# iTunes or CD?



## Sofronitsky

Just like the title says; Do you prefer iTunes or CDs for purchasing classical music?


----------



## Stasou

I'm going to go with CD. If you buy a CD, you have the liner notes and complete cover art, and then you can rip it to iTunes and have both. I feel like I have a little more insurance by having the music in a physical object.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

CD. If I want to download something I'm not gonna pay money for it.

In case this post is somehow against forum rules, by this I mean I pay in cheep cheeps.


----------



## Art Rock

CD. I'm old fashioned like that. Even the downloads I burn to CD.


----------



## Air

There's something comforting and special about holding the hard copy of a piece of music in your hand and actually giving it a good spin. And reading the liner notes while you listen. And then uploading the whole thing to iTunes so you have both.

Of course, this could all be a whole bunch of nostalgia, but at least I have that piece of nostalgia as a physical object rather than just another mp3 file.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I buy CDs, and if I want mp3s I rip them from the CD. Mainly I do this if I want to email a piece to my brother in Canada. He doesn't buy much music, but he goes to a lot of concerts. If he likes a piece that he's seen performed, and I have it, I send him an mp3.


----------



## presto

Stasou said:


> I'm going to go with CD. If you buy a CD, you have the liner notes and complete cover art, and then you can rip it to iTunes and have both. I feel like I have a little more insurance by having the music in a physical object.


I feel the same, but storage is becomming a pain, I rip all my CD's to my ipod and end up hardly playing the originals but I dont have the heart to get rid of them.


----------



## Couchie

iTunes. I don't even know where you'd find classical CDs these days (aside from easy listening) except online, and I have to say for myself, liner notes don't justify paying and waiting for shipping when I can have the thing in minutes digitally. That, and discs are just a horribly archaic storage medium that needs to die.


----------



## science

I'm still into CDs, and will be for at least a few more months. But my all-digital days are coming soon. When I-cloud comes to Korea and I hear from reliable sources that it works well, it will be good news for the music industry and bad news for whoever makes CDs. (And horrible news for my beloved CD shop!)


----------



## science

Stasou said:


> I'm going to go with CD. If you buy a CD, you have the liner notes and complete cover art, and then you can rip it to iTunes and have both. I feel like I have a little more insurance by having the music in a physical object.


Don't you get the liner notes or cover art if you buy it through Itunes? I'd expect that. If not, there's a big marketing problem there.


----------



## crmoorhead

CDs, but I occasionally sell them second-hand after I have copied the music to MP3 format. I have bought a few downloads from amazon for the occasional track if I didn't want the rest of the pieces on the album. With regard to the liner notes, I generally research the internet for information and that has served me well enough so far.


----------



## Delicious Manager

CD every time. The sound quality with iTunes is just so poor, I can't listen to it. While you can sometimes get away with the nasty, compressed sound for rock and pop (and some jazz), it's just too awful for classical music. In addition, while I listen to music a lot while I'm working at my computer, I like to listen PROPERLY in the comfort of my own living room and don't want to have to haul my computer in there and hook it up. There are some lossless downloads out there, but (to my knowledge) iTunes doesn't offer this. MP3s are simply gruesome.


----------



## Aksel

science said:


> Don't you get the liner notes or cover art if you buy it through Itunes? I'd expect that. If not, there's a big marketing problem there.


You at least get the cover art on all tracks bought from iTunes. The liner notes, however are only included in more recent releases.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Couchie said:


> iTunes. I don't even know where you'd find classical CDs these days (aside from easy listening) except online, and I have to say for myself, liner notes don't justify paying and waiting for shipping when I can have the thing in minutes digitally. That, and discs are just a horribly archaic storage medium that needs to die.


As you succintly put it, the main advantages with iTune appear to be mobility and ease of access of the music, which is a great sell these days as many of us folks zip around the world or around the local neighbourhood with all the electronic-wizardry up our sleeves. Impressive; yes. And it's one of the strongest positive features of having music as our passion in that it is literally a very mobile passion - we can take it anywhere with us so easily.

But that actually has nothing to do with high-fidelity production of the recorded music, the closest thing we want to a live performance; the closest thing to enjoying the music we expect from a live performance. That you will need a premium disc player, quality floor standing speakers and amplifier. Folks who haven't yet experienced high-fidelity sound might dismiss it but those of us who are used to its luxury, can clearly hear the vast difference between electronic versions of the music and high-fidelity production of the same recording. It's a trade-off that one will choose to make, subject of course to how much one is willing / capable of spending on CDs and equipment. I'm a CD person, with the temporary electronic version stored primarily when travelling.


----------



## science

Unless the technology hits some kind of physical barrier, it's just a matter of time until the digital files surpass CDs. 

Anyway, for now at least, in most "mobile" situations that I'm in, I wouldn't gain much from higher quality sound. It's rare to be completely away from air conditioners, computer fans, chatting coworkers, copy machines, cars, etc.... I constantly have to turn up the quiet parts and turn down the loud parts of the music. Annoys the heck out of me. I want to buy some kind of helmet that I can put on to completely block out outside noise. 

But anyway... it is nice to be at home with the speakers and the CD, when that's possible. Even that is too rare, as the people downstairs don't want to hear the bass pound.

My life sucks now that I think about it. 

Somebody better invent that helmet.


----------



## violadude

CD's definitely because I bought music off of Itunes once and then my computer crashed and I lost it all  Ya I did back most of it up but I cant even tell which CD is which and the name of the tracks are all screwed up and the tracks that use to run seamlessly together don't anymore. Plus, I actually think it's fun waiting for the CD to arrive, the anticipation of it all, ya know?


----------



## science

violadude said:


> CD's definitely because I bought music off of Itunes once and then my computer crashed and I lost it all  Ya I did back most of it up but I cant even tell which CD is which and the name of the tracks are all screwed up and the tracks that use to run seamlessly together don't anymore. Plus, I actually think it's fun waiting for the CD to arrive, the anticipation of it all, ya know?


Precisely. I had a computer crash, and lost 2 cds (Joni Mitchell's Hejira and one I can't remember by Kyle Eastwood), but that put the fear o' God in me and I won't mess around with that stuff until the cloud storage seems safe.


----------



## itywltmt

I do most of my collecting on-line, and subscribe to a music service where I do most of my purchases.

The last time I bought CDs was about 6 weeks ago, when I had to kill time at an out-of-town mall waiting for my son to come back from a meeting with friends.

Back in the day (vinyl), there was a lot more stores you could go to, but nowadays the stores I encounter have pitiful classical sections, and are half-DVD, half-CD to begin with. There are still the "used" places, that offer good selection when you can find it...

There was a time where I could walk into a music outlet and spend 30 to 60 minutes browsing, and it was a personal victory if I did NOT come out with more than 2 or 3 recordings. Last time that happened, was at the HMV in downtown Toronto, which still has what I would call a half-decent selection. Maybe I'm nostalgic, but nothing like the old days. Sign of the times, I guess...

So my answer, reluctantly, is iTunes and eMusic.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Mp3s are garbage in my humble opinion. I also can't stand the idea of paying for something that I can't touch or see. I honestly buy as many vinyl records as I do CDs because I just love the feeling that I actually bought something.


----------



## itywltmt

science said:


> Precisely. I had a computer crash, and lost 2 cds (Joni Mitchell's Hejira and one I can't remember by Kyle Eastwood), but that put the fear o' God in me and I won't mess around with that stuff until the cloud storage seems safe.


I hear your pain...

