# I still like CDs!



## GrosseFugue

Despite all the options -- streaming, downloads, YouTube, etc. -- I still like to listen to CDs. There's something about putting a disc in the player that promotes close listening, gives me that old timey feeling of dropping a needle on the album. You made the effort, now you make the time. Plus you get to hold a booklet.

The welter of digital options seem to almost promote ADD-style listening. I've even shuffled tracks of Beethoven's late string quartets (yes, I know, sacrilegious!) on my phone. There are like tens of thousands (more?) of albums available to me via Primephonic (great site, btw), but sometimes it can feel like being in a library and trying to skim through every book vs. just taking one home with you. I realize it's a state of mind. But wondered if other listeners still liked their CDs (or LPs). In fact, I think part of why LPs are popular again is the pleasure of holding and using a big tangible item (plus you get all the cool artwork, etc).


----------



## Rogerx

Good to know, me too :angel:


----------



## consuono

Me three. However, I was saying that about vinyl LPs back in the 90s and now I don't even have a turntable.

Still, I like having physical media that I can actually physically *have* and isn't just floating in the ether somewhere. I don't use a tablet for sheet music either. It seems so antiseptic and sterile. I like my stacks of music, some of which goes back to when I was a kid.


----------



## mikeh375

Me four.
The decline of the CD format has been a gain though for us all with charity shops selling master recordings and performances for next to nothing. I've seen CD's that I bought for upwards of £20 thirty years ago on sale for £1. 
I'm more flexible with film, now preferring to buy or rent via streaming, rather than physical DVD's and BluRay as 4K and UHD are more than adequate.


----------



## Bill Schuster

Absolutely, still love my cds. I also love my records and my digital files. They all have their value. Most of my listening tends to be using Bluetooth devices and digital files. When I truly have time to just sit and concentrate on the music, rather than using it as my soundtrack for other activities, I prefer cds or records. Records, in particular, are a commitment to more active listening, due to their limited playing time and inability to skip tracks, without manually moving the needle. I also fully agree that there is a plethora of cheap physical media available now. It is so easy to find old cds and records for ridiculously low prices. I picked up the 8 disc Beethoven complete quartets set by the Cleveland Quartet for 99 cents, not long ago. So, yes, cheers to cds!


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Please allow me to join the throng. I continue to enjoy CDs, plus the occasional LP and even cassette tapes (which were SO much better than CDs to burn stuff on to), and can't imagine ever ditching them for online options entirely.


----------



## Dan Ante

Same here, I can hear what I want when I want and I shudder to think of the cost of my collection approx 2000 at a time when a top label and recording would be approx NZ$ 35/40 and Naxos about half that price and just as good.


----------



## GrosseFugue

Animal the Drummer said:


> Please allow me to join the throng. I continue to enjoy CDs, plus the occasional LP and even cassette tapes (which were SO much better than CDs to burn stuff on to), and can't imagine ever ditching them for online options entirely.


Oh, cassette tapes! It was how I first got into Classical. One can never lose one's place with a tape. And seeing those little wheels turning was cool. Such a pain to fast-forward or rewind to a certain spot that I'd treat each listen like going to a concert -- pay attention, no skipping around.

There's a 2014 thread asking if tapes would ever make a comeback: Do you still have any classical cassette tapes?
Well, turns out they have! Seems old stuff is cool with young folks: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexle...-tapes-are-making-a-comeback/?sh=3b5e81aa50ad

One of the cassette makers gave a great comparison (though I'd go further and say the "fireplace" analogy can extend to CDs in the face of today's hectic streaming and downloads; the sheer ease of downloads makes it so you just want to accumulate rather than LISTEN):

_*It's like heating. In your home, you have heaters in every room-high numbers-and that's not going to change. That's digital. But you can also have a single fireplace, and it takes time to experience something different-this is analogue. The fireplace isn't going to replace your heaters and the heaters won't forever kill the fireplace.
*_


----------



## Haydn man

Yes, still like CDs and buy them as they are cheap as others have said. But I then immediately rip them onto a hard drive to listen on the Sonos system we have.
CD sound quality is good enough for my as a recovered audiophile 
Sorry, you are very welcome to your records and cassettes, there is always nostalgia for old stuff but you can keep the clicks, pops and hisses. 
Now let me find my headphones with the gold plated unobtanium drivers for that special experience whilst you guys take out the ashes and get the fire lit out there in nostalgia land


----------



## Malx

The only time I'll get rid of my CDs is when I have no physical space to store them.


----------



## Axter

same here, and even more than that I like Vinyls as well.


----------



## consuono

> Oh, cassette tapes! It was how I first got into Classical.


I used to have a bunch of those. The only one I have now is Istvan Kertesz conducting Mozart's Requiem...but I don't have a cassette player anymore. I also remember recording music from the local classical station onto cassette. I built up quite a library with that. :lol:


----------



## Merl

Yeah, my cd collection is still growing at a scary rate. However, my tape collection came to an abrupt end around 2008 when I dumped the whole lot in Stalybridge recycling centre. I always hated cassettes. Horrible, hissy, annoying medium that I loathed from day one but grinned and bore until I'd replaced all of those shitey tapes on cd. I miss neither scratchy vinyl or hissy, 'difficult to pick out individual tracks' cassettes. Have you noticed how secondhand cds are now beginning to get more expensive? There's still plenty of bargains around but they've definitely started to get dearer.


----------



## Handelian

Sadly I still like CDs. Every time I think of giving upon collecting them the urge comes back!


----------



## ORigel

I listen from Youtube, because it's free and I can listen anywhere with an internet connection. When I hear a recording I love, I purchase a CD because the sound quality is so much better.

My latest CD purchase was the Karajan 1963 Beethoven cycle.

My next CD purchase will be Klemperer's Mahler Symphony 2 with Ferrier and Vincent.


----------



## joen_cph

Ditto-very-much-and-certainly-so from here!


----------



## Coach G

I started with classical music as a teenager in early 1980s with LPs. By the late 1980s, I had already switched over to CDs, but was still buying LPs because there was a lot that was still not available on CD. In the 2000s I started to download digitally but then later I went back to CDs. I think I get better sound on the stereo system, or maybe it's just my imagination.


----------



## Zauberfloete

Same here. I still prefer listening to my music on CD, even if I have a digital backup of all my music CDs. The only exception is when I'm not home, then I listen to music on an MP3 player. 

My old cassette tapes are no longer playable, but I've been trying to re-acquire everything I had on tape in CD format.


----------



## mbhaub

I still like my cds and during this pandemic the massive hoard has been a godsend. I had a daily music festival of the highest quality and variety. When people say the cd is dead I point out the hundreds of new releases reviewed each month on musicweb international, and Classics Today, and the large number of releases of unusual repertoire on Records International. Maybe cds are dead to people who listen to pop/rock/rap and other, more ephemeral music, but the format seems to be alive and well in the classical arena. All of those super bargain boxes that have been coming out are irritating - some of those I paid a small fortune for in individual releases when they came out. Now you can get them for a tiny fraction of the original price.

I do have a real concern for all cd collectors: cd players are getting scarce, especially affordable stand-alone units that have decent quality. If you want to play SACDs options are really getting limited. Oppo and Onkyo both used to make sacd compatible units for under $500, but they're gone. Check out the pricing for players from Sony, Marantz and others: it'll shock you. Even Red Book cd players are going away - stock up while you can.


----------



## amfortas

This thread has been reassuring: At least a handful of fellow dinosaurs are out there, still hanging on to CDs. And at my advanced age, that may be just fine.


----------



## starthrower

I don't have an audio set up for listening to streamed music in hi fidelity sound so I listen to CDs. It has nothing to do with romantic feelings of handling the physical product. After 36 years of collecting I have thousands of CDs so it would be crazy not to play them. But the booklets and notes are of no use anymore because I can longer read very small print. Like some other older members here who have kicked the CD buying habit, I hope to do the same this year. My wife will be very happy if I can quit the addiction. She doesn't want to end up in the hoarder's book of world records.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I still like CDs. Companies like Warner are repackaging boxed sets at great prices, and those are hard to pass by. Also, my local used record store has insane deals all the time, and it's hard to pass them up. But I've noticed that their supply is going down as the years go by, and that's concerning. I have a nightmare that at some point my extensive CD collection will be worthless, and when I pass on, my daughter will just unload them at Goodwill or, worse yet, shovel them into a Dumpster.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I can appreciate why people prefer other ways of building a collection but it will always be CDs for me. I came to them relatively late after fannying around with vinyl for far too long, so why shouldn't they sustain me for another twenty or so years? Before I cark it I will try and flog them off as a job lot (assuming there is still a market for them by then) and hopefully have a serious lash-up on the proceeds. If not, then the local library is welcome to them. If they don't want them then it will be up to the executor of my will to dispose of them as he or she sees fit.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Malx said:


> The only time I'll get rid of my CDs is when I have no physical space to store them.


That's one reason why I was was so pleased with selling so much my vinyl in the first place - more space for CDs and extra cash with which to buy them!


----------



## NoCoPilot

There's two kinds of listening in my household.

1. Background music for reading. This can be anything non-attention grabbing, anything without lyrics, anything that fills the void with comfort noise.

2. Music-listening music. This is when I put on AN ALBUM and want to hear a suite of songs or a symphony or a band performance, where the songs were chosen to go together, and the music captures the attention, and i can concentrate on what's coming out of my speakers.


Pandora for #1. CDs for #2.


----------



## GrosseFugue

Here are two examples of very nice CD productions. This is like having handsome books lining your shelves versus all on Kindle. The Khatia one is a fine fold-out with DVD bonus and a beautiful booklet. The Bartoli one comes with a veritable encyclopedia; it is substantial!

Of course, unlike books, CDs are dependent on a technology to play them. Mbhaub mentioned that CD players are getting scarcer. Are they set to become a fringe thing? Like cassette players? On the plus side -- don't CD players last longer than tape decks?


----------



## Rambler

I Must admit I am rather attached to my 3,000 or so CD's - a still growing collection. 

Recently I've been toying with the idea of selling off my house in favour of living on a canal boat touring the English canals. But where would I put my CD's! 

I suppose it's good to have a daydream now and again.


----------



## Open Book

A minor drawback of CDs is that you can't zero in on any part of the music you want, you can only play from the beginning of the sections that have been marked off. At least I don't know of any equipment that will do this.

Whereas you can place the needle anywhere you want on an LP or the cursor anywhere in an audio file.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Snoopy devoted his whole house to CDs.


----------



## Coach G

elgars ghost said:


> Snoopy devoted his whole house to CDs.


Snoopy somehow managed to get a lot of stuff in that little dog house. I always wondered if the entrance leads to a very large underground unit, or did Snoopy somehow know how to bend the space-time continuum? I have similar thoughts on the nature of Oscar's trashcan (re: _Sesame Street_).


----------



## elgar's ghost

I imagine it's like the Tardis.


----------



## Coach G

That's the difference between American and British pop culture. You guys bend time and space so Dr. Who can help people in need and save civilizations across the universe. We bend time and space so an anthropomorphic dog and a green-grouch-monster can horde a bunch of stuff they don't need into a small space.


----------



## senza sordino

I still prefer CDs, and I play them frequently. I have about 600 CDs and it would be a waste never to listen to them again. My CD player died a couple of years ago, and now I play CDs on my DVD player and I've wired that to my stereo. However, I can't see which track is playing. I haven't bought a classical music CD in about eighteen months, and I'm not sure I will ever again buy a classical music CD.


----------



## larold

I like CDs so much I pay a guy in another state $50 a shot to convert my LPs to CD. I've used a lot of services and never paid this much -- but never been more happy with the outcome. Some of my 1950 Stokowski LPs (and 10-inch records) sound better after this guy redoes them than I have ever heard in any other media -- LP, CD, download, lossless, etc.

It is pretty much a myth that everything once produced has gone back digitally. I find I still have to find the LPs and have them converted for a lot of stuff from 1950 and earlier.


----------



## SanAntone

Streaming for me.

I hardly listen to CDs anymore. I still have 2,000 but mainly I only listen to them when I am driving. I don't buy new CDs and only occasionally will buy a secondhand box set which I can't find any other way.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Open Book said:


> A minor drawback of CDs is that you can't zero in on any part of the music you want, you can only play from the beginning of the sections that have been marked off. At least I don't know of any equipment that will do this.
> 
> Whereas you can place the needle anywhere you want on an LP or the cursor anywhere in an audio file.


