for primary listening due to poor quality and lack of organized selections. It's nice though for watching documentaries and videos of pianists, orchestras, etc...


----------



## LindnerianSea (Jun 5, 2013)

I usually sample from youtube. Although not terribly concerned about sound quality, I feel it a duty to buy music when it comes to serious and dedicated listening. The physicality of CDs reassures me that I have actual access to some parts of the music. At the same time, I must confess that I do find the beautiful background images of youtube clips immensely helpful from times, to the degree that they can influence significantly first impressions.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

I am totally in agreement with my fellow members and their use of *YouTube *as a kind of screening filter to decide which cds are worth buying and spending time with. I would also add *Spotify* as a very useful tool in this regard; I also find its audio quality to be far superior to that of *YouTube's,* of course sans the visual component.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Aurelian said:


> I have not bought a new CD in several years. YouTube has been convenient...and is free.
> 
> How is it with you: CD or YouTube?


I prefer iTunes over CD and YouTube... at least with iTunes I know what I am getting.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

CD all the way. the quality just isn't there on youtube. Youtube/Spotify are handy for making sure that don't buy another lemon.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Couac Addict said:


> CD all the way. the quality just isn't there on youtube. Youtube/Spotify are handy for making sure that don't buy another lemon.


YouTube needless to say has at least radio quality and considering the number of live orchestral and opera broadcasts that will never exist on CD, I think that this is a treasure trove to be heard at least .


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> YouTube needless to say has at least radio quality


really -- are you sure ?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

echo said:


> really -- are you sure ?


Yes in fact. YouTube at least is 128 kbps AAC on the audio track and radio quality is usually at least 64kbps.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

just seeing if you're paying attention -- because last time i asked you that you ignored me


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

No contest. I've never had a CD stop on a regular basis and then display a bloody annoying revolving symbol until it's ready to play again.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

It has to be CD. The fact that you have had to pay for something means you are more likely to enjoy it.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Youtube for research, CD or hi-res files for listening. 

The audio quality of Youtube is too low to be pleasurable for me.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Simon Moon said:


> Youtube for research, CD or hi-res files for listening.
> 
> The audio quality of Youtube is too low to be pleasurable for me.


Some posters on YouTube use FLAC or high bit resolution files for their source so if you check you can see which ones make it. Those would provide very good quality here.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I always prefer listening to listening-viewing. I hate YouTube and most musical performances on DVDs.
I find them "distracting". I don't care to view the sausage-making that goes into a musical performance as well as all the facial distortions and heaves and sighs of the performers.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I always prefer listening to listening-viewing. I hate YouTube and most musical performances on DVDs.
> I find them "distracting". I don't care to view the sausage-making that goes into a musical performance as well as all the facial distortions and heaves and sighs of the performers.


Actually there are a lot of YouTube videos where it's audio only with some painting on it or still photo so it isn't an issue. Another tip is to fire up YouTube and then shut down your monitor so it's only the audio portion and then you can ignore the video accordingly.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

I just use YouTube for now. It's not perfect but I can usually find what I want, but there are some things that I can't find like opera performances with subtitles. I haven't bought any classical CDs yet, but I plan to buy some. Also what is FLAC?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

TradeMark said:


> I just use YouTube for now. It's not perfect but I can usually find what I want, but there are some things that I can't find like opera performances with subtitles. I haven't bought any classical CDs yet, but I plan to buy some. Also what is FLAC?


FLAC is Free Lossless Audio Codec. A link to its codec meaning is here: https://xiph.org/flac/

Uploading to YouTube will downgrade the FLAC quality but that means that it is the best possible source being used for the audio track of the clip in question.

Also I am glad that you are enjoying classical music through any means possible.


----------