One word: DISCIPLINE

I own a 1 Terabyte external drive, and backup everything once a month RELIGIOUSLY. I also do most of my music listening on my iPod, so less opportunity to screw up the digital source files, playlists, ....


----------



## Xaltotun

Spotify for finding new music, CDs for anything that I have begun to like. Honestly, that iTunes thing sounds crap if the music is in your personal hard drive. With Spotify, it's all in the net - you can't lose it.

But live concerts are the best of all!


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Don't you get the liner notes or cover art if you buy it through Itunes? I'd expect that. If not, there's a big marketing problem there.


With some you do - but don't count on it for most. I think I did with a Jordi Savall recording once, but it doesn't happen very often, at least not with classical.

I go with iTunes more often than not. iTunes has a huge selection, including a lot of classical music that is hard to find, or would cost you an arm and a leg. I also sometimes get stuff from Amazon, but the problem with Amazon is that they don't have MP3's available for any Hyperion recordings. They do have BIS, Harmonia Mundi, and a lot of other labels available in their MP3 downloads, but not Hyperion.

I have an external hard drive that serves as my music collection. A few of my choice works get burned to CD, and in a few instances, if I find a good deal at my local used CD store, I'll buy a CD. But once I upgrade to a car that has an auxiliary input jack for my MP3 player, or a car stereo that reads MP3 CDs, I may not even bother with regular CDs. The liner notes don't do that much for me - I like the history in them, but once they start talking musical structure, it's all greek to me.


----------



## Aksel

DrMike said:


> With some you do - but don't count on it for most. I think I did with a Jordi Savall recording once, but it doesn't happen very often, at least not with classical.


As far as I've understood it, you get liner notes with more recent releases. There are probably some labels that are better at including them than others. I think DG generally includes them.


----------



## haydnfan

Digital Downloads: I prefer amazon mp3 or eclassical over itunes. Why? Mp3 is a more universal codec, aac is not (what you buy from itunes). And flac is lossless and can be transcoded into WHATEVER format you want (you can buy flacs from eclassical). I will admit that itunes is better than amazon when it comes to offering liner notes, but now that amazon automatically saves your downloads in their cloud (bonus for amazon!) I don't have to worry about hd crashes anymore. I even save my itunes purchases in the amazon cloud.

CD vs digital downloads: Cds take up space, but I have less than 1,000 cds so I don't really have to worry about that. I find it overall cheaper to buy cds from amazon marketplace and rip them to flac, so that is what I prefer.


----------



## Couchie

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But that actually has nothing to do with high-fidelity production of the recorded music, the closest thing we want to a live performance; the closest thing to enjoying the music we expect from a live performance. That you will need a premium disc player, quality floor standing speakers and amplifier. Folks who haven't yet experienced high-fidelity sound might dismiss it but those of us who are used to its luxury, can clearly hear the vast difference between electronic versions of the music and high-fidelity production of the same recording. It's a trade-off that one will choose to make, subject of course to how much one is willing / capable of spending on CDs and equipment. I'm a CD person, with the temporary electronic version stored primarily when travelling.


The iTunes standard in the last decade has increased from 128 kbps, to 256 kbps, and now many downloads are at 320 kbps. Most people can't tell the difference between 320 kbps and lossless unless on top of the line equipment. I expect that as internet speeds and hard drive space continues to increase Apple could introduce lossless downloads this decade, especially since they already have their own Apple Lossless codec supported by all their devices.


----------



## bassClef

ape and flac lossless downloads (free) for reviewing, CDs for the albums I really like. I avoid iTunes and compressed audio like the plague (except for non-classical).


----------



## mmsbls

I buy CDs but then immediately copy them to my computer and Ipod. I probably do most of my listening through my computer (either from the music I purchased, youtube, or Naxos Music Library), but I use CDs in the car and at home.


----------



## haydnfan

For those that are saying that they will never "listen to that compressed garbage" kind of statement I've seen several times over on this thread... itunes uses 256k, amazon uses lame -V 0 and eclassical uses 320k. I can not pass a double blind test with such high bitrates compared to lossless on my Sennheiser 650s and neither can you! No I don't believe that you have golden ears, I believe that you have let bias cloud your vision (or should I say hearing?). Not only are those files not garbage, you couldn't pick them out from lossless if your life depended on it.


----------



## Delicious Manager

haydnfan said:


> For those that are saying that they will never "listen to that compressed garbage" kind of statement I've seen several times over on this thread... itunes uses 256k, amazon uses lame -V 0 and eclassical uses 320k. I can not pass a double blind test with such high bitrates compared to lossless on my Sennheiser 650s and neither can you! No I don't believe that you have golden ears, I believe that you have let bias cloud your vision (or should I say hearing?). Not only are those files not garbage, you couldn't pick them out from lossless if your life depended on it.


Wanna bet? I've had friends say this to me before. I admit that sometimes with non-classical genres it can be more difficult ('production' can get in the way), but with classical, I can usually tell within 5 seconds. REALLY! Folks have challenged me on this before - and lost. Sorry 'bout that.


----------



## Polednice

100% digital, but certainly not iTunes. NEVER iTunes.

I used to buy CDs and rip them, but it's been a fair while since I bought one. For the past couple of years, I've instead been using services like Spotify (free to an extent) and the Naxos Music Library (university subscription). However, just a few weeks ago, I finally took a step forward and started paying for a Spotify subscription. It's quite liberating really - instead of worrying about storage, collection, and back-ups, I have Spotify's entire library - accessible offline on PC and mobile device - which I can just dip into whenever I like. Instead of buying particular CDs for £X, I just pay a flat rate of £9.99 per month to listen to what I want. And, considering the amount of music I listen to, it's more than worth it.

Also, I really wish people would stop saying how crap mp3s are. If you're used to better quality, then fair enough - they're not for you. But that doesn't make them actually crap, as if the majority of people who use them are morons. I have £10 portable speakers plugged into my laptop, and I have £15 in-ear headphones for my mobile. I use them while listening to 'crappy' mp3s and I _love_ it. If I want better, I'll go to a concert.


----------



## Guest

I have been blessed with ears that work wonderfully to convey sound to my brain, but not so much so that I can detect the difference in quality between a high bitrate MP3 and a CD. I am thus quite contect with my digital downloads.

I have been quite happy with iTunes - I find a great deal of music on there that would cost an exorbitant amount elsewhere.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Polednice said:


> Also, I really wish people would stop saying how crap mp3s are. If you're used to better quality, then fair enough - they're not for you. But that doesn't make them actually crap, as if the majority of people who use them are morons. I have £10 portable speakers plugged into my laptop, and I have £15 in-ear headphones for my mobile. I use them while listening to 'crappy' mp3s and I _love_ it. If I want better, I'll go to a concert.


As a professional in the classical music business, I can't rely on concerts due to the short-sighted and (mostly) stultifyingly boring programming in this country. So, I have to resort to recordings for research. And I need to be able to listen to them in good quality sound.


----------



## waldvogel

Up until a couple of years ago, Canada had a pretty good nationwide classical radio service in CBC Radio 2, with creative programming and a wide repertoire. In order to keep accelerating on the downward spiral of modern media, it was severely restricted in time (9 a.m. to 2 p.m., thank you very much) and in content (keep the Vivaldi playing). That means that I need to bring my own music for long car drives, which basically means any inter-city driving here. That's the real strength of MP3 files. They are also wonderful when you are traveling - rather than listening to Mexican pop music or American Country/Western on the radio, I can hear a nice performance of a Mozart concerto or a Brahms piano quartet. This goes along with the ability to pick a piece of music to accompany me on my walks.