Baloney.

<< >>


----------



## Simon Moon

I will always be a physical media owner, even though I also have a bunch of hi-res downloads (DSD sounds so good!).

But with the continuing fall from favor that CD's are going through, I have been buying quite a few CD's on a regular basis. And the prices are also falling. 

I am also lucky to have several very good brick and mortar stores near me, which I visit several times a month to purchase used CD's.


----------



## Simon Moon

Open Book said:


> A minor drawback of CDs is that you can't zero in on any part of the music you want, you can only play from the beginning of the sections that have been marked off. At least I don't know of any equipment that will do this.
> 
> Whereas you can place the needle anywhere you want on an LP or the cursor anywhere in an audio file.


I have owned quite a few CD players over the years (at least a dozen), mostly high end, and none of them have had the limitation to only play from the beginning, without the ability to fast forward. I even had the cheapest multi disc player I could find on Ebay, I was using while waiting for a new CD player to arrive, and that also had the ability to fast forward.

Many times, the button to skip to the next track, is also the same button to fast forward. Hit the button momentarily, and it skips to the next track. Hold it down, and it fast forwards within the track. And usually, if you hold it down even longer, it speeds up the fast forward.


----------



## NoCoPilot

larold said:


> I like CDs so much I pay a guy in another state $50 a shot to convert my LPs to CD. I've used a lot of services and never paid this much -- but never been more happy with the outcome. Some of my 1950 Stokowski LPs (and 10-inch records) sound better after this guy redoes them than I have ever heard in any other media -- LP, CD, download, lossless, etc.
> 
> It is pretty much a myth that everything once produced has gone back digitally. I find I still have to find the LPs and have them converted for a lot of stuff from 1950 and earlier.


If you're getting 'em for $50 you're getting a bargain. When I do an LP>CD conversion it takes anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks. It is A LOT of work to do properly! But you're right, in the end they can sound better than they've ever sounded before.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Simon Moon said:


> I have owned quite a few CD players over the years (at least a dozen), mostly high end, and none of them have had the limitation to only play from the beginning, without the ability to fast forward. I even had the cheapest multi disc player I could find on Ebay, I was using while waiting for a new CD player to arrive, and that also had the ability to fast forward.
> 
> Many times, the button to skip to the next track, is also the same button to fast forward. Hit the button momentarily, and it skips to the next track. Hold it down, and it fast forwards within the track. And usually, if you hold it down even longer, it speeds up the fast forward.


Like I said:

<< >>


----------



## etipou

I find that the best argument in favour of physical CDs is that they are so pleasant to browse when you are unsure what you want to listen to (most of my listening is like this). Variations on scrolling down/swiping horizontally with little icons or lines of text are very inferior to surveying a shelf of discs. Folder-based browsing ("Beethoven -> Symphonies -> #3 in Eb -> Szell/Cleveland") is better, but you can only survey one level at a time, rather than all at once; and you either have to coerce performer-based CDs into the same format, or suffer the inconvenience of maintaining several systems.

I've settled on CDs for music that I am confident I will pick up often when browsing this way. Curiosity items are Youtubed or streamed and quickly forgotten. This is great because there is no reason to have thousands of CDs, only the dozens or hundreds that will stand a lifetime's listening.


----------



## EnescuCvartet

My preferred method is LP's. I began with cds but switched to mainly vinyl many years ago. The selection is enormous for vinyl, all encompassing, if you appreciate the performances of some of the old masters. I use Spotify, or my local classical radio station when in the car. At home though, it's always vinyl. Much more engaging and I like the tone.


----------



## mbhaub

Simon Moon said:


> I have owned quite a few CD players over the years (at least a dozen), mostly high end, and none of them have had the limitation to only play from the beginning, without the ability to fast forward. I even had the cheapest multi disc player I could find on Ebay, I was using while waiting for a new CD player to arrive, and that also had the ability to fast forward.
> 
> Many times, the button to skip to the next track, is also the same button to fast forward. Hit the button momentarily, and it skips to the next track. Hold it down, and it fast forwards within the track. And usually, if you hold it down even longer, it speeds up the fast forward.


When cds first came out, some of them were heavily indexed. I have New World Symphony where every tempo change, every key change in each movement is indexed. So the first movement alone has some 20 indices. You changed the index with the remote. But it must not have been very popular. I haven't seen an indexed disk in a long time, and players no longer have the buttons. Nice idea, close to dropping a needle.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I don't have any particular love for CD as a physical object (it's fragile and the cases suck), but it's where most of the bargains can be had, and almost everything is on it. It's also a medium that presents music at nearly the limits of human hearing. 

So while I like to purchase music as downloadable FLAC files at higher than CD resolutions, I would still wager that greater than 80% of my music comes from CD... which I promptly ripped as FLAC onto my digital audio player.


----------



## Taplow

mbhaub said:


> When cds first came out, some of them were heavily indexed. I have New World Symphony where every tempo change, every key change in each movement is indexed. So the first movement alone has some 20 indices. You changed the index with the remote. But it must not have been very popular. I haven't seen an indexed disk in a long time, and players no longer have the buttons. Nice idea, close to dropping a needle.


This, yes! ^^ I was just about to post the very same response. The very first CD player I owned cost about AUD $600 back in 1988 - no small sum (between $1500 and $2500 in today's money). Its greatest feature was the index button, and I used it frequently. I don't know when indexes were dropped, but that was the saddest loss to my listening experience, and I lament it still to this day.

The closest you can get now is to skip to a specific time within a track. My current CD player allows you to enter not only a track number, but also a time in seconds and it will skip forward and start playing from that point. Better than nothing, but then you have to know in advance exactly what you want to hear and where it starts.


----------



## vincula

I listen mostly to vinyl and cd's on the main rig. I use Spotify to discover new music and Youtube too, a goldmine for historic and live performances, interviews and much more. I normally buy the physical album if I like it a lot, especially operas and complete works ( though just if the edition includes libretti & other goodies). 

Must admit I'm way more picky now -especially due to space on the crowded shelves- and only buy new albums if price's right.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Taplow

MatthewWeflen said:


> So while I like to purchase music as downloadable FLAC files at higher than CD resolutions, I would still wager that greater than 80% of my music comes from CD... which I promptly ripped as FLAC onto my digital audio player.


I still own CDs, I love to have the physical object, with booklet and cover art, and I still do occasionally pull one off the shelf, stick it in the player and sit down to do some concentrated listening. But everything I have is ripped, and that's where I do most of my listening. From the hard drive I can stream the audio to multiple rooms simultaneously and continue my listening experience as I move throughout the house, choosing which speakers to activate in my network. I can't do that with CDs.

All rips are done as AIFF. The files take up quite a bit of space, but I have a 6TB hard drive, and it's a format that is compatible with most players (iTunes doesn't support FLAC). They also make an excellent backup. If I ever lose a file, or it somehow gets corrupted, I can just re-rip the original CD.

And as MatthewWeflen has mentioned above, CDs can be found at bargain prices. It's very rare that I would buy a new release. Instead, the bargain bins, second-hand dealers, eBay and Amazon marketplace sellers are my hunting grounds. I much prefer to buy original releases with original cover art rather than the newer, re-packaged budget re-releases that too often come with sparse documentation. Then I have the best of both worlds … the physical CD and lossless audio files.


----------



## Dan Ante

One thing to remember every time you play a vinyl LP record is that being a mechanical system the needle actually wears the track and itself, and unless you are immaculate in handling the act of touching the playing surface can deposit unwanted stuff from your fingers, eventually over time your LP will develop background hiss crackle and pop, don’t get me wrong I have still got some of my early LPs (50s and 60s) and enjoy the actual performance regardless of background noise and I use a carbon brush before each spin. The CD if treated with care when handling will remain in perfect condition until it starts to disintegrate. Also, to drop the needle at a certain part on a track is a bit hit and miss. The present revival and marketing of vinyl records is just another money making exercise by the recording industry IMHO.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Coach G said:


> I started with classical music as a teenager in early 1980s with LPs. By the late 1980s, I had already switched over to CDs, but was still buying LPs because there was a lot that was still not available on CD. In the 2000s I started to download digitally but then later I went back to CDs. I think I get better sound on the stereo system, or maybe it's just my imagination.


No, it isn't. Had things been otherwise I'd have gone the streaming route myself long ago.


----------



## Zauberfloete

Open Book said:


> A minor drawback of CDs is that you can't zero in on any part of the music you want, you can only play from the beginning of the sections that have been marked off. At least I don't know of any equipment that will do this.
> 
> Whereas you can place the needle anywhere you want on an LP or the cursor anywhere in an audio file.


If I remember correctly, the music system I had a while ago had a function that allowed you to "mark" a particular point and return to that as if it were the beginning of a track. I don't think my current music system does that, but it's indeed possible to go forward or back a music track, without necessarily skip to the next or previous.

Also, since I always listen to music on my headphones anyway, it's very easy to just pop the CD in the external CD-player of my Mac instead of using the music system. On the computer, I can choose any particular point I want to listen to on the track with just a click of the mouse. With the advantage that, unlike LPs, doing so repeatedly doesn't ruin the track in any way.

Another advantage is that whenever I play a CD on the Mac, it asks me if I want to import it (back it up in digital format), so it ensures that even should my CDs get damaged, I still have a copy of my music.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Dan Ante said:


> One thing to remember every time you play a vinyl LP record is that being a mechanical system the needle actually wears the track and itself, and unless you are immaculate in handling the act of touching the playing surface can deposit unwanted stuff from your fingers, eventually over time your LP will develop background hiss crackle and pop, don't get me wrong I have still got some of my early LPs (50s and 60s) and enjoy the actual performance regardless of background noise and I use a carbon brush before each spin. The CD if treated with care when handling will remain in perfect condition until it starts to disintegrate. Also, to drop the needle at a certain part on a track is a bit hit and miss. The present revival and marketing of vinyl records is just another money making exercise by the recording industry IMHO.


I had an LP collection for forty years, and I always thought this myth was WAY overstated. LPs don't wear out if properly handled and played with modern equipment.

But, by the same token, CDs don't much care about handling or equipment at all.


----------



## eljr

GrosseFugue said:


> Despite all the options -- streaming, downloads, YouTube, etc. -- I still like to listen to CDs. There's something about putting a disc in the player that promotes close listening, gives me that old timey feeling of dropping a needle on the album. You made the effort, now you make the time. Plus you get to hold a booklet.
> 
> The welter of digital options seem to almost promote ADD-style listening. I've even shuffled tracks of Beethoven's late string quartets (yes, I know, sacrilegious!) on my phone. There are like tens of thousands (more?) of albums available to me via Primephonic (great site, btw), but sometimes it can feel like being in a library and trying to skim through every book vs. just taking one home with you. I realize it's a state of mind. But wondered if other listeners still liked their CDs (or LPs). In fact, I think part of why LPs are popular again is the pleasure of holding and using a big tangible item (plus you get all the cool artwork, etc).


I find the ritual around LP'S far exceeds the stylistic romance of the CD.

That said, I prefer the CD.

Still, the convenience of streaming is very seductive.

So in the end, I love them all for who they are.


----------



## thejewk

I like physical media, but I am getting to the point now where I only buy it if it is either cheaper than a download (true more often than not) or has something else that makes it worth while, like an accompanying book. Almost all my listening to my music from a CD is from a lossless rip to my computer using my headphone rig or attached speakers. I have a CD player and turntable set up with my main speakers, but very rarely play an actual CD, and I use the turntable for things that never made it to CD in most cases.


----------



## WildThing

Like others I still have a majority of my cds, mostly for the librettos and sung texts in the accompanying booklets, but I don't actually take them out and play them on my stereo anymore. Now that I have my entire collection ripped and uploaded to cloud storage where I can access anything I want to in an instant and have it streaming via bluetooth to my stereo, the convenience just can't be beat. And let me tell you, I don't miss having to get up to change a cd in the middle of an opera or a long symphony that spands multiple discs.


----------



## Handelian

NoCoPilot said:


> I had an LP collection for forty years, and I always thought this myth was WAY overstated. LPs don't wear out if properly handled and played with modern equipment.
> 
> But, by the same token, CDs don't much care about handling or equipment at all.


I must confess it was a relief for me to switch to CDs as LPs always appeared so fragile. You would put them away in seemingly perfect condition and when you got them out again there was a pop on them.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Handelian said:


> I must confess it was a relief for me to switch to CDs as LPs always appeared so fragile. You would put them away in seemingly perfect condition and when you got them out again there was a pop on them.


All part of the "romance" of vinyl


----------



## SONNET CLV

Dan Ante said:


> One thing to remember every time you play a vinyl LP record is that being a mechanical system the needle actually wears the track and itself, and unless you are immaculate in handling the act of touching the playing surface can deposit unwanted stuff from your fingers, eventually over time your LP will develop background hiss crackle and pop, don't get me wrong I have still got some of my early LPs (50s and 60s) and enjoy the actual performance regardless of background noise and I use a carbon brush before each spin. The CD if treated with care when handling will remain in perfect condition until it starts to disintegrate. Also, to drop the needle at a certain part on a track is a bit hit and miss. The present revival and marketing of vinyl records is just another money making exercise by the recording industry IMHO.





NoCoPilot said:


> I had an LP collection for forty years, and I always thought this myth was WAY overstated. LPs don't wear out if properly handled and played with modern equipment.
> 
> But, by the same token, CDs don't much care about handling or equipment at all.


Until that "Wow" factor hits you ....

I currently hold a collection of vinyl in the thousands and CDs in the thousands. I've been listening to music via hard disc for well over half a century now, and I've even heard a few things over my headphones by way of plugging into my lap top, though I don't currently belong to any official "streaming" service.

One thing I can assure: in my listening experience, the only times I ever experienced truly revelatory moments of "Wow" from listening to recorded music, was by way of vinyl on a turntable.

I'll contend that having "good" playback equipment proves essential in experiencing great sound, but I would argue that my CD playback rig is pretty good (centered at the front end on a SONY XA5400ES disc player) and that my headphones (Sennheiser model HD 600) more than adequately captures the nuances of what I listen to on-line, especially when my WAVES MaxxAudioPro is activated and tweaked. Still, I've never quite said "Wow" aloud while listening to any media except vinyl. And with vinyl it has happened a number of times.

One's vinyl playback rig is important, too, I suspect, in capturing what producers and engineers placed in the record grooves. A quality turntable reaches levels of performance one won't find with a "cheap" record player. (I'm not necessarily talking big bucks here, but rather quality build, though the better tables generally do run a bit pricey. Quite a few folks are unaware of just how high priced a turntable and phono cartridge can run, but modest costs can secure one a quality system if one shops wisely.) My VPI Scoutmaster II Signature model with JMW Memorial Tonearm more than adequately plays everything I spin on it. And it has an eerie quality of being able to throw most record disc noise (swish, clicks, pops) off to the distant sides of the sound stage where they literally disappear, a feature of better tables. Another feature of better tables is that they allow for good quality sound from even less expensive cartridges. Phono cartridges, too, can be found for high prices, in the thousands of dollars, that may shock some who haven't shopped for them specifically. I'll admit to utilizing fairly decent cartridges, alternating between my trusty Soundsmith SMMC2 (which I have factory retipped every so often, at a fraction of the original cost) and my favored Clearaudio Maestro Wood MM006W, also retipped (by the folks at Soundsmith) every now and then. And you'll likely need a phono amp between your table and amplifier, which makes a difference. (I use a tubed JoLida preamp.)

Good sound will cost you a few bucks. But if good sound is important, the cost is justified. (And one can always spend much much more than necessary; so wise shopping proves critical) But what I'm suggesting here is that there remains a quality of sound that thus far neither CD nor on-line streaming (which remains largely digital) can match with that possible with vinyl. Of course, not every vinyl record sounds better than a CD, and there are some well engineered CDs that will rock a system. I'm just saying that I've never experienced what I call "the Wow factor" from any media except vinyl record. And when it strikes it is awesome!

One has to care for one's discs, vinyl or CD. I've found that some of the earliest CDs I have in my collection deteriorated from the spongy stuff they used to pack inside jewel cases. Some years back I purged all the spongy stuff from my discs, but not before a few of them had been permanently marred by the stuck-on deterioration. I also wipe CDs clean of finger prints and their residual oils, sometimes using Gruv-Glide (a spray cleaner / static remover designed largely for vinyl), which I find actually enriches the sound of some compact discs Other than that, the only problems I've had with CD is that of "loading" -- some discs just don't play right out of the factory jewel case. Or they don't play on one disc player while they will play on another. But generally, with over 5000 CDs I've had very few (maybe a handful) of loading problems, so I'd judge the medium fairly reliable.

I clean my vinyl discs generally prior to each play. Older discs and yard-sale acquisitions I generally give a rigorous Record Doctor treatment, but generally I keep discs clean and they need only a record brush swipe prior to play. I have 60 year old records that play stunningly. Record collectors know that the 1950s and 1960s were prime times for good sounding vinyl pressings, and that after rock music made the vinyl record ubiquitous the quality dropped off in the pressing plants, as vinyl got thinner and noisier. Some of the 1980s vinyl in my collection is among the worst sounding on my shelves. It seems that was a good reason for folks to turn to the quieter and "forever-lasting" CD in the 1990s. Fortunately, the vinyl revival has generally provided good quality. I've purchased a few hundred discs in this new generation with mostly pleasing results.

I can't talk about streaming, but I'm hopeful that this medium will continue to improve and perhaps reach a level where someday it will produce the "Wow" factor. Listeners deserve as much.

But please don't disparage vinyl until you've had an opportunity to actually _hear_ what is possible out of those grooves. Allow for clean vinyl, allow for quality playback equipment, and you'll likely enjoy your listening experience, as I so often do.


----------



## NoCoPilot

SONNET CLV said:


> But please don't disparage vinyl until you've had an opportunity to actually _hear_ what is possible out of those grooves. Allow for clean vinyl, allow for quality playback equipment, and you'll likely enjoy your listening experience, as I so often do.


I know EXACTLY what's possible out of vinyl. Pure sound, smooth frequency response, wide dynamic range, 3-dimensional imaging. That's what I get out of them when I transfer them to CD-R, after I clean up the scritches and pops, and the out-of-phase scraping noise from dragging a diamond down a long vinyl canyon. I fade in & out between tracks so the music becomes the focus. I adjust the dynamic range to try to counter the 60dB limitation of vinyl, and try to equalize the low end to recover some signal below 50Hz that Sculley lathes remove.

In the end I can create a very pleasurable listening experience.

Of course, CDs don't have those limitations. But LPs can be made very pleasurable.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Coach G said:


> In the 2000s I started to download digitally but then later I went back to CDs. I think I get better sound on the stereo system, or maybe it's just my imagination.


There are downloads, and then there are downloads.

Lossless hi-res downloads are indistinguishable from CDs or SACDs. Some downloads are lower fidelity though, and for ear buds while riding an exercise bike, that's fine.


----------



## Dan Ante

NoCoPilot said:


> I had an LP collection for forty years, and I always thought this myth was WAY overstated. LPs don't wear out if properly handled and played with modern equipment.
> 
> But, by the same token, CDs don't much care about handling or equipment at all.


Sorry, with any mechanical system wear occurs. The more you play it the more wear 
CDs are susceptible to careless handling the slightest horizontal scratch will cause skipping as will any dirt on their surface, and when you clean it is essential to go from the centre to the edge.


----------



## 13hm13

Unlike the rock-pop world, remasters of original (vinyl-era) analog recordings are very good for classical. 
But that said, high-rez vinyl rips can achieve better-than-CD sound if you have a decent analog system and skills in ripping LPs, esp. at 24/96 or 24/192k.


----------



## HerbertNorman

Although I have over 200 CD's , I must admit that I have found a great partner in the primephonic app and streaming service... It's very handy for a classical music lover and the sound quality is very good imo...
My vinyl collection is quite big too , but I do not use them as much anymore ... there's many I would never want to sell though!


----------



## Rmathuln

HerbertNorman said:


> Although I have over 200 CD's , I must admit that I have found a great partner in the primephonic app and streaming service... It's very handy for a classical music lover and the sound quality is very good imo...
> My vinyl collection is quite big too , but I do not use them as much anymore ... there's many I would never want to sell though!


I have over 28,000 CDs.
I do not mind high quality downloads. I just finished downloading in hi-res for $13 total a 16 CD set I have toyed with buying for upwards of $90.

I DO NOT like streaming services for reasons just illustrated on another forum. The user on that forum was unhappy when some music the user like a lot became unavailable because the license for the streaming service to be able to offer that music was discontinued.

I prefer to create my own private streaming service using music I literally own, either in hard media of downloaded purchases.


----------



## mikeh375

Rmathuln said:


> I have over 28,000 CDs.................


oh wow. That's an incredible amount Rmathuln, have you seen the doctor yet, can you get out of the house even....just joking..
Can anybody on TC beat that?????


----------



## Gothos

Rmathuln said:


> I have over 28,000 CD's


We're not worthy,we're not worthy.
I have approximately 1500 CD's but I love shopping for more(lockdowns permitting)
Thank goodness for Ebay.


----------



## Agamenon

Bill Schuster said:


> Absolutely, still love my cds. I also love my records and my digital files. They all have their value. Most of my listening tends to be using Bluetooth devices and digital files. When I truly have time to just sit and concentrate on the music, rather than using it as my soundtrack for other activities, I prefer cds or records. Records, in particular, are a commitment to more active listening, due to their limited playing time and inability to skip tracks, without manually moving the needle. I also fully agree that there is a plethora of cheap physical media available now. It is so easy to find old cds and records for ridiculously low prices. I picked up the 8 disc Beethoven complete quartets set by the Cleveland Quartet for 99 cents, not long ago. So, yes, cheers to cds!


Bravo!, and sometimes the sound is unmatched.


----------



## Guest002

I am confused by the discussion just a little bit.

I like CDs, too, but here's my CD collection (or most of it):









It's that pile of black & silver boxes, tucked in a messy corner of the loft. Here's one of those boxes up close and personal:









Clearly, I don't do much with those boxed CDs (I'd never be that tidy if they were in daily use!). So what does my _functional_ CD collection look like? Like this:









The procedure in these parts is (a) buy a CD; (b) rip it to hard disk; (c) tag it correctly; (d) move it into its correct directory. Oh and (e), put CD into plastic envelope, file in the loft and dispose of the jewel case in the recyling bin, usually with gusto. (Actually, these days, I find most recordings are available as FLAC digital downloads, which saves me steps (a) and (e). But I digress...)

Hence my confusion. If we're using "I still like CDs" to mean "I still like owning music in packages chosen by record companies and with attractive booklets to read, rather than merely streaming a random assortment of 'tracks' that I don't actually own", then I'm definitely in the "I still love CDs" camp. I _have_ used streaming services to hunt down something I'd be interested in buying, but that's as far as I ever go with them.

But nothing on Earth would induce me ever to attempt to play a physical CD in an actual CD Player these days! I couldn't afford the bookshelves to house them all in a way that would make them practically usable for starters. Plus, dusting. Plus, I hate jewel cases. Plus, clumsy. Plus, faff... No: give me the CDs without the actual CD, really!

I will agree in passing that having your music on a hard disk can teach bad habits: you get used to picking individual movements, because every digital media player out there organises things by 'albums' and 'tracks-within-albums', so the slow movement all on its own is just a mouse-click or screen-tap away. They all come with pause buttons, too, which encourages a stop-start-and-be-distracted-away approach to listening, which isn't really ideal for classical music, I think.

But I've managed to get those aspects of things under control by playing my digital music in a player that doesn't display tracks, but only whole compositions. And it (deliberately!) lacks a pause button: you listen to all four movements of the symphony, or stop it and have to start it again _from the beginning_. You don't get to say you listened to Symphony No. 9 if you listened to it fitfully over three days  (Of course, I can cheat if I really want to: using the file manager and a right-click, I can play any individual track I fancy to play, when the mood strikes. But I try not to cheat these days!).

I guess my point is that I can definitely understand people who don't warm to streaming digital music they don't own. And I can also understand those who find the owned-digital-music approach not as conducive to focusing on the music _content_ as the old manual 'ritual' of extracting a CD from its case and putting it in the player... but there are always software ways around that sort of thing! And though I listen to nothing that hasn't come from a CD these days, I'll never physically play a CD again.


----------



## julide

I still like cross dressers too.


----------



## NoCoPilot

When I told my wife I was invested in CDs for my retirement, she thought I meant certificates of deposit.