But when I really want to hear a piece clearly, with its glorious full range of decibels and Hertz, enveloping me in its beauty, it has to be a well-recorded CD. There's a LOT of difference in sound quality between CD's, and I'm not just referring to restorations of Caruso made from wax cylinders. Some of the CD's that I've bought are so bad they remind me of the state of my hearing just after getting off a plane.


----------



## Polednice

Delicious Manager said:


> As a professional in the classical music business, I can't rely on concerts due to the short-sighted and (mostly) stultifyingly boring programming in this country. So, I have to resort to recordings for research. And I need to be able to listen to them in good quality sound.


That's perfectly reasonable. I just find it a little snobbish and aggressive when people suggest that mp3s are atrocious, as though no one should be using them.


----------



## itywltmt

waldvogel said:


> Up until a couple of years ago, Canada had a pretty good nationwide classical radio service in CBC Radio 2, with creative programming and a wide repertoire. In order to keep accelerating on the downward spiral of modern media, it was severely restricted in time (9 a.m. to 2 p.m., thank you very much) and in content (keep the Vivaldi playing). That means that I need to bring my own music for long car drives, which basically means any inter-city driving here. That's the real strength of MP3 files. They are also wonderful when you are traveling - rather than listening to Mexican pop music or American Country/Western on the radio, I can hear a nice performance of a Mozart concerto or a Brahms piano quartet. This goes along with the ability to pick a piece of music to accompany me on my walks.
> 
> But when I really want to hear a piece clearly, with its glorious full range of decibels and Hertz, enveloping me in its beauty, it has to be a well-recorded CD. There's a LOT of difference in sound quality between CD's, and I'm not just referring to restorations of Caruso made from wax cylinders. Some of the CD's that I've bought are so bad they remind me of the state of my hearing just after getting off a plane.


A couplke of things.

*About Radio 2* - I have great memories of the "old" CBC FM, especially from the early to mid 1980's (except for Jurgen Gothe, who I found just too irritating after awhile). The afternoon programming (Off the Record, especially) is indeed sadly missed. The Radio Canada service "Espace Musique" is better, though it's about 50/50 classical and Jazz. They have a few "celebrity" hosts in the weekend, and I do make a point to listen to some of their live (or live to tape) concerts, which they appear to have more of than the Radio 2 service. Just saying...

*As for the debate over "sound quality", *it is a GIVEN (and you don't need to be an Engineering Physicist like myself to conclude this) that you will lose dynamics when using a codec other than 24 to 32-bit PCM (WAV). However, in the case of things like solo instruments, I believe that MP3 sound quality doesn't suffer as much (maybe a subjective impression rather than acoustic science fact). The compromise "digital aficionatos" make has to do with file size (capacity, or no. of tracks I can have) Vs breadth of audio quality, as the codecs are optimized for the typical audio range (20 to 20 kHz). Mind you, if you happen to have been blessed with great hearing (not everybody does) then you will feel cheated by such a narrow bandwidth.

I work in radio communications, and a few months back I was in the lab when a technician "challenged" me to see how high a pitch I could hear, and I was losing it around 15 kHz, so maybe I'm not a good judge of audio quality.

I would add to the debate "recording quality" - do some of the recordings from the acoustic and MONO eras "lose out" to stereo and digital/full-frequency range recording technology? At the surface they do, but some of the performances _transcend _the technology of that era, don't they?. Maybe that point of view applies here too??

At the end of the day, for those of us who do most music listening over earbud type earphones attached to a computer or iPod, MP3's at 44 kHz sampling rates (meeting the Nyquist criteria of 2X the bandwidth) does just fine.


----------



## haydnfan

Delicious Manager said:


> Wanna bet? I've had friends say this to me before. I admit that sometimes with non-classical genres it can be more difficult ('production' can get in the way), but with classical, I can usually tell within 5 seconds. REALLY! Folks have challenged me on this before - and lost. Sorry 'bout that.


In a double blind test you would absolutely fail! It is easy to pretend otherwise on a forum where you don't have to prove it. But you're lying to yourself as much as me. ABX a wav with a 320k using foobar. Not only will it tell you how many you're getting right, but it will also have a probability that you're guessing and you can watch it climb.

Also whenever I see a forum in which someone claims that and an online test is posted they either fail the test and admit they were wrong, or fail the test and say the test wasn't fair for some stupid reason, or simply not take the test because they know that they will fail. I have never, even seen anyone vindicated in abx testing.

It's even worse for you, you screwed up. Classical is easier to compress than pop! The compression codecs were written and tested with acoustic instruments in mind without the kind of bass and treble extension you here in pop music. It is actually easier to hear artifacts in overly compressed pop music than it is in classical.

So no I don't believe you. I know better, did you really think I would believe you?:lol:


----------



## Ravellian

I think it's obvious from this discussion that, even if there is an audible distinction between regular and 'compressed' audio, it's not enough to really make a difference for most listeners. It's not like the difference between normal and HD video, that's for sure. 

Since I drive so much these days I mostly listen to music on CDs in the car.. once I move closer to my office I'll probably get back to regular iTunes listening. iTunes is great; the only problem is the amount of space it takes up on my computer.. and that computer is nearing the end of its life. I had painstakingly put in and labeled over 6000 songs from my CD library into iTunes, and I can't just move it to my external hard drive because it screws up all the labeling... and I really don't want to have to redo everything. So I'm not sure what to do >.>


----------



## itywltmt

Ravellian said:


> I think it's obvious from this discussion that, even if there is an audible distinction between regular and 'compressed' audio, it's not enough to really make a difference for most listeners. It's not like the difference between normal and HD video, that's for sure.
> 
> Since I drive so much these days I mostly listen to music on CDs in the car.. once I move closer to my office I'll probably get back to regular iTunes listening. iTunes is great; the only problem is the amount of space it takes up on my computer.. and that computer is nearing the end of its life. I had painstakingly put in and labeled over 6000 songs from my CD library into iTunes, and I can't just move it to my external hard drive because it screws up all the labeling... and I really don't want to have to redo everything. So I'm not sure what to do >.>


I think if you "block move" your iTunes directory to an external drive, you will not lose any of your hard work. There is a handful of XML files that host the library and playlist content, so as long as the files get moved together, and the iTunes version doesn't change, it should be all good.

At least, that's been my experience...


----------



## Rangstrom

Haydnfan:

I depends to what you listen to and how you listen. A badly recorded cd played on a computer or similar quality sound system will probably sound no better than an mp3 through the same system. It might not sound the same. I've listened to some of my best loved (and very well known) non-classical cds on an i-pod and I am often caught off guard how different the mix sounds.

But an mp3 does not match a well produced cd on a quality system. My touchstone was always the solo cello (piano and organ are other examples, but overload issues come into play). No recordings (that I've heard) of a solo cello match the sound in the concert hall, but analogs came close (high speed RTR was best, though some lps were very good). Early cds (DDD) were horrible, the newer recordings can--if they try--come close to analog. So to me the test is are you missing something compared to live. The fact that it may be difficult to hear the difference between a WAV and an mp3 on a computer hardly proves anything. 

Do you feel there is an audible difference among 24 bit mastered regular cds, SACDs and generic DDD cds?