I must admit to being absolutely baffled by listeners like AbsolutelyBaching above who file the disc and throw away the jewel case and paper covers. To me, reading the liner notes, admiring the artwork, checking the performers, checking recording dates & venues, and even seeing the spine in the rack and realizing, "hey it's been a while since I played that" -- all are a part, a big part of the experience of playing music.


----------



## NoCoPilot

mikeh375 said:


> Can anybody on TC beat that?????


It's been a long time since I counted my collection, but I have 288' of shelving, and about 30 CDs lined up make a foot. So no, I'm nowhere close.


----------



## Guest002

NoCoPilot said:


> When I told my wife I was invested in CDs for my retirement, she thought I meant certificates of deposit.
> 
> I must admit to being absolutely baffled by listeners like AbsolutelyBaching above who file the disc and throw away the jewel case and paper covers. To me, reading the liner notes, admiring the artwork, checking the performers, checking recording dates & venues, and even seeing the spine in the rack and realizing, "hey it's been a while since I played that" -- all are a part, a big part of the experience of playing music.


Ah, but we have things called scanners. Booklets can be scanned and turned into PDFs.
And I embed all the supplied or scanned artwork inside my digital music files, so I lose none of it:









I've bumped the file preview thumbnail size up so you can see it, but that's showing you the FLAC files which make up my recording of Britten's _A Midsummer Night's Deam_... and every single file has a nice graphic showing for it, so you know just at a glance what opera it belongs to.

I am _never_ without some graphical reminder of where my music came from. And the good thing about my approach is: I don't have to live with the shonky artwork re-releases often come with. I can tag my music with whatever artwork I find most agreeable. In the case of that Midsummer Night's Dream CD, for example, I preferred to use the purple and text-heavy image that adorned the original LP boxed set when I first bought it, rather than the black-and-white photo of Benjamin Britten that was devoid of all useful information that my CDs were actually supplied in. So whereas physical-CDers gets to put up with whatever the record companies foist on them at the time of purchase, I get to use the most attractive artwork the record companies have ever supplied in the past, assuming it is available _somewhere_ on the Internet.

Liner notes, performers, recording dates and venues: all available in a PDF, produced at the time of ripping (or more often supplied at the time of purchase these days). And my ink won't fade with time!

And I don't have to trust to fallible memory as to whether or not I've played a piece in a while: Last.fm records everything I play, so I can check my records there.

I can assure you that I miss out _nothing_ of the 'playing music experience', artwork and liner notes included.

In fact, because everything it is digital, I can do things you can't: such as have my music player make a random selection of something to play for me, when I can't decide on something for myself. Or keep _accurate _tabs on who I'm over- or under-playing, so that I can make sure my listening experiences are as broad and varied as possible and that no part of my collection falls into disuse by oversight or accident.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Methinks that level of detail would be easier to enter and deal with in a collection of a few hundred CDs.


----------



## Guest002

NoCoPilot said:


> Methinks that level of detail would be easier to enter and deal with in a collection of a few hundred CDs.


Not sure who you were directing that at, or the context. But assuming it was me, I can rip and tag a 4 CD boxed set in less than 25 minutes, including all performer details and track titles in any of English, Italian, German or French (and I can't touch-type). Czech slows me down, though! And yes, English is a tad faster, though not hugely. Scanning a booklet would be more of an effort, which is why I will often try and find them or the CD's artwork on the Internet rather than construct them myself. But back in the day, I scanned the entire Solti Götterdämmerung booklet in about 30 minutes.

So it's an effort, but it's not a huge one. Obviously, I'd loathe having to do it all again from scratch. But doing it in batches as new acquisitions get processed... not a trauma.

Obviously, I don't know how many CDs I actually own these days!

But I can tell you I have 10,564 individual compositions written by 469 unique composers (that's in my main collection; I don't yet have those stats from the overflow, which I've only just started creating, so is fairly small).

The total playing time for the main collection is:









...which is 277,712 minutes play-time. Assume an average length of a CD is 70 minutes: that's 3,967 CDs-worth.

For the overflow, I've got a further:









...which is 14,385 minutes or another 205 CDs, give or take. So, say it's 4,200 CDs, roughly.

For fun and giggles, I discovered that the 'standard' width of a CD Jewel Case  is apparently 10mm. So, 4,200 CDs would take up 42,000mm or 42m, or 126 feet or so. Which means I'm slightly under half your size, I think.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Haven't counted my CDs lately, but there are a few.

For counting purposes: 50 CDs with standard sized jewel cases will fill 20 inches of shelf space.

I calculated three of my filled shelves at 1690 inches. Divided by 20 that's 84.5. Multiply 84.5 by 50 and get 4225.

4225 CDs. That's about a third of my CD collection.

Still, that calculation counts the single CD in a single jewel case. Many of the shelved items are multiple set boxes. A standard single-size jewel case can hold 2, 3, or 4 CDs. "Fat Box" jewel cases and hardboard Box Sets often have more.

20 inches of Box Set can hold 200 discs in paper sleeves. I measured four Beethoven boxes I have, which came to 40 inches and housed a total of 396 discs, including booklet documentation.

Since I have a couple dozen box sets, including several large sets, on the same shelving mentioned above, the CD count will expand greatly. Possibly even doubling the disc count, which would be 8450 on that 1690 inches of shelving.

I have no intentions of counting every disc on shelves or in storage boxes or other locations in the house. But there are quite a few. Not a good situation to be in if you have to move, which I did recently, thus many discs still in storage boxes.

And I haven't even mentioned the LPs.

What does all this mean (other than to reveal a measure of my lack of sanity)? One point to be made is that I have little need for streaming devices, as I have enough music, all of my own choosing, to last a lifetime (or several). Can I ever hear all of these even once through again? Likely not (though I would hope to be able to). And they take up space. But I can't imagine sitting in my listening room staring at blank walls while listening to internet streamed music. I see my Beethoven bust sitting atop one of my CD shelves. He is wearing a pair of my Sennheiser headphones, and he looks quite content. I'm sitting in my listening chair with the other set of Sennheiser's on my head. I don't have a mirror handy, but I suspect I also look quite content.


----------



## Nawdry

GrosseFugue said:


> Despite all the options -- streaming, downloads, YouTube, etc. -- I still like to listen to CDs.


Same here. And I hope that whatever may replace them sometime in the future is as convenient, user-friendly, portable, informative, and advantageous in so many other ways as CDs.

This discussion comes at a time when I have at long last commenced converting my most favorite and precious LPs to audio CDs. Compared to LPs, CDs have the huge advantage of not contributing more damage to the recording with every use, and of being immensely more portable because of their smaller size. Plus of course other conveniences such as not having to flip the record in the middle of a symphony, etc.

The jewel box with liner notes are a major advantage of this kind of record medium. Definitely works for me. Yes, I could digitize the LPs to a hard disk, but seems to me the equivalent of liner notes, indicating tracks/times, etc., would be a lot more cumbersome if I had to access and read them with a laptop or PC monitor.

If recording companies would switch to a totally "solid-state" medium, would they expect everyone to be downloading symphonies sort of like Apple Tunes? Would the marketing environment support the profitability of anything like this?

Alternatively, would they package recordings into something like an SD card or flashdrive?

I don't know where the technology is heading, but I hope it comes up with something that maintains the advantages of CDs.


----------



## Guest002

SONNET CLV said:


> Haven't counted my CDs lately, but there are a few.
> 
> For counting purposes: 50 CDs with standard sized jewel cases will fill 20 inches of shelf space.
> 
> I calculated three of my filled shelves at 1690 inches. Divided by 20 that's 84.5. Multiply 84.5 by 50 and get 4225.
> 
> 4225 CDs. That's about a third of my CD collection.
> 
> Still, that calculation counts the single CD in a single jewel case. Many of the shelved items are multiple set boxes. A standard single-size jewel case can hold 2, 3, or 4 CDs. "Fat Box" jewel cases and hardboard Box Sets often have more.
> 
> 20 inches of Box Set can hold 200 discs in paper sleeves. I measured four Beethoven boxes I have, which came to 40 inches and housed a total of 396 discs, including booklet documentation.
> 
> Since I have a couple dozen box sets, including several large sets, on the same shelving mentioned above, the CD count will expand greatly. Possibly even doubling the disc count, which would be 8450 on that 1690 inches of shelving.
> 
> I have no intentions of counting every disc on shelves or in storage boxes or other locations in the house. But there are quite a few. Not a good situation to be in if you have to move, which I did recently, thus many discs still in storage boxes.
> 
> And I haven't even mentioned the LPs.
> 
> What does all this mean (other than to reveal a measure of my lack of sanity)? One point to be made is that I have little need for streaming devices, as I have enough music, all of my own choosing, to last a lifetime (or several). Can I ever hear all of these even once through again? Likely not (though I would hope to be able to). And they take up space. But I can't imagine sitting in my listening room staring at blank walls while listening to internet streamed music. I see my Beethoven bust sitting atop one of my CD shelves. He is wearing a pair of my Sennheiser headphones, and he looks quite content. I'm sitting in my listening chair with the other set of Sennheiser's on my head. I don't have a mirror handy, but I suspect I also look quite content.


Yup: like you, I didn't try and account for these awkward so-and-so's in my dimensioning! :









You'll note in passing I have a Bach bust, rather than Beethoven's (and he's not big enough to wear headphones!)

Also a statue of Bast. Because I need to keep on the right side of my cat.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yup: like you, I didn't try and account for these awkward so-and-so's in my dimensioning! :
> 
> View attachment 148457
> 
> 
> You'll note in passing I have a Bach bust, rather than Beethoven's (and he's not big enough to wear headphones!)
> 
> Also a statue of Bast. Because I need to keep on the right side of my cat.


I love the Australian creatures on your shelf!


----------



## Guest002

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I love the Australian creatures on your shelf!


Thanks! You have a good eye  
A hang-over from my 25+ years there.


----------



## SONNET CLV

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> View attachment 148457


I note on the top shelf left (first position) you have the Gardiner Bach Cantatas, an absolutely wonderful set, even if one is deaf. The sleeve pictures are worth the price of the box. The music is a heavenly bonus! Nothing quite like this double whammy in classical music production. (I noted the box set quickly, 'cause that's the same position my own set sits in.)

I also have that EMI Vaughn-Williams box (but not the Choral Works), and the three Brilliant Classics sets: Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart. I remember putting the Britten Box and the Strauss Edition in my cart at some point or another, but I never pulled the trigger on those two, proof, if nothing more, that I yet retain some small modicum of restraint. But not much. (A quick check at my Discogs catalog for Britten reveals 39 selections, and I know there are several, including some box sets, not yet entered. As for Strauss, he never has been a favorite. But my Discogs catalog coughed up 55 entries, which makes me wonder why that trigger was never pulled. My restraint is weak, evidence suggests.)

Nary a sight, though, of Penderecki or Xenakis. It wouldn't take you long to find them and such contemporaries on my own shelves, but I do believe you'd feel right at home in my listening room and quickly find something or other worth a spin on the VPI Scoutmaster or in the SONY XA5400ES.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Guest002

SONNET CLV said:


> I note on the top shelf left (first position) you have the Gardiner Bach Cantatas, an absolutely wonderful set, even if one is deaf. The sleeve pictures are worth the price of the box. The music is a heavenly bonus! Nothing quite like this double whammy in classical music production. (I noted the box set quickly, 'cause that's the same position my own set sits in.)


Well, I started with the Big Blue Brililliant Classics set as my entrée to Bach: their Leusink cycle was the first complete cantatas I owned. But they're pretty bad, with 'hooting' choir boys and so-so singing by most of the soloists (his BWV 127 is still my favourite version, however!). So then I upgraded to the Gardiner. But then I discovered the Suzuki ones. And I deleted all my Gardiner rips (these days, I'd move it to my overflow directory, but I hadn't invented that then!)

I just found there wasn't much comparison: Gardiner is soft and fluffy, where Suzuki is tight and crisp. Gardiner sounds a bit of a rush-job to me, not a carefully planned project that took over 10 years to complete. I too love Gardiner's cover art, but if the best thing you can say about a CD is that it has nice cover art... well, to my mind, that's not high praise! (I realise you weren't being that reductionist!)

To be fair, I shall rip that box again one day soon-ish and put it into the overflow. It is always nice to compare Suzuki to something else, and me not currently having that ability, short of getting that box down from its dust-collecting heights and playing them old-style, is not a place I should be at. (Though, in my defence, I have the Koopman sitting in the overflow already).



SONNET CLV said:


> I also have that EMI Vaughn-Williams box (but not the Choral Works), and the three Brilliant Classics sets: Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart. I remember putting the Britten Box and the Strauss Edition in my cart at some point or another, but I never pulled the trigger on those two, proof, if nothing more, that I yet retain some small modicum of restraint. But not much. (A quick check at my Discogs catalog for Britten reveals 39 selections, and I know there are several, including some box sets, not yet entered. As for Strauss, he never has been a favorite. But my Discogs catalog coughed up 55 entries, which makes me wonder why that trigger was never pulled. My restraint is weak, evidence suggests.)


That Britten box was a bit of an extravagance, I'm afraid: I already had 99% of everything in it, but some of my recordings were from CDs released in the early 1980s, etc, at the start of the CD revolution, and I worried that I was missing out on beneficial remasterings. As it turns out, I don't think I was. But if they brought it all out again in SACD mastertings, I would probably bite the bullet and buy it all over again, just in case. It is the Britten nut in me, I fear!



SONNET CLV said:


> Nary a sight, though, of Penderecki or Xenakis. It wouldn't take you long to find them and such contemporaries on my own shelves, but I do believe you'd feel right at home in my listening room and quickly find something or other worth a spin on the VPI Scoutmaster or in the SONY XA5400ES.
> 
> Thanks for sharing.


I've got all Penderecki's symphonies and a bunch of other stuff, choral and orchestral (and his cello and viola concerti); 25 unique compositions in all, which I realise isn't much, but there are some limits to my spending capacity! Definitely someone I'll get more of as time progresses, though.

But you won't find me and Xenakis in the same room, I'm afraid. I've tried... Lord knows, I've tried. But my vaccuum cleaner is pleasanter listening most times, and I therefore fear I am now allergic!


----------



## Nawdry

GrosseFugue said:


> Despite all the options -- streaming, downloads, YouTube, etc. -- I still like to listen to CDs. ... Plus you get to hold a booklet.


My previous response to this somehow got "disappeared" by the forum software, so I'll keep this one briefer and hopefully won't lose as much as I did the first time.

I definitely agree. I don't think the available alternatives offer the convenience, audio quality, portability, useful liner notes, etc. of audio CD media.


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> My previous response to this somehow got "disappeared" by the forum software, so I'll keep this one briefer and hopefully won't lose as much as I did the first time.
> 
> I definitely agree. I don't think the available alternatives offer the convenience, audio quality, portability, useful liner notes, etc. of audio CD media.


You'd have to define 'available alternatives', but FLAC files, via an external DAC, and a decent amplifier, plus a decent set of speakers offers enormous convenience (and greater functionality than physical CDs), as perfect audio quality as you're going to get from a physical CD, and I can access my entire digital music collection via my mobile phone (and not by copying bits of it onto an SD card, I hasten to add), so I don't know how much _more_ portable it can get! Liner notes printed in fading ink at one size that ageing eyes can't adapt to are meanwhile no match for a PDF displayed on a phone or tablet which can be zoomed in to at any desired level and will never fade, tear or get creased.

Now if you're comparing it to streaming from the likes of Spotify, fair enough: I think I probably agree with you. But there are non-streaming, non-physical alternatives you need to consider before making that statement, I think.


----------



## NoCoPilot

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> FLAC files, via an external DAC, and a decent amplifier, plus a decent set of speakers offers enormous convenience (and greater functionality than physical CDs), as perfect audio quality as you're going to get from a physical CD, and I can access my entire digital music collection via my mobile phone (and not by copying bits of it onto an SD card, I hasten to add), so I don't know how much _more_ portable it can get! Liner notes printed in fading ink at one size that ageing eyes can't adapt to are meanwhile no match for a PDF displayed on a phone or tablet which can be zoomed in to at any desired level and will never fade, tear or get creased.


You're going to be one sad puppy when Skynet becomes self-aware and fries all personal electronics.


----------



## Guest002

NoCoPilot said:


> You're going to be one sad puppy when Skynet becomes self-aware and fries all personal electronics.


Unless you're equipped with a wind-up gramophone (and, incidentally, I am!), so are you when your CD player's and turnable's electronics get equally as fried as my PC's!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You'd have to define 'available alternatives', but FLAC files, via an external DAC, and a decent amplifier, plus a decent set of speakers offers enormous convenience (and greater functionality than physical CDs), as perfect audio quality as you're going to get from a physical CD, and I can access my entire digital music collection via my mobile phone (and not by copying bits of it onto an SD card, I hasten to add), so I don't know how much _more_ portable it can get! Liner notes printed in fading ink at one size that ageing eyes can't adapt to are meanwhile no match for a PDF displayed on a phone or tablet which can be zoomed in to at any desired level and will never fade, tear or get creased.
> 
> Now if you're comparing it to streaming from the likes of Spotify, fair enough: I think I probably agree with you. But there are non-streaming, non-physical alternatives you need to consider before making that statement, I think.


Agreed. Having my entire CD collection as FLAC files on my various players is infinitely preferable to whole walls being taken up by media. I can access anything within 30 seconds of swiping and play them either to my high-end headphones or my dining room stereo speakers. I also have them backed up to a removeable SSD drive. A quick scan of my player reveals 472 "albums" currently ripped in this way. But there are many of those which are box sets of various cycles. So I would guess that represents 550 "CDs." Another 50 are incoming from the "Decca Sound" box set I received over Christmas.

If I could do it economically with my Blu-Ray/4K collection, I would. But the storage requirements and ability to stream at full quality to televisions are more challenging (as well as the basic impossibility of ripping 4K media).

I do wish that download sites were better about providing liner notes. Sometimes the various essays can be enlightening. But my players do not have easy ways of reading PDF files associated with albums anyway. The ones that have been especially informative I have scanned, found online, or requested from the publishers.


----------



## NoCoPilot

MatthewWeflen said:


> But my players do not have easy ways of reading PDF files associated with albums anyway.


The next generation of file players will have to have some way to store and display cover graphics, as well as scrolling the liner notes. I often fantasize about what I'd like to see, and that's high on the list. There were, I think, some early models of iPod that had black&white graphics (maybe color?) but it never seemed to catch on. Maybe the market is too focused at exercise workouts.


----------



## Guest002

MatthewWeflen said:


> ...
> If I could do it economically with my Blu-Ray/4K collection, I would. But the storage requirements and ability to stream at full quality to televisions are more challenging (as well as the basic impossibility of ripping 4K media).


Have you used MakeMKV? I find it rips Blu-Ray just fine -but I don't know/am not knowledgeable about whether BluRay==4K invariably, and therefore whether MakeMKV's ease at processing BluRays makes it a candidate for producing 4K content rips generally. I don't find storage a particular problem these days.

But in fairness, I generally only rip to 1080p and play via my phone, so 4K rips are mostly wasted on me.


----------



## RobertKC

The classical music lover is not limited to decades-old performances, and is not limited to CDs. Modern recordings of classical music are routinely captured and mastered in hi-res surround-sound (referred to as "multi-channel"), and made available to the consumer in a hi-res surround-sound format such as Blu-ray (if the recording includes video), or, if the recording has no video, Pure Audio Blu-ray or SACD.

I almost exclusively buy Blu-ray audio/video recordings of classical concerts, opera, and ballet. If Blu-ray isn't available, I'll buy a Pure Audio Blu-ray (i.e., no video) or SACD. IMO, there's no comparison between the experience of seeing a concert in high-definition video and hearing via hi-res surround-sound (DTS-HD MA 5.1), compared with the experience that is delivered via streaming or a CD.

A "universal player" will play all types of digital recordings, and provides the classical music lover with maximum flexibility in building their library, and enjoying music:


CD.
DVD-Audio disc.
SACD.
Pure Audio Blu-ray disc.
DVD (e.g., audio/video recordings of concerts).
Blu-ray disc. Of course, Blu-ray is particularly relevant for visual art forms such as opera and ballet. Blu-ray delivers an additional benefit for opera by displaying the libretto on the HDTV screen. I also enjoy Blu-ray for orchestral concerts, because I can see the conductor, musicians, and concert hall. 
Ultra HD Blu-ray disc (A few Ultra HD Blu-ray discs are starting to become available.)
24bit/192kHz FLAC download.
Hi-res DSD download.

The reason that I've upgraded 4 of my 5 hi-fi systems to surround-sound is because IME/IMO the superior experience delivered by modern Blu-ray classical recordings warrants the investment. I use my Oppo universal players' (UDP-205 x 2, BDP-105, BDP-95) analog 5.1 audio outputs, and combine the Surround-Left and Surround-Right into a single rear channel via a Y-cable. (In classical recordings, there is very little rear content - usually just applause - sometimes a small amount of hall reverb.) I use one vintage stereo tube amp for the main front L&R speakers, and a second vintage stereo tube amp for the center and rear speaker. It works great, and sounds fabulous. IMO.

By way of example, when I play the following Blu-ray of Mahler Symphony 2 on my basement hi-fi system, the experience is MUCH closer to the live concert hall experience compared with any CD. My basement system's four tower speakers plus two subwoofers collectively provide plenty of "acoustical power" in this average size listening room for large-scale classical music and opera. (I sit approximately 10 feet from the speakers.) Collectively, they total four 1 ¾" titanium compression drivers mated to Tractrix horns, eight 10" woofers, one 15" powered subwoofer, and one 16" powered subwoofer. When the right tube amps are paired with these Klipsch speakers, this system does an excellent job of reproducing the natural timbre of orchestral instruments, and does an excellent job of delivering the full dynamic range and frequency range of a large orchestra.










My preference: Modern performances/recordings delivered on Blue-ray (or Ultra HD Blu-ray) audio/video discs, because they deliver the "next best thing" to being in the concert hall.

P.S. Here's my thread about classical recordings on Blu-ray: https://www.talkclassical.com/54011-blu-ray-videos-classical.html?highlight=


----------



## MatthewWeflen

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Have you used MakeMKV? I find it rips Blu-Ray just fine -but I don't know/am not knowledgeable about whether BluRay==4K invariably, and therefore whether MakeMKV's ease at processing BluRays makes it a candidate for producing 4K content rips generally. I don't find storage a particular problem these days.
> 
> But in fairness, I generally only rip to 1080p and play via my phone, so 4K rips are mostly wasted on me.


I have ripped several Blu-Ray Audio discs this way (Complete Ring, R. Strauss, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, and Beethoven Cycles) but generally the audio contained therein is significantly less than 50gb (usually in the 10-15gb range). Ripping 200 movie discs at 30-50gb apiece would necessitate much more storage (~8 terabytes). And as of right now, most PC drives will not rip 4k at all.


----------



## Guest002

RobertKC said:


> ...
> A "universal player" will play all types of digital recordings, and provides the classical music lover with maximum flexibility in building their library, and enjoying music:
> 
> 
> CD.
> DVD-Audio disc.
> SACD.
> Pure Audio Blu-ray disc.
> DVD (e.g., audio/video recordings of concerts).
> Blu-ray disc. Of course, Blu-ray is particularly relevant for visual art forms such as opera and ballet. Blu-ray delivers an additional benefit for opera by displaying the libretto on the HDTV screen. I also enjoy Blu-ray for orchestral concerts, because I can see the conductor, musicians, and concert hall.
> Ultra HD Blu-ray disc (A few Ultra HD Blu-ray discs are starting to become available.)
> 24bit/192kHz FLAC download.
> Hi-res DSD download.


Whilst we shall have to disagree about the merits of multi-channel sound for mere music reproduction, and different opinions on the subject are entirely fine, such a universal media player already exists and is called a PC. (I confess to not being sure about Ultra HD BluRays, but I guess it will get there in time!).


----------



## MatthewWeflen

NoCoPilot said:


> The next generation of file players will have to have some way to store and display cover graphics, as well as scrolling the liner notes. I often fantasize about what I'd like to see, and that's high on the list. There were, I think, some early models of iPod that had black&white graphics (maybe color?) but it never seemed to catch on. Maybe the market is too focused at exercise workouts.