----------



## haydnfan

Rangstrom lps sound bad and tapes sound worse. I can't believe you at all when you say that analog sounds closer to live... it doesn't... period. No recordings sound like a live performance whatever the medium, and certainly analog formats with their poor sound quality won't even come close.



> Do you feel there is an audible difference among 24 bit mastered regular cds, SACDs and generic DDD cds?


No, I don't. When I had an sacd player and sacds, the only difference I heard was the mastering. And double blind tests that I've read back me up.

Also I don't believe the whole "right equipment" argument concerning mp3 vs cd. Total harmonic distortion on modern receivers and amplifiers is usually very low, the noise floor usually very low as well. Onboard audio on a pc, well that can be pretty bad... but I optical out to my hifi with no audio problems, and I assume that many others do as well.

Early cds were not horrible, they were overly bright. Cds didn't become closer to analog, they simply stopped favoring treble.


----------



## Lenfer

I always choose the CD. You can rip a CD to your computer without *DRM* (Digital Rights Management) in any format and quality that takes your fancy. Also I find 99% of the time a digital downloads are either the same price or more expensive than a CD as CDs get discounted, digital downloads don't tend to even years after the release of the album.

You always have a spare hard copy with a CD which you don't get with digital music. I think iTunes allows you 5 downloads before you have to repurchase the album, this used to be the case I'm not sure about now. If you buy from itunes your locked into iPods and iPhones unless you break the DRM and convert the file yourself.

For audio I choose *FLAC* files and for video either ISOs or *MKV * files.


----------



## beethovenian

I rip my CDs with itunes in mp3 320 then back them up in a external hard drive. And of course i will also have the *master* physical back up all on my bookshelf! I wonder how long does CD last before they spoil?

I also find it easier to have a nice booklet with translated text at hand than a PDF version which i will either have to print it out or stare at a electronic display long enough to induce teary eye strain.


----------



## Delicious Manager

haydnfan said:


> In a double blind test you would absolutely fail! It is easy to pretend otherwise on a forum where you don't have to prove it. But you're lying to yourself as much as me. ABX a wav with a 320k using foobar. Not only will it tell you how many you're getting right, but it will also have a probability that you're guessing and you can watch it climb.
> 
> Also whenever I see a forum in which someone claims that and an online test is posted they either fail the test and admit they were wrong, or fail the test and say the test wasn't fair for some stupid reason, or simply not take the test because they know that they will fail. I have never, even seen anyone vindicated in abx testing.
> 
> It's even worse for you, you screwed up. Classical is easier to compress than pop! The compression codecs were written and tested with acoustic instruments in mind without the kind of bass and treble extension you here in pop music. It is actually easier to hear artifacts in overly compressed pop music than it is in classical.
> 
> So no I don't believe you. I know better, did you really think I would believe you?:lol:


I don't actually CARE whether you believe me or not.


----------



## sospiro

Being an opera fan I would choose CD over iTunes or any download every time. And that's because of the booklet which usually comes with the CD. It includes the history & synopsis of the opera but most importantly the libretto in various languages.


----------



## haydnfan

That makes sense, not enough digital downloads offer the pdfs they should. Eclassical does though, so that's the first place I look.


----------



## sospiro

haydnfan said:


> That makes sense, not enough digital downloads offer the pdfs they should. Eclassical does though, so that's the first place I look.


Thanks. I'll check it out.


----------



## Guest

haydnfan said:


> That makes sense, not enough digital downloads offer the pdfs they should. Eclassical does though, so that's the first place I look.


Thanks! I hadn't checked out eClassical before - I just got the Excerpts of Bach's St. Matthew Passion by Masaaki Suzuki on BIS - 16-bit FLAC - for under $10, and it came with the booklet. It doesn't have all the lables I like, but it has a lot of BIS recordings, including the Suzuki Bach Cantata cycle.


----------



## haydnfan

Cool DrMike! Some record labels like hyperion will also offer lossless downloads directly on their site.


----------



## Guest

haydnfan said:


> Cool DrMike! Some record labels like hyperion will also offer lossless downloads directly on their site.


Yeah, but eClassical has better rates - not a one-size-fits-all pricing, but reflective of the length of the track!


----------



## haydnfan

DrMike said:


> Yeah, but eClassical has better rates - not a one-size-fits-all pricing, but reflective of the length of the track!


Sad but true.


----------



## sabrina

I prefer music DVDs to CDs and CDs to mp3. Unfortunately I started to listen to more music either ripped from my own CDs, or downloaded. That's because I always carry the iPhone with me, or I have the macbook on the couch and I use the headphones for a better, private audition. But music in general lost its quality in recoding. That is more expressed in non classic music. The recordings are done with all sound at a high level. If you watch a sound histogram, you understand what I mean. Now the sound is almost flat, by recording everything at a high volume. The peaks and the lows are gone. I guess opera and classical music are less affected, although I had some old classic music recordings on LPs (vinyl) which sounded better than any CDs I have. May be just the DVDs may sound better.
I know the way we describe sound is a matter of taste, sound system and perception quality (the hardware our forefathers sent us through genes). That's unfortunate, as this musical gift seems scarce, so the marketing chose the type of recording that sells better, apparently to people with less sensitive ears. It looks that they are more numerous than we might expect.
There are still positive things in new technology that helped old recordings sound better.
In the end, I agree with maestro Celibidache, and say that live concerts are unique, and they are completely changed through recording.


----------



## jilly

Since the late 1990s I have been buying CDS & DVDs. I prefer having a Physical copy then Digital as well. I would take all of my CDs and put them in a binder and share with my friends. I would store my cases on my bookshelf. I also do the same for DVDs. I do not buy Blu-Ray because they are more expensive. Even this week I bought some CDs @ Walmart and they still have like 2-3 shelf rows of music CDS!!! I am so glad they are still around in 2013. I think they will be around forever, I hope. Been a music lover since my friend introduced me to CDs. I use to own tapes back in the early 80s when I was like 10 or so, then in my teens I was into CDs throughout Elementary and High School years! Even back in the day VHS tapes I use to own before I switched to DVDs. I also enjoy now that in 2013 and a few yrs from now, media will cost so much less as uner $5-15 which still is today since I went to Walmart. I love those $5 bins I buy CDs and DVDs from!!! 

For Itunes lovers, I tried it for a few months since I got my 1st ipod in 2011, and I hated it! After awhile the ipod died and I was like, damn Itunes and Apple... Apple is too high in i-items. Also the price for CDs and movies are $5 more then in the store! 

Anyway, stupid Apple. I rather buy DVDs and CDs; most of Apple's merchandise is not online 80% of the time or not available. So screw Apple and Itunes!!! 

:lol: Physical copy for life! This is my 2 cents!


----------



## hello

How about this question, for those of us with taste  - Foobar or Vinyl?


----------



## KenOC

CDs -- how 20th century! Vinyl -- how 19th century... 

Even the Krell technology seems a bit old-fashioned now.


----------



## science

I'm over the physical copy stuff... _almost_. I'm looking forward to cloud storage. Just a few things bother me:

Will iTunes or Amazon ever go out of business, or decide for some other reason not to let me listen to music that I have stored solely there? I cannot trust them at this point. So what I really want is a cloud storage that I can upload my own music to, whether purchased on iTunes or whatever, and listen to it from there.

So what I _really_ really want is really cheap cloud storage, a player that will enable me to edit the labels to my preferences (Amazon sucks on that point) and create playlists and so on, and a device (phone or whatever) that will use that player to stream my own files on the cloud, no matter where I am in the world (well, perhaps excepting, say, the middle of the Sahara or the top of Everest or whatever - but not excepting South Korea, where approximately nothing from the rest of the world works yet).