This player is focused on album art, but its capabilities are not sufficient for my needs.

https://www.engadget.com/tom-vek-sleevenote-090019190.html


----------



## Guest002

MatthewWeflen said:


> I have ripped several Blu-Ray Audio discs this way (Complete Ring, R. Strauss, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, and Beethoven Cycles) but generally the audio contained therein is significantly less than 50gb (usually in the 10-15gb range). Ripping 100 movie discs at 30-50gb apiece would necessitate much more storage. And as of right now, most PC drives will not rip 4k at all.


But it's do-able, right?


----------



## RobertKC

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Whilst we shall have to disagree about the merits of multi-channel sound for mere music reproduction, and different opinions on the subject are entirely fine, such a universal media player already exists and is called a PC. (I confess to not being sure about Ultra HD BluRays, but I guess it will get there in time!).


Until a few years ago I was skeptical about multi-channel. Then I assembled a 4.1 "proof-of-concept" system. I found that I prefer multi-channel for classical music and opera so much that I upgraded 4 of my 5 hi-fi systems to multi-channel.

A PC will play the CD layer of a hybrid SACD, not the SACD layer. (If you're not interested in multi-channel, then this may not be a significant limitation for you.)

Do you use an outboard Blu-ray disc drive attached to your PC? (When I last purchased a new PC a few years ago, IIRC the built-in disc drives did not support Blu-ray.) Do you listen solely to the stereo (vs. multichannel) track of Blu-rays?


----------



## Guest002

RobertKC said:


> Until a few years ago I was skeptical about multi-channel. Then I assembled a 4.1 "proof-of-concept" system. I found that I prefer multi-channel for classical music and opera so much that I upgraded 4 of my 5 hi-fi systems to multi-channel.
> 
> A PC will play the CD layer of a hybrid SACD, not the SACD layer. (If you're not interested in multi-channel, then this may not be a significant limitation for you.)


That's if you attempt to rip your own SACDs on a standard CD player: but you can buy hi-res SACD rips which come down as an ISO, which can be unpacked into its constituent DSF files. And those can be played just fine. You can also rip your own SACDs with a hardware Blu-Ray player and some software jiggery-pokery. The details can get complex, however, I agree.



RobertKC said:


> Do you use an outboard Blu-ray disc drive attached to your PC? (When I last purchased a new PC a few years ago, IIRC the built-in disc drives did not support Blu-ray.) Do you listen solely to the stereo (vs. multichannel) track of Blu-rays?


Most of the Hi-Res audio I buy, I down-convert to 2-channel 44.1Khz 16-bit (I'm buying the remastering, not the 'extra' audio signal which my ears cannot detect, being as old and as tinnitusy as they are).

So, yes, I only do stereo music, never mutlichannel. I only have two ears, after all.  (That was a joke!)

I get that multi-channel makes a difference in movies, when the dinosaur is sneaking up behind you and the whomp of its footsteps coming from behind the couch can make a big difference to the immersive experience. But my classical music experience, even in some of the best concert hall and opera houses in the world, have been two dimensional affairs: I'm up here, they're down there, and the sound stage stretches across the front of my face, ear to ear. I don't need the flutes to sound as if they're playing from behind me!

None of which is to say that your approach is in any way wrong, over-the-top, or anything else. What works for you, works for you. But I don't feel the lack. Obviously, I only know of multichannel audio from demos in hi-fi stores, etc, since my house is not configured for that. So it's perfecrly possibly that I only don't feel the lack because I don't know what I'm missing on a daily basis. But I've never been overwhelmed in any of the many hifi demos I've gone through, personally.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> But it's do-able, right?


Huh. Apparently MakeMKV can now rip 4K. Either way, I don't want to run that much network storage. Movies are one thing I'm content to play from disc, since they are tied to a display. With music, I want it mobile. Luckily it consumes far less storage (e.g. one 512gb sd card).


----------



## Guest002

MatthewWeflen said:


> Huh. Apparently MakeMKV can now rip 4K. Either way, I don't want to run that much network storage. Movies are one thing I'm content to play from disc, since they are tied to a display. With music, I want it mobile. Luckily it consumes far less storage (e.g. one 512gb sd card).


Ah, well. Glad you found out that 4K is now a thing with PC commodity hardware/software 

I guess it's my database background, but I don't stint on hardware, particularly storage.

My PC is responsible for all music in the house (even the stuff I can't stand. We don't talk about ABBA in polite company, OK?!) It has a 2x8TB mirror, using ZFS and backing up 4 times a day to an external 8TB USB hard drive.

The other half's PC is responsible for all video in the house, and it similarly has 2x8TB hard disks, backing up to an external 8TB USB disk (but uses NTFS, because TOH is a Windows user )

So we both back up to a server in the loft: 4x14TB hard disks in a zraid-2 configuration (so 28TB usable, 28TB for hardware failure insurance).

That server backs up to an identical server nightly. And _that_ server has an 8TB USB drive to back up to (and the mathematicians amongst you will have noticed that it can't back up everything stored on that server: so my FLAC files take precedence!)

Finally, there's a third server, somewhat more modestly configured and with no redundancy at all, that pulls data from the first every few hours, running Emby, which piece of magic software is how all the movies and all the music can be streamed to any tablet or phone (or indeed a PC with a browser) wherever we are in the world.

There's also another USB hard disk which resides with my sister and counts as an infrequently-updated off-site backup.

It would be a bit of a swine to set up everything from scratch, I guess, but it's all automated now and looks after itself. And I have configuration backups, so if a server goes phut, I can usually rebuild it within an hour or two, back to the state it was in before dying.


----------



## RobertKC

IME/IMO, a significant part of the "live-concert-hall experience" for large-scale classical music isn't just the surround-sound, it's the amount of acoustic power.

Before the pandemic, I attended more than 30 classical concerts each season, including season tickets to the symphony. My local symphony performs in a world-class purpose-built hall. One of the things that always amazed me is the power of a large orchestra, and large chorus - with NO use of a sound reinforcement system.

What I recall from the symphony hall is that a mighty *WHACK *of the bass drum (or Mahler Hammer) could cause me to almost jump out of my seat. And I recall that half-a-dozen double bass produce tremendous power.

IME, a large center channel speaker can add to a hi-fi system's overall dynamic range, when playing state-of-the-art multi-channel recordings. For example, in my basement system, left, center, and right speakers are Klipsch RF-7II. (Two of my other hi-fi systems include Klipsch's top-of-the-line RC-64 III center channel speaker.)

Given proper implementation, subwoofers can off-load the power-hungry bass from the main amps and speakers, also increasing dynamic range (and, of course, frequency range). In my basement system, subwoofers are SVS SB16-Ultra, and Klipsch R-115SW. (Four of my 5 hi-fi systems have subwoofers.) IMO, subwoofers can bring alive the sound of a modern Blu-ray recording of a large-scale orchestral composition (particularly one that involves a pipe organ).

Certainly, recorded music can be enjoyed in stereo (and even mono). And, recorded music can be enjoyed without subwoofers. In general, recorded music can be enjoyed with less than state-of-the-art reproduction.

With that said - bottom line - IMO:


Based on my 5 hi-fi systems, Blu-ray's DTS-HD MA 5.1 is my favorite audio format. 
IMO, high-definition video is indispensable for opera and ballet. And, I very much enjoy video for orchestral concerts. Blu-ray has enabled me to see concert halls all over the world that I otherwise would never have seen. And, I enjoy seeing (_most of_) the conductors and performers. 


I haven't bought a CD in several years. Mostly, I buy Blu-ray. If Blu-ray isn't available, I buy Pure Audio Blu-ray or SACD.


----------



## Guest002

RobertKC said:


> IME/IMO, a significant part of the "live-concert-hall experience" for large-scale classical music isn't just the surround-sound, it's the amount of acoustic power.
> 
> Before the pandemic, I attended more than 30 classical concerts each season, including season tickets to the symphony. My local symphony performs in a world-class purpose-built hall. One of the things that always amazed me is the power of a large orchestra, and large chorus - with NO use of a sound reinforcement system.
> 
> What I recall from the symphony hall is that a mighty *WHACK *of the bass drum (or Mahler Hammer) could cause me to almost jump out of my seat. And I recall that half-a-dozen double bass produce tremendous power.
> 
> IME, a large center channel speaker can add to a hi-fi system's overall dynamic range, when playing state-of-the-art multi-channel recordings. For example, in my basement system, left, center, and right speakers are Klipsch RF-7II. (Two of my other hi-fi systems include Klipsch's top-of-the-line RC-64 III center channel speaker.)
> 
> Given proper implementation, subwoofers can off-load the power-hungry bass from the main amps and speakers, also increasing dynamic range (and, of course, frequency range). In my basement system, subwoofers are SVS SB16-Ultra, and Klipsch R-115SW. (Four of my 5 hi-fi systems have subwoofers.) IMO, subwoofers can bring alive the sound of a modern Blu-ray recording of a large-scale orchestral composition (particularly one that involves a pipe organ).
> 
> Certainly, recorded music can be enjoyed in stereo (and even mono). And, recorded music can be enjoyed without subwoofers. In general, recorded music can be enjoyed with less than state-of-the-art reproduction.
> 
> With that said - bottom line - IMO:
> 
> 
> Based on my 5 hi-fi systems, Blu-ray's DTS-HD MA 5.1 is my favorite audio format.
> IMO, high-definition video is indispensable for opera and ballet. And, I very much enjoy video for orchestral concerts. Blu-ray has enabled me to see concert halls all over the world that I otherwise would never have seen. And, I enjoy seeing (_most of_) the conductors and performers.
> 
> 
> I haven't bought a CD in several years. Mostly, I buy Blu-ray. If Blu-ray isn't available, I buy Pure Audio Blu-ray or SACD.


You clearly have understanding neighbour's and deep pockets. 

Personally, I have no problems with my sonic whack, and if I really need to crank the volume, but the neighbours are at home, I reach for my headphones.

I think this might be the more common approach and the more financially reasonable, for most people. But whatever floats your boat. I try not to let my 'best practices' lead me in to believing other people who do it differently are missing out, though.


----------



## Nawdry

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> You'd have to define 'available alternatives', but FLAC files, via an external DAC, and a decent amplifier, plus a decent set of speakers offers enormous convenience (and greater functionality than physical CDs), as perfect audio quality as you're going to get from a physical CD, and I can access my entire digital music collection via my mobile phone (and not by copying bits of it onto an SD card, I hasten to add), so I don't know how much _more_ portable it can get! Liner notes printed in fading ink at one size that ageing eyes can't adapt to are meanwhile no match for a PDF displayed on a phone or tablet which can be zoomed in to at any desired level and will never fade, tear or get creased.
> 
> Now if you're comparing it to streaming from the likes of Spotify, fair enough: I think I probably agree with you. But there are non-streaming, non-physical alternatives you need to consider before making that statement, I think.


AbsolutelyBaching, thank you for sharing your system and methods in such detail. Clearly it works well for you, which is the important thing. Lots of food for thought here.

Currently, CDs work for me and have the attributes I noted, but there are obvious weaknesses. Besides the problem of requiring sufficient space to store somewhat physically vulnerable media, the need for devices with efficient motors and laser scanners seems to me to be a liability. So I'm looking forward to some form of solid-state system that will be universally accepted by the industry. Is FLAC an industry standard yet? Seems like SACD started to be but sorta went splat.

Given a capitalist profit-driven market economy, there would seem to be an essential need for a "business model" that would nurture any new technological system, especially for classical music. I'm skeptical that online downloads and streaming could support such a model as effectively as LPs and CDs have done.

Thoughts, anyone?


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> AbsolutelyBaching, thank you for sharing your system and methods in such detail. Clearly it works well for you, which is the important thing. Lots of food for thought here.
> 
> Currently, CDs work for me and have the attributes I noted, but there are obvious weaknesses. Besides the problem of requiring sufficient space to store somewhat physically vulnerable media, the need for devices with efficient motors and laser scanners seems to me to be a liability. So I'm looking forward to some form of solid-state system that will be universally accepted by the industry. Is FLAC an industry standard yet? Seems like SACD started to be but sorta went splat.
> 
> Given a capitalist profit-driven market economy, there would seem to be an essential need for a "business model" that would nurture any new technological system, especially for classical music. I'm skeptical that online downloads and streaming could support such a model as effectively as LPs and CDs have done.
> 
> Thoughts, anyone?