I think I will have all those things in a few years, and then I will be done with physical CDs forever.


----------



## Op.123

iTunes ....


----------



## KRoad

Last week I was at the pressing firm discussing copyright clearance with Gemma here in Berlin for the release of my next CD; I raised this very issue of streaming/downloading vs CD hard copy purchase with the manager. She says (what we already suspected) that it's pretty much an age thing: 30-35 year olds plus generally buy the CD. The more youthful go for the downloads and streaming. Vinyl is growing in some genres, but business with CDs is still okay. Certainly, my own royalties (meagre though they are) are generated more from digital download than hardcopy sales. This in turn is reflected in the demise of the selection of classical CDs available at those CD shops that still exist here. Happily in Berlin, with at least four major full-time functioning Opera Houses, there are shops where the selection of classical CDs is vast and usually crowded with customers - but at these specialist places you generally have to pay top-dollar.

I guess the message is, if you are into CDs - enjoy them while you can.


----------



## Conor71

For my classical music collection I always buy CD's as they are generally cheaper than a download from iTunes (I live in oz so we cant get the super-cheap downloads that Amazon releases!). I do like iTunes though and rip everything to my library there so i can listen on my iPod.


----------



## Albert7

iTunes is much better in general. Easier to deal with and I really am hating the time spent ripping CD's all day.

Plus the new albums in classical music include bonus track(s) that aren't included on the CD's  Win win.


----------



## Leonius

I usually convert CDs into APE files on my computer. I use Foobar2000 to listen to APE files. Then, they conserve good sound qualities and meanwhile become easily portable.


----------



## senza sordino

I prefer CDs, because it feels like I own a physical copy of the music. A CD feels more permanent to me. I've got a better stereo system and speakers than computer, so sound quality of my CDs is much better than anything I've downloaded.


----------



## Albert7

senza sordino said:


> I prefer CDs, because it feels like I own a physical copy of the music. A CD feels more permanent to me. I've got a better stereo system and speakers than computer, so sound quality of my CDs is much better than anything I've downloaded.


I am reversed. I am not tied to the physical all that much so mp3's are more spiritual to me.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Sofronitsky said:


> Just like the title says; Do you prefer iTunes or CDs for purchasing classical music?


Absolutely and without a doubt, it is CDs for me! But I rip them all to digital files and back them up. I rarely play an original CD but will burn a copy for play back. Guess you could say I am materially oriented and a preservationist.


----------



## Albert7

Florestan said:


> Absolutely and without a doubt, it is CDs for me! But I rip them all to digital files and back them up. I rarely play an original CD but will burn a copy for play back. Guess you could say I am materially oriented and a preservationist.


I was like that when I was younger but I have changed so much since then.


----------



## Guest

I do still like CDs, and buy them from time to time (mostly used, from my favorite used everything store), but view them more as hard copy archives. I rarely use them - I rip them to the computer and then store them in a drawer.


----------



## Albert7

DrMike said:


> I do still like CDs, and buy them from time to time (mostly used, from my favorite used everything store), but view them more as hard copy archives. I rarely use them - I rip them to the computer and then store them in a drawer.


I do enjoy ripping CD's in small doses... I have been planning to give my stepdad all of my classical CD's for his collection and then I keep the lossless versions.


----------



## michaels

albertfallickwang said:


> I do enjoy ripping CD's in small doses...


You have ripped, what, 400 albums in the last few months? I think you've had any man's version of an overdose!

I prefer getting a CD for archival purposes, but ideally I would like what amazon does, plus a little bit:
1. Buy the CD
2. Get instant access to the rip of the CD* 
3. Keep the CD as an archive**

* caveat - today's MP3 lossy format is questionable. Maybe fine for the moment in iTunes, but not necessarily better for future headphones/systems, etc.. And because it is lossy, any conversion to a future technology will mean it gets worse and worse in quality to the point where it is unbearable. I've already found that what I thought were great in 10y+ old rips to MP3 are throw-away now. What do I not know of that will come next?

** TBH - I've already lost a huge box of CDs put into sleeves. So this has it's bad side as well.

If things do eventually go to greater then CD quality as a standard (I'll never "hear" the difference on today's systems, but I don't preclude the value of a potential future system that can and do take advantage of better-the-CD) in iTunes, and I feel sufficiently future proofed, I'll go all iTunes.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Ripping is pretty easy on Brasero and it usually gets the track titles correct unlike Windows Media Player.


----------



## Albert7

Florestan said:


> Ripping is pretty easy on Brasero and it usually gets the track titles correct unlike Windows Media Player.


Windows Media Player sucks but I love using it for my Amazon mp3 downloads.


----------



## spradlig

None of the above: Spotify and YouTube.


----------



## michaels

spradlig said:


> None of the above: Spotify and YouTube.


I must say, Spotify is amazing... just need it to be more available (e.g. on my Fiio X5)


----------



## millionrainbows

As a survival tool, the CD stands alone. This way, if you lose your job, you can still have your music, even if you can't afford to pay a subscription fee.

Even *without electricity,* CDs can still be obtained and played on battery-operated players, unlike a file-server subscription, which is dependent on a monthly fee to stream the files. CDs are immune to on-line dependency.

If you've already got the files in your computer, then you're good, as long as you have a battery-operated portable device, or can plug in a computer, and/or recharge your laptop. But you can't get any new files, unless a friend helps you.

Plus, a CD is its own "backup." if one of your digital files gets corrupted or erased, you have to start over, unless it's backed-up to a CD-R, in which case, what's the point? The back-up CD-R takes up as much room as a CD.

If you're backed-up to an external hard drive, it is still susceptible to *mechanical failure*, unlike a static CD, which is like a hard drive with no intrinsically mechanical needs, except a CD drive.

The only thing that can stop a CD is* physical damage.*

*CDs are like cockroaches;* when the nuclear holocaust arrives they will be the only form of recorded music which survives.


----------



## Simon Moon

Between the choices in the OP, CD's.

I've always been a 'physical media' guy, but recently, I've began to explore Hi-Rez files (WAV 24 bit, FLAC and DSD64) and I have to say, they do sound better than CD. I'm being swayed.

I seem to be very sensitive to the artifacts of MP3, even at 320.


----------



## Tristan

I don't listen to classical music in anything less than lossless files ripped from CDs, so iTunes and streaming are out. I use streaming to sample CDs I might want to buy and I use YouTube to explore new music, but ultimately my collection consists of ripped Apple Lossless and AIFF files.


----------



## pianississimo

I only download when I really can't wait for a cd to arrive or it's so cheap to download that it's worth the risk. Whoever edits the recordings for downloads must do it with the electronic equivalent of a meat cleaver!!! I've heard pieces chopped short by whole bars! I like to have the cd. I like to read the notes and I even enjoy the random 19th century French watercolours on the front. Most of all I like browsing second hand music shops and finding some rare and lovely cd for a couple of quid. You can't do that on iTunes.


----------



## Albert7

I am tempted to add to my classical music collection by ripping to lossless from YouTube. Lots of performances never released on CD.


----------



## Guest

albertfallickwang said:


> I am tempted to add to my classical music collection by ripping to lossless from YouTube. Lots of performances never released on CD.


I will admit that there have been a few composers that have led me to rip music files from youtube for my iPod. Not necessarily just any 'ole performance or work that I'm missing, but composers with big chunks missing in the land of recordings.