Well, FLAC is open source and non-proprietary, so it's tricky for it to become an industry standard as such -but I don't know many recent players that _can't_ play it, whereas I can think of quite a few players that cannot cope with lossless WMAs, for example (which are closed source, Microsoft-proprietary equivalents). Apple hardware may have problem playing them (because they tend to favour ALAC, which is closed source Apple proprietary lossless compressed, or AIFF, which is closed source Apple proprietary lossless uncompressed), but I can't really comment on that since I won't let Apple hardware in the house 

To be honest, if you sank all your shares into FLAC and then bought hardware that couldn't play it, it wouldn't really matter: you'd simply convert from FLAC to whatever proprietary lossless codec your hardware supported. The point about lossless codecs is that you can transform one into another without any loss of audio signal data. (Whereas converting from, say, MP3 to OGG would not be a sensible thing to do, because both are lossy formats, and converting lossy to lossy just compounds the amount of data that is lost at each step).

SACD was another example of proprietary design: Sony and Philips cooked the format up in the late 1990s. It failed partly because it required special hardware to decode the hi-res audio; partly because MP3 downloads had taken over the market: non-classical music listeners by their millions decided crappy audio quality was ok (and given what they were listening to, who can blame them?! ) and preferable to expensive new hardware for the audiophile experience. Also, it turns out that in double-blind listening tests, only about 50% of listeners could tell the SACD audio source apart from the standard CD one, a result pretty much no better than you'd expect by chance. So the other reason SACD died a death, really, is that I guess people felt that they probably would be spending money for something that sounded not really any better than the el-cheapo CDs they were already listening to.

However, the underlying technology is not yet dead, and is morphing into the sort of BluRay Audio you have already read about here.

If you do move away from physical CDs, it will take a while to become entirely comfortable with it. You will worry about hard disk failure, cosmic ray strikes, bit-rot, corruption and a whole host of things which don't generally affect physical media (well, I did for many years, anyway!). These are all solvable problems, though: redundant arrays of disks, using file systems that can detect and repair single-bit flips (such as ZFS), routine scanning of your audio files to make sure that their internal contents haven't altered, and so on. It's a manageable problem, in other words -but it takes some skills, some resources, and some effort.


----------



## erki

On our local auction site few guys are selling some radio station music library. I get wonderful CDs for under 1 euro, classical mostly for 10-20cents. I have not bought so many CDs for years.
The duration of a CD(ca 60min) is just about right. And I have pretty nice DAC setup in my studio. Also I find navigating CDs much easier than files and folders, specially in portables. If you pick up CD already you most likely put it on, while you can spend half an hour going through the digital files to decide what you want to listen. And there is the artwork that sets the right mood.


----------



## Guest002

erki said:


> On our local auction site few guys are selling some radio station music library. I get wonderful CDs for under 1 euro, classical mostly for 10-20cents. I have not bought so many CDs for years.
> The duration of a CD(ca 60min) is just about right. And I have pretty nice DAC setup in my studio. Also I find navigating CDs much easier than files and folders, specially in portables. If you pick up CD already you most likely put it on, while you can spend half an hour going through the digital files to decide what you want to listen. And there is the artwork that sets the right mood.


Depends how you rip your CDs, really, doesn't it? For classical music, there shouldn't be "going through digital files for half an hour"! You want to listen to Beethoven's Fifth, you click Beethoven, click Symphony, right-click Symphony No. 5, select Play in VLC. Job done in under 10 seconds, I would have said.

Or something similar. Digital files only proliferate and slow you down if you don't organise them properly in the first place. You don't even actually have to split a CD into separate files if you don't want to. Single file FLACs with embedded cuesheets are a thing, you know.

And I always have artwork, without the physical CD, as previously discussed at length. Mine doesn't fade or get creased or put up a fight when trying to extract it from the case... Etc. Etc.

I mean only: you keep doing CDs if you like them, of course. But don't do them because of the things you've described about digital music, because none of those things are true. Or at least, none of them are _necessarily_ true.


----------



## staxomega

I rip CDs and SACDs to FLAC and DSD respectively, but I'll never give up buying them! This was part of my December purchases, up at our lake house for the weekend, there is another big pile at our main place where I receive mail.

Except the Festetics Quartet Haydn box which is quite old, I brought this up here to read the booklet since there is no PDF.

I hope they never stop making them :tiphat:

Full size


----------



## MatthewWeflen

erki said:


> On our local auction site few guys are selling some radio station music library. I get wonderful CDs for under 1 euro, classical mostly for 10-20cents. I have not bought so many CDs for years.
> The duration of a CD(ca 60min) is just about right. And I have pretty nice DAC setup in my studio. Also I find navigating CDs much easier than files and folders, specially in portables. If you pick up CD already you most likely put it on, while you can spend half an hour going through the digital files to decide what you want to listen. And there is the artwork that sets the right mood.


I agree with AbsolutelyBAching above. This is not an issue at all. I would imagine the "problem" of finding (or deciding on) a recording is equal to that of physical CD, if not less. If you are choosing from among CDs, don't you have to find them based on spine? They are organized alphabetically, but so are my files. You have to turn on your player/receiver and place the CD carefully in the tray. I have to swipe through a few menus and attach my headphones to my music player. All in all, a pretty similar set of "challenges," i.e. very little.


----------



## Guest002

staxomega said:


> I rip CDs and SACDs to FLAC and DSD respectively, but I'll never give up buying them! This was part of my December purchases, up at our lake house for the weekend, there is another big pile at our main place where I receive mail.
> 
> Except the Festetics Quartet Haydn box which is quite old, I brought this up here to read the booklet since there is no PDF.
> 
> I hope they never stop making them :tiphat:
> 
> Full size


Yeah, I'm afraid I had to make most of my own PDFs, with a scanner... And rather a lot more patience than it took to ever rip the disk!

These days, though, I try to buy the FLAC or ISO direct, skipping the rip bit...and usually skipping the scan bit, too, as a lot of vendors now provide the ebooklets at source, too.


----------



## erki

When I start to listen I don't know what I want. To look at the stack of CDs is much easier than to the screen - and there isn't anything to do with organising. Just the files on the screen(even with pictures) have much less call for me.
Sometimes there is a cover I want to look at and touch so I choose to listen it as well.


----------



## Guest002

erki said:


> When I start to listen I don't know what I want. To look at the stack of CDs is much easier than to the screen - and there isn't anything to do with organising. Just the files on the screen(even with pictures) have much less call for me.
> Sometimes there is a cover I want to look at and touch so I choose to listen it as well.


Sorry to keep picking you up on little details, but if you have a CD collection, you either organise it or you don't. There is then just as much organising involved with a set of files on a hard disk: no more, no less. It's simply not the case that a CD collection requires less (or more) organisation than an equivalent digital files, though it does require more dusting.

As I say: you keep doing you, and if that means being happy listening to CDs, that's great and no criticism intended or implied. But I would want you to be making your choices with full information, not myths or misunderstandings!

Incidentally, if you don't know what you want to listen to when you start listening (something I definitely share with you), then you might do worse than pick your plays at random... and my own AMP player will do random selections for you at a drop of the hat (but cannot fetch random physical CDs off your shelves for you!). Costs nothing, but does require you to run Linux at the moment, I'm afraid (which you should do anyway, for all sorts of other reasons, which I won't bore you with now!)


----------



## Taplow

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Incidentally, if you don't know what you want to listen to when you start listening (something I definitely share with you), then you might do worse than pick your plays at random... and my own AMP player will do random selections for you at a drop of the hat (but cannot fetch random physical CDs off your shelves for you!).


I recently exported my iTunes library (41,822 tracks of CM) as an XML file and wrote a script to import it into a database for viewing online. Don't ask me why! You've now given me an idea to write a 'randomizer' to provide random listening suggestions, perhaps based on certain criteria (composer, genre, artist, label, you name it). What fun!


----------



## Guest002

Taplow said:


> I recently exported my iTunes library (41,822 tracks of CM) as an XML file and wrote a script to import it into a database for viewing online. Don't ask me why! You've now given me an idea to write a 'randomizer' to provide random listening suggestions, perhaps based on certain criteria (composer, genre, artist, label, you name it). What fun!


I've found a randomizing player (that is, something that randomizes which _album_ it will play, but _doesn't_ scramble the order of the tracks once it's chosen something to play), to be a really "good thing"! I'm listening to recordings I haven't heard in over a decade; to composers I didn't really even know I had in the collection. I think it a great way to stop listening to the old war horses over and over again!

I'd only want to point out (1) make sure the size of your collection's components don't affect the randomizer (i.e., if there are 4000 Bach 'tracks' and 3 Bridge ones, you nevertheless want Bach and Bridge to be equally likely to be selected for play, I think). And (2) allow your player to not randomize when the mood takes you: if you're in sombre mood, you really don't want it to pick a comic opera at random (or maybe you do, who knows!). You definitely need a manual over-ride, anyway.

Incidentally, since Apple is Unixy under the hood -maybe my AMP player will work on it mostly unaltered? Would be handy to know, to be honest, one way or another!

I plan to add the ability to specify a genre or a performer in a future release. Not label though: I never store that data in the first place, so I have no need for that.


----------



## Oakey

GrosseFugue said:


> Despite all the options -- streaming, downloads, YouTube, etc. -- I still like to listen to CDs. There's something about putting a disc in the player that promotes close listening, gives me that old timey feeling of dropping a needle on the album. You made the effort, now you make the time. Plus you get to hold a booklet.
> 
> The welter of digital options seem to almost promote ADD-style listening. I've even shuffled tracks of Beethoven's late string quartets (yes, I know, sacrilegious!) on my phone. There are like tens of thousands (more?) of albums available to me via Primephonic (great site, btw), but sometimes it can feel like being in a library and trying to skim through every book vs. just taking one home with you. I realize it's a state of mind. But wondered if other listeners still liked their CDs (or LPs). In fact, I think part of why LPs are popular again is the pleasure of holding and using a big tangible item (plus you get all the cool artwork, etc).


Fully agree! CD is my favourite medium for classical music, as well as SACD (not so much for the superior quality, but for the surround sound, which I like very much when it has been done properly). I rip all (newly purchased) classical CDs/SACDs in my iTunes library too, so I can listen to them whilst travelling (i.e. after this covid pandemic of course) on my iPhone with decent headphones.

I listen to pop music on vinyl and CD too, but classical is CD/SACD only when it comes to physical media.


----------



## Azol

If you enjoy re-reading this whole discussion at your leisure then you are definitely a CD freak 
My case exactly.
I also rip the CDs to my hard disk (then to network storage then to offsite backup HDD).
Sometimes it's easier to find something in a digital-only way and for this I am cataloging all my CDs/DVDs/Blu-rays using CATraxx application.
But still, nothing better than to hold a physical product! So now I am upgrading my Blu-ray player then a bit later both CD player and an amplifier.


----------



## Guest002

Azol said:


> If you enjoy re-reading this whole discussion at your leisure then you are definitely a CD freak
> My case exactly.
> I also rip the CDs to my hard disk (then to network storage then to offsite backup HDD).
> Sometimes it's easier to find something in a digital-only way and for this I am cataloging all my CDs/DVDs/Blu-rays using CATraxx application.
> But still, nothing better than to hold a physical product! So now I am upgrading my Blu-ray player then a bit later both CD player and an amplifier.


It is curious. I've tried digital _scores_ of music a bazillion times: can't be doing with them, really: "Nothing better than to hold a physical product!". I like the feel of paper in my hand, and although PDF scores work and work well, they're just not the same. Don't know why, can't explain.

I assume that's the same as what's happening with you and CDs, except with CDs, I'd be happy never to see one again. Odd, isn't it, how we'll each happily accept digital in one realm and not be so keen on it in another. I wonder what's going on there?!


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

I love my CD collection, very large,* and though I still have LPs and listen to them not infrequently, I suspect I may reach a point where I will have to bid those adieu. I do not do any digitizing, downloads, rippings, rippings-off, or anything of that ilk. I've neither the time nor the patience and am quite happy to consider myself (or be labeled) unapologetically _retardataire_.

*The larger my collection grew the more acutely aware I became of (and annoyed at) what it lacked... Some friends and family, back when there was actual in-person engagement with others of the human race, would look at my collection in bewilderment and wonder how one could ever find the time to listen to it. I, on the other hand, wonder about those folks (there are many!) who own a CD-player and a collection of 10-20 disks; how can they possibly limit themselves to so few? Those folks are of great socio-cultural interest to me, actually - I believe they have a CD-player NOT to listen to music, per se, but to simply own the technology. There were loads of people in Victrola days who, similarly, would go to the expense of buying a record player and yet could or would not spare the money for 78s.