My primary example is Georg Friedrich Haas. I have most of his quartets and concertos simply from youtube rips...a few of them are a bit shifty, but it's the only option for now. I also have the James Dillon cycle _Nine Rivers_ from youtube, off the top of my head. Too big a project to sit around waiting forever.


----------



## jtbell

Sofronitsky said:


> Just like the title says; Do you prefer iTunes or CDs for purchasing classical music?


Neither. I prefer lossless downloads from a dealer that specializes in classical music (e.g. prestoclassical.co.uk or eclassical.com). Nowadays I listen to music on my "good" living-room system by streaming from iTunes on my computer to an Apple TV that feeds into my A/V receiver.

I spend enough time ripping my old CD collection that I don't want to rip new CDs when I don't have to.

I do buy CDs when I find a good bargain, e.g. one of those mega-sized box sets at $2-$4 per CD. Or when I want to buy something on a "major" label like DG or Sony, for which I haven't found a source of lossless downloads in the US. But that isn't very often nowadays. Most of the new recordings that I'm interested in appear on specialist classical labels and not the "majors."

I avoid the iTunes store because it doesn't let me search for music the way I do at a specialized dealer, taking into account the differences in organization between classical and popular music.


----------



## Markbridge

I do both, CDs & mp3. Just depends. I've recently gotten into purchasing used CDs at Amazon, particularly opera because of the cost savings. I've run into some problems downloading opera, the tracks do not always run together smoothly causing a pause between tracks. Really annoying. Have tried everything, but nothing will correct this.


----------



## rspader

Although I have five iPods that are used in various activities (driving, running, etc.) I greatly prefer CDs. All of my "serious" listening is done at home, on the couch, with a CD playing through a decent stereo system. I like seeing all of my CDs there on the shelves while I am listening. (Oddly, I used to feel the same way about books but now I am perfectly content doing most of reading on an e-reader.)


----------



## Admiral

I feel so old-fashioned!

I buy CDs and LPs and I just listen to them. 

When I want to hear something I put it on my player and I'm all set.

No extra work for me, no copyright issues, easy!


----------



## Albert7

After ripping a few hundred discs, I feel that I am tired of it. iTunes just feels better and better each day.


----------



## CDs

I as my name implies listen and buy only CDs. I got an ipod as a present a few years ago and ripped about 4000 songs on it but I never really used it now it just sits in its docking station.
The whole experience of going to a record store to buy your music, browse the aisles and buying a CD sometimes based solely off the album cover is something you just can't get from the internet.
One of my favorite pastimes is to sit in front of my CD collection and just listen to music for hours. That's a great day in my book!


----------



## Triplets

The CD for me is the ultimate format. Great sound, especially over the past 10 years or so, and especially with the right digital equipment. Portable, long playing times, and now tons of them being released at dirt cheap prices for Classical Music. No faffing around with Internet connections, computer gremlins, web site crashes...I only regret that SACD (still a relevant factor in Classical) and DVD-A didn't do better, and Blue Ray Audio seems dead in the water as well...
Vinyl is a joke, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## CDs

Triplets said:


> I only regret that SACD (still a relevant factor in Classical) and DVD-A didn't do better, and Blue Ray Audio seems dead in the water as well....


You're right tons of classical releases just wish there was more rock SACDs. Quite a few jazz SACDs though.


----------



## Guest

Because I can't afford to own everything on CD right now, I've drawn the line at buying CDs first for those recordings never made available in MP3 stores. This includes old recordings (IE old Wergo) and top contemporary labels that don't even deal with mp3 stores (NEOS, new KAIROS). I think buy everything else on Amazon MP3 as opposed to iTunes, because its better. Most of my mp3 purchases tend to be newer Wergo, Mode, Aeon, etc...


----------



## Richard8655

Also 3rd option of Amazon digital music download... mostly cheaper than iTunes for the same music. Although iTunes AAC format is said to have better audio quality than Amazon's MP3. But CDs are lossless and would always be highest quality.

I agree with science above. CDs are on the way out except with a minority of traditional or audiophile users. CD sales have been in a sharp downtrend for years. Home music servers and computer digital libraries such as iTunes is the future. Many are ripping their CDs to their digital libraries and shelving their CD players.


----------



## Blancrocher

One problem is that neither digital files nor cds are truly "permanent" archives for our music. cds eventually become unplayable, and courts have ruled that digital files cannot be passed onto another in a will (which gives "ownership" an interesting meaning in relation to one's music collection, imo).


----------



## SixFootScowl

I am 99.9 percent CDs, which are ripped to mp3 files. The only thing I know about iTunes is that it is some kind of electronic music thing. I will go electronic when there is no other option. But the actual CD set and booklet is nice to have in my old-school mindset.


----------



## CDs

Blancrocher said:


> courts have ruled that digital files cannot be passed onto another in a will (which gives "ownership" an interesting meaning in relation to one's music collection, imo).


Here is an article from CNET from 2012 dealing with this issue. Glad I still buy CDs.

http://www.cnet.com/news/who-owns-your-downloaded-music-after-you-die/


----------



## DaveM

Blancrocher said:


> One problem is that neither digital files nor cds are truly "permanent" archives for our music. cds eventually become unplayable, and courts have ruled that digital files cannot be passed onto another in a will (which gives "ownership" an interesting meaning in relation to one's music collection, imo).


In practice, CDs that are well cared for will likely outlast the lifetime of the owner. Heck, I have cassette tapes that are still fine after 30+ years and they are much more prone to failure than CD's. Also, no matter what courts have ruled, digital files that are truly owned ( ie. are not tied to a streaming service) and are on computers, iPods or other digital players are not going to ordinarily pass through a court system when the owner passes on.


----------



## CDs

DaveM said:


> In practice, CDs that are well cared for will likely outlast the lifetime of the owner. Heck, I have cassette tapes that are still fine after 30+ years and they are much more prone to failure than CD's.


I hear people complain that CD jewel cases break way to easily but my first thought is "well if you don't throw them around in your car and don't treat them like a coaster then they will last a lifetime".
I have many CDs from the 80's and they all play just fine. Take care of your stuff and it'll last a long time.


----------



## majlis

They'll take my 2000+ CDs from me, only on my dead body (except if I'm forced to sell them, which I beg never happens).


----------



## Azol

https://blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/04/apple-stole-my-music-no-seriously/


----------



## CDs

Azol said:


> https://blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/04/apple-stole-my-music-no-seriously/


Great article! You're at Apples mercy. If they or the label choose to no longer make available an album you have downloaded guess what you are powerless to stop them.
Only way to make me no longer have that album is to break into my house and steal my CD.


----------



## agoukass

I have many CDs, but I’ve found that I’ve lately been shifting more and more towards the MP3 format. I find that MP3s don’t take up any space, don’t get scratched, or skip. It’s much easier to have my music stored in a cloud rather than to have it taking up valuable shelf space.

Having said all this, I do still buy CDs. There are many recordings that are simply not readily available on Amazon.com or iTunes and so I purchase them on CD. 

Last year, I only bought only three CD sets (Heifetz-Piatigorsky Concerts, Alfred Cortot Edition, and Sir Simon Rattle and the CBSO collection) which are over 120 CDs total and I don’t see the number of CDs I buy going up any time soon either. One of these days, I will replace my entire collection with MP3s or as much of it as I can.


----------



## Richard8655

agoukass said:


> I have many CDs, but I've found that I've lately been shifting more and more towards the MP3 format. I find that MP3s don't take up any space, don't get scratched, or skip. It's much easier to have my music stored in a cloud rather than to have it taking up valuable shelf space.
> 
> Having said all this, I do still buy CDs. There are many recordings that are simply not readily available on Amazon.com or iTunes and so I purchase them on CD.
> 
> Last year, I only bought only three CD sets (Heifetz-Piatigorsky Concerts, Alfred Cortot Edition, and Sir Simon Rattle and the CBSO collection) which are over 120 CDs total and I don't see the number of CDs I buy going up any time soon either. One of these days, I will replace my entire collection with MP3s or as much of it as I can.


Sounds like a good organizational plan. The only thought I'd add is that MP3 is a compressed format and in order to achieve that some sound quality has been sacrificed and lost (hence the term lossy format). CDs (and other non-lossy formats) retain their original high quality bit information and are usually preferred if audio quality is important.


----------



## Triplets

mp 3s are great for Historical recordings. I now order all my historical downloads in that format. for current recordings, mp3s though earbuds can sound very impressive. Through the big speakers with the big amplifier, not so much


----------



## Barbebleu

Azol said:


> https://blog.vellumatlanta.com/2016/05/04/apple-stole-my-music-no-seriously/


This is an alarming little article. I have purchased a fair bit from Apple which is my supplier of last resort. I tend to backup everything anyway but I'll make doubly sure from now on. An IT friend once told me that in the digital world nothing exists unless it exists in three places. I now have my original file, the backup file and the backup of the backup! Paranoid much!


----------



## KenOC

I read an article some time ago about a well-known actor who was planning on suing Apple. He found out that per Apple's licensing terms, he couldn't will his iPods to his kids upon death unless he erased all Apple content first.


----------



## CDs

KenOC said:


> I read an article some time ago about a well-known actor who was planning on suing Apple. He found out that per Apple's licensing terms, he couldn't will his iPods to his kids upon death unless he erased all Apple content first.


Bruce Willis. The story was made up though.

http://www.cnet.com/news/bruce-willis-not-suing-apple-over-music-inheritance-rules/


----------



## majlis

I'll keep listening to my CDs. No dangerous hackers, virus, deletions, warnings or threats. Everybody that is on the Web or on archives, can disappear at any moment, and for ever. No, thank you.


----------



## SixFootScowl

majlis said:


> I'll keep listening to my CDs. No dangerous hackers, virus, deletions, warnings or threats. Everybody that is on the Web or on archives, can disappear at any moment, and for ever. No, thank you.


But storing all your music on a web cloud drive is a good idea in case your house were to burn down or something. Also then can access it when away from home.


----------



## CDs

There's pros and cons to CDs/Vinyl vs digital/cloud/streaming and everyone will have their preferred way to listen and store their music collection.
I like the fact when I listen to my CDs nobody else knows what I'm listening to but me. iTunes or Spotify are not tracking my listening habits and how many times I listen to a certain track. Plus my CDs are always commercial free!


----------



## UnauthorizedRosin

Typically CDs. Although, my usual source of listening isn't CDs. I only listen to CDs when I'm in the car or trying to go to sleep (childish, but the silence is rather...I don't know the word, frightening in a difference, empty sense. Yes, it's a bit childish.) I keep a few YouTube playlists and listen to those when on my computer. I also have a Spotify for a hand-me-down tablet that a relative didn't want anymore, so I keep a Spotify on that to listen for on-the-go. (Would use a phone, but my phone's a simple flip phone.) So those would be the sources that I find the advantages of iTunes without having money to just buy new music on a whim, especially if I just want a single song and not an entire album. Additionally, I usually rip the CDs to my computer, too, and occasionally make new CDs with them although you might not actually be able to do so.


----------



## SixFootScowl

UnauthorizedRosin said:


> I only listen to CDs when I'm in the car or trying to go to sleep (childish, but the silence is rather...I don't know the word, frightening in a difference, empty sense. Yes, it's a bit childish.)


I see nothing childish about having music playing to go to sleep--or about finding silence rather frightening/empty or whatever. My only problem with playing music to sleep is that it would have to be very calm pieces so it would not wake me up when a louder part comes on.


----------



## Casebearer

Art Rock said:


> CD. I'm old fashioned like that. Even the downloads I burn to CD.


I'm even more old fashioned. I press the cd's on vinyl and then I ask the band to come over and play it.


----------



## Casebearer

presto said:


> I feel the same, but storage is becomming a pain, I rip all my CD's to my ipod and end up hardly playing the originals but I dont have the heart to get rid of them.


You can send them to me if you're looking for a nice home for them


----------



## Pugg

Casebearer said:


> You can send them to me if you're looking for a nice home for them


Now, now, don't be greedy


----------



## ando

I love the fact that you can upload up to 100,000 songs to Apple Music from your iTunes library (you can also upload the same number with YouTube Music, btw) but the process is interminably slow!

I've only got about 20,000 songs in my iTunes colelction but it's taken _days_ to upload everything - and it still isn't done (started Monday). It's actually uploading at the speed of a typical song rip, which is pretty slow in my book. My system seems to be in order, up to speed and in good shape so I guess it's the nature of the beast. Checked reddit reactions and many people seem to have the same issue with the painstaking process of large batch uploads.

Putting all your music files in iCloud is not equivalent to uploading your music to Apple Music, unfortunately. In fact, it has nothing to do with the music you upload. You can store music in iCloud but then to access it you'll need to down load it before it's accessible. So, I wait.


----------



## Merl

I love my digital collection and it's really big but tbh I tend to play a lot more CDs at home (due to having my better, dedicated sound-system upstairs). There's also something about having the physical product and all that goes with it (cover art, inserts, reading, etc). If I'm out of the house it's always digital (car usb, phone, etc). It's really down to convenience and what suits the individual. The only format I'd never return to is vinyl. Can't bear it these days and sold about 7/8 of my vinyl off over the years (but I still have about 500-700 left, mostly rock).


----------



## Waehnen

My choice is CD´s + iTunes. I do not need everything on CD given that my collection is already rather large. I feel no need to decide between the two. They are complementary. I move around quite a lot so it is handy to have a huge collection of music digitally with me. I will not carry the CD´s around. Then again, it is wonderful to spin some CD´s when at home.


----------



## progmatist

Merl said:


> I love my digital collection and it's really big but tbh I tend to play a lot more CDs at home (due to having my better, dedicated sound-system upstairs). There's also something about having the physical product and all that goes with it (cover art, inserts, reading, etc). If I'm out of the house it's always digital (car usb, phone, etc). It's really down to convenience and what suits the individual. The only format I'd never return to is vinyl. Can't bear it these days and sold about 7/8 of my vinyl off over the years (but I still have about 500-700 left, mostly rock).


About a decade or so ago, BBC News did a profile of young people who would listen to MP3s, while looking at the vinyl jackets and inner sleeves. That was just before kids started actually listening to the vinyl records themselves.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I purchase FLAC downloads or rip CDs to FLAC (and the very occasional Blu-Ray). 90% of my listening is done over headphones from a music player, the other 10% in the kitchen over speakers from a music player.

I don't have the space for a dedicated listening room, and I have upstairs and downstairs neighbors to boot.


----------



## SixFootScowl

CDs ripped to mp3 or occasional MP3 downloads, but I would not even know how to work Itunes and if i can't have the music as my own I would skip it.


----------



## PathfinderCS

Unless it's a recording or album that I can't get online in anyway; I tend to go with iTunes 100%. I do not have the space to keep physical jewel cases and liner notes these days and it's just more convenient for me to go with digital purchases.

Not to mention streaming as well.


----------



## Rogerx

PathfinderCS said:


> Unless it's a recording or album that I can't get online in anyway; I tend to go with iTunes 100%. I do not have the space to keep physical jewel cases and liner notes these days and it's just more convenient for me to go with digital purchases.
> 
> Not to mention streaming as well.


I always wonder what people had done if it was not invented. When I started collecting there was only vinyl, my goodness you had to make space, with pleasure.


----------



## progmatist

Rogerx said:


> I always wonder what people had done if it was not invented. When I started collecting there was only vinyl, my goodness you had to make space, with pleasure.


Finding sturdy enough shelving is itself a challenge.


----------



## arpeggio

Several years ago, one of my sons tried to get me into using iTunes.

We did an experiment.

He downloaded the iTunes track of a CD I just purchased.

He then did a blind test where he played for me the CD and the corresponding iTune track.

Every time I correctly guessed which was the iTune and which was the CD.

There was a certain clarity in the CD sound that was missing from the iTune track.


----------



## PathfinderCS

Rogerx said:


> I always wonder what people had done if it was not invented. When I started collecting there was only vinyl, my goodness you had to make space, with pleasure.


To be fair I also have a sizable movie soundtrack and power metal collection as well so there is competition for space...


----------



## progmatist

arpeggio said:


> Several years ago, one of my sons tried to get me into using iTunes.
> 
> We did an experiment.
> 
> He downloaded the iTunes track of a CD I just purchased.
> 
> He then did a blind test where he played for me the CD and the corresponding iTune track.
> 
> Every time I correctly guessed which was the iTune and which was the CD.
> 
> There was a certain clarity in the CD sound that was missing from the iTune track.


The difference would be even more dramatic with an Amazon MP3. The AAC+ Codec is light years ahead of MP3. The latter is based on the audio layer of Mpeg 1 video, which is roughly VHS quality. AAC+ is the audio layer of Mpeg 4, which is capable of compressing 1080P video to the same file size or smaller than a DVD. With still much better video quality than the DVD.


----------



## pianozach

I've loaded my sizeable CD collection into iTunes, and with the few dozens of commercially downloaded tracks, and my own personally created tracks, I'm at 18,861 tracks (or 53.9 days, or 141 GB). 

Last year my hard drive started having issues, and I discovered that I'd crowded my computer with way too much audio data, so I converted the vast majority of my iTunes library from AAC to MP3.


----------



## Neo Romanza

pianozach said:


> I've loaded my sizeable CD collection into iTunes, and with the few dozens of commercially downloaded tracks, and my own personally created tracks, I'm at 18,861 tracks (or 53.9 days, or 141 GB).
> 
> Last year my hard drive started having issues, and I discovered that I'd crowded my computer with way too much audio data, so I converted the vast majority of my iTunes library from AAC to MP3.


The problem with mp3 is the audio quality and what's actually lost in the process. I've got 448 GB of my classical CD collection ripped right now using AAC, which equals to 136 days. With AAC, a lot of the information lost is regained and as progmatist rightfully points out AAC, IMHO, sounds much better than mp3 even mp3 ripped at 320 kbps. I've done some extensive side-by-side comparisons with mp3 and AAC and AAC wins every time.


----------



## OCEANE

Neo Romanza said:


> The problem with mp3 is the audio quality and what's actually lost in the process. I've got 448 GB of my classical CD collection ripped right now using AAC, which equals to 136 days. With AAC, a lot of the information lost is regained and as progmatist rightfully points out AAC, IMHO, sounds much better than mp3 even mp3 ripped at 320 kbps. I've done some extensive side-by-side comparisons with mp3 and AAC and AAC wins every time.


Similar to you Neo Romanza, I have also ripped some 500GB of my classical CDs into a mid-high level portable audio player (AIFF/FLAC/DSD files) and I could travel with my music library. Sound quality wise, the audio player with a decent DAC inside does provide good sound quality and importantly it is capable of driving wired earbuds and even headphones. In this respect, a mobile phone /iphone can't catch the level.


----------



## Monica

If I can get it on CD, then CD it is for me. But if it's only available digitally, I stick with Qobuz. My collection of music from iTunes is very small and it is usually stuff that I can't find anywhere else.


----------



## ando

ando said:


> I love the fact that you can upload up to 100,000 songs to Apple Music from your iTunes library (you can also upload the same number with YouTube Music, btw) but the process is interminably slow!
> 
> I've only got about 20,000 songs in my iTunes collection but it's taken _days_ to upload everything - and it still isn't done (started Monday). It's actually uploading at the speed of a typical song rip, which is pretty slow in my book. My system seems to be in order, up to speed and in good shape so I guess it's the nature of the beast. Checked reddit reactions and many people seem to have the same issue with the painstaking process of large batch uploads.
> 
> Putting all your music files in iCloud is not equivalent to uploading your music to Apple Music, unfortunately. In fact, it has nothing to do with the music you upload. You can store music in iCloud but then to access it you'll need to down load it before it's accessible. So, I wait.


*Finally*, my iTunes library is completely synched! Took me a minute to realize that Apple was identifying and providing art for the tons of music that I ripped ages ago. Slightly peeved that I had to get an Apple Music subscription before iTunes could properly ID everything but better late than never.


----------



## Chibi Ubu

I vote for my 15 band Equalizer that I use with MusicBee as the best way to create the listening experience that I seek with my HQ earbuds on my desktop PC. Works like a charm! 

I can adjust out my mp3s and my m4as with satisfactory results every time :tiphat:


----------



## demetriosnicas

For me, nothing beats an afternoon, all electronic screens turned off, relaxing on the sofa with a favourite CD playing in the stereo. Especially for the classical genre, I just can't concentrate on the music playing off of a computer (iTunes etc.). Screens, with their notifications really distract you. I could bear it for other genres (jazz not included) but for classical music... no.
All in all, it's what comes closer to me for a live concert. You have the liner notes (in lieu of the program), you press PLAY and then you can sip in music uninterrupted.


----------



## progmatist

demetriosnicas said:


> For me, nothing beats an afternoon, all electronic screens turned off, relaxing on the sofa with a favourite CD playing in the stereo. Especially for the classical genre, I just can't concentrate on the music playing off of a computer (iTunes etc.). Screens, with their notifications really distract you. I could bear it for other genres (jazz not included) but for classical music... no.
> All in all, it's what comes closer to me for a live concert. You have the liner notes (in lieu of the program), you press PLAY and then you can sip in music uninterrupted.


I actually find it easier to focus on the music when I use more than 1 of my senses. Watching a video of a performance for example, I use both hearing and vision. A close second would be following the waveform seekbar in the Linux Quod Libet player. That also lets me know when it's about to get loud, and adjust the volume accordingly. So I don't have angry neighbors pounding on my door.


----------



## OCEANE

progmatist said:


> I actually find it easier to focus on the music when I use more than 1 of my senses. Watching a video of a performance for example, I use both hearing and vision. A close second would be following the waveform seekbar in the Linux Quod Libet player. That also lets me know when it's about to get loud, and adjust the volume accordingly. So I don't have angry neighbors pounding on my door.


In the old days, I listened to music all the time by sitting in front of home stereo system. 
Now, I spend 50% listening to home stereo system, 40% iTune via nice headphones at home or IEM at outside, car stereo or office and finally 10% Youtube.


----------