----------



## Nawdry

MatthewWeflen said:


> This player is focused on album art, but its capabilities are not sufficient for my needs.
> 
> https://www.engadget.com/tom-vek-sleevenote-090019190.html
> 
> View attachment 148507


Actually, mine neither. I can see the advantage of a portable device like this - sort of a replacement of a "Walkman" clamshell-style portable CD player, but for some kind of "solid-state" input (internal storage? SD card? USB flashdrive? etc). But the recording format would need to include the equivalent of liner notes, especially the track list (playlist?) showing the compositions, movements, etc. by track.

Seems to me this would require a standard industry format, both for the audio and the verbal info & graphics. Then to get that, consumers must invest in an appropriate device, hopefully non-proprietary so that multiple suppliers can offer it.

But how does this help you when you're sitting at home listening to your main sound system? With CDs (and LPs) you have printed liner notes. You can not only find tracks you want, but also you can read something about the pieces. Obviously this can be provided digitally, but it seems it would require some kind of technology, making it more cumbersome and expensive than the back of an LP cover or printed notes or a booklet in a CD case.

Right now, the CD medium seems to hit all the right bases. Also, from a marketing standpoint, there's something to be said for a tangible medium that can be attractively packaged.

In a previous post I've noted some drawbacks I see with CD technology. Solid-state clearly has some advantages, but these issues I think need some kind of acceptable resolution. Hopefully coming soon?


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> I can see the advantage of a portable device like this - sort of a replacement of a "Walkman" clamshell-style portable CD player, but for some kind of "solid-state" input (internal storage? SD card? USB flashdrive? etc). But the recording format would need to include the equivalent of liner notes, especially the track list (playlist?) showing the compositions, movements, etc. by track.


I'm interested to know why we ever got suckered into thinking of classical music as "tracks"! If you go to the concert hall, you don't go to listen to four "tracks" of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5. You listen to a single symphony. And sure, it has four movements, but we tend not to walk out in the middle of them for a tea-break! We regard them as parts of an integrated whole when we go somewhere to listen to them. I wonder how we ever got to the place I think we're all in when it's OK to play just one movement from a symphony. Or to play half a symphony and then hit pause, have dinner, and come back and listen to the rest of it after. 

Having just written a media player that deliberately (a) doesn't play or display tracks; (b) has no means of pausing playback; and (c) only records a 'play' when you've played all of something... well, I think there's a lot to be said for not thinking in 'tracks'. I get that when you buy a CD containing both Symphony No. 5 and Symphony No. 8 that you might well *not* want to listen to _both_ symphonies. So rip them to separate folders and call each folder an 'album'. Tracks are needed for _that_ job. But after that? I'm coming to the view that a composition should definitely _not_ be split up into separate 'tracks' and it was a mistake from the LP days that got carried forward that it ever was.



Nawdry said:


> But how does this help you when you're sitting at home listening to your main sound system? With CDs (and LPs) you have printed liner notes. You can not only find tracks you want, but also you can read something about the pieces. Obviously this can be provided digitally, but it seems it would require some kind of technology, making it more cumbersome and expensive than the back of an LP cover or printed notes or a booklet in a CD case.


But we all (or most of us) have such a technology in our pockets already. It's called a smartphone. Displays graphics and text perfectly well. I read this forum on it every morning before I get out of bed... and you can "fit" a lot more information "on" it than you can on any LP cover or booklet: the entire Wikipedia is accessible from it, for starters. Compare that to some of the CD "booklets" produced by... Naxos, for example. Sometimes, they don't extend beyond a paragraph on the back cover!

I don't think most people think of their smartphones as 'cumbersome' (though I will grant you they can be expensive).



Nawdry said:


> Right now, the CD medium seems to hit all the right bases. Also, from a marketing standpoint, there's something to be said for a tangible medium that can be attractively packaged.


I like your point about attractive marketing. I think it's something I personally overlook a lot, but carries a lot of heft.

Again, though, I look at Prestoclassical as an example: that site uses all the standard CD cover art to make it attractive etc. Then they often quote Gramophone or BBC reviews, so you can make an _informed_ purchase decision. And then they sell you a FLAC download! There's really no fundamental reason, in other words, that you can't make the marketing side of solid state, non-corporeal music any less attractive or informative than the traditional polycarbonate disk industry has done.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Malx said:


> *The only time I'll get rid of my CDs is when I have no physical space to store them.*


Here's an option for you - *Note: This is not my collection* - There is no power on either heaven or earth possessing the strength to force me to ever paint anything "sage green" - a particularly hideous color - the stuff of nightmares - dreadful, just dreadful... Anyway...

I came across this setup on another site - *Click on the photo three times to enlarge the image* -









Here's how he described the installation -

"Years ago I built simple CD shelves using 6" pine from the hardware store. Slapped then together and painted them. When I moved my collection, *I ran out of wall space so took one of the shelves I built and put it on wheels and attached it to a simple bracket setup it to the top of the shelves secured to the wall so it wouldn't fall over. **Now I can just slide that one 3 foot second back and forth to access the ones behind.* Working well so far!"

I've always suspected that the number of CD's one possesses is in inverse proportion to the number one has actually listened to...


----------



## Azol

I spot Callas boxset right there!
And no, I haven't noticed anything particular about the color of his shelves! :lol:


----------



## Guest002

I like the carpets, though!


----------



## Helgi

To me, CDs lend themselves to a different listening experience from listening to pure digital. For example; I've been focusing on the Dvořák symphonies for the past week or so, and picked some recordings from my shelves and put next to my CD player. In the evening, I sit down and listen to a symphony or two and return the next evening to find the same set of recordings.

I could do the same with digital files, at the computer, on my iPod, on my Phone, streaming through my living room system, whatever; but chances are I get sidetracked by something else instead of focusing on just a few CDs I've picked off the shelves.

That said, I want to figure out a way to get that sense of focus with the less tangible part of my collection.


----------



## Shaughnessy

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I like the carpets, though!


They're the kind of inexpensive faux-Persian/Oriental rugs that one can buy at big box hardware stores here in the US -

https://www.homedepot.com/b/Floorin...e/N-5yc1vZarjgZ1z141n1?storeSelection=&Nao=48

but the S & H would probably be cost prohibitive to the UK so you might want to check out Homebase -

https://www.homebase.co.uk/our-range/storage-and-home/home-furnishings/rugs-and-doormats/rugs

"Traditional oriental rugs will never go out of style. Currently, they accentuate mid-century modern themes. Dark red Bokhara rugs or Peshawar Ziegler rugs have bold patterns that date back centuries. Ziegler rugs make fantastic runner rugs because their prints can go with almost any other rugs in the home."

Now that I've pretty much run that tangent into the ground we can continue our discussion...

I'm leaning towards @absolutelybaching and going "digital" as the very idea of the time, effort, and expense involved in the acquisition of "shelving units" runs the risk of giving me either an aneurysm or an embolism... possibly both.


----------



## Guest002

Helgi said:


> To me, CDs lend themselves to a different listening experience from listening to pure digital. For example; I've been focusing on the Dvořák symphonies for the past week or so, and picked some recordings from my shelves and put next to my CD player. In the evening, I sit down and listen to a symphony or two and return the next evening to find the same set of recordings.
> 
> I could do the same with digital files, at the computer, on my iPod, on my Phone, streaming through my living room system, whatever; but chances are I get sidetracked by something else instead of focusing on just a few CDs I've picked off the shelves.
> 
> That said, I want to figure out a way to get that sense of focus with the less tangible part of my collection.


Well, it would seem that it's the lack of a tangible object that's causing the issue. Couldn't you type up a Word document or something that _lists_ the symphonies and leave the list in the place you do your listening? Tick them off as you go, etc. Printed lists certainly help focus my mind when I need to get through a 'project' or something similar.

I am definitely with you that digital files make playing (and pausing, and not playing in sequence) a bit _too_ easy these days. We've definitely lost something of the ritual around music listening that made focus and concentrations things that you acquired as natural music listening skills, I agree.


----------



## Guest002

Sunburst Finish said:


> They're the kind of faux-Persian/Oriental rugs that one can buy at big box hardware stores here in the US for about fifty to a hundred bucks or so -
> 
> https://www.homedepot.com/b/Floorin...e/N-5yc1vZarjgZ1z141n1?storeSelection=&Nao=48
> 
> but the S & H would probably be cost prohibitive to the UK so you might want to check out Homebase -
> 
> https://www.homebase.co.uk/our-range/storage-and-home/home-furnishings/rugs-and-doormats/rugs


I just realised that a private joke doesn't work unless you spell it out publicly! We have those same carpets (or ones similarly fake) lining our loft is all I really meant  But the ones in the photo are cleaner than ours, that's for sure!


----------



## Shaughnessy

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I just realised that a private joke doesn't work unless you spell it out publicly! We have those same carpets (or ones similarly fake) lining our loft is all I really meant  But the ones in the photo are cleaner than ours, that's for sure!


I got the joke - and laughed because I could easily imagine how the line would read when said with a droll tone in a British accent - you didn't need to spell it out as my post was meant as a humorous continuation of yours. I re-wrote my original post in an attempt to make my intent clearer.

Cheers!


----------



## Malx

Sunburst Finish said:


> Here's an option for you - *Note: This is not my collection* - There is no power on either heaven or earth possessing the strength to force me to ever paint anything "sage green" - a particularly hideous color - the stuff of nightmares - dreadful, just dreadful... Anyway...
> 
> I came across this setup on another site - *Click on the photo three times to enlarge the image* -
> 
> View attachment 148804
> 
> 
> Here's how he described the installation -
> 
> "Years ago I built simple CD shelves using 6" pine from the hardware store. Slapped then together and painted them. When I moved my collection, *I ran out of wall space so took one of the shelves I built and put it on wheels and attached it to a simple bracket setup it to the top of the shelves secured to the wall so it wouldn't fall over. **Now I can just slide that one 3 foot second back and forth to access the ones behind.* Working well so far!"
> 
> I've always suspected that the number of CD's one possesses is in inverse proportion to the number one has actually listened to...


Interesting - but ultimately a route that would prove very expensive. If I ever had a main room that looked like that the divorce costs would have to come into the financial equation!


----------



## Helgi

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, it would seem that it's the lack of a tangible object that's causing the issue. Couldn't you type up a Word document or something that _lists_ the symphonies and leave the list in the place you do your listening? Tick them off as you go, etc. Printed lists certainly help focus my mind when I need to get through a 'project' or something similar.
> 
> I am definitely with you that digital files make playing (and pausing, and not playing in sequence) a bit _too_ easy these days. We've definitely lost something of the ritual around music listening that made focus and concentrations things that you acquired as natural music listening skills, I agree.


Yes, I think you're right about that. I've been thinking about starting a notebook for my listening, as the digital tools I've tried just don't seem to stick.

More and more I feel that whatever slows me down and limits my options is a good thing.


----------



## Guest002

Helgi said:


> Yes, I think you're right about that. I've been thinking about starting a notebook for my listening, as the digital tools I've tried just don't seem to stick.
> 
> More and more I feel that whatever slows me down and limits my options is a good thing.


I was going to mention a very-analogue pen+notepad/book, too! I used to do that, donkey's years ago when I didn't scrobble everything I listened to to last.fm. Before then, it was the only way I knew to keep track of what I was listening to.


----------



## Helgi

I have a stash of notebooks and fancy Japanese pencils so I have no excuse! Going to start one this evening.

But that won't keep me from buying more CDs — what keeps me from amassing a wall-to-wall-to-ceiling collection are shipping and import fees. But I imagine I will keep going at my current ratio of roughly 50/50 CDs and FLAC files.


----------



## amfortas

Sunburst Finish said:


> Here's an option for you - *Note: This is not my collection* - There is no power on either heaven or earth possessing the strength to force me to ever paint anything "sage green" - a particularly hideous color - the stuff of nightmares - dreadful, just dreadful... Anyway...
> 
> I came across this setup on another site - *Click on the photo three times to enlarge the image* -
> 
> View attachment 148804
> 
> 
> Here's how he described the installation -
> 
> "Years ago I built simple CD shelves using 6" pine from the hardware store. Slapped then together and painted them. When I moved my collection, *I ran out of wall space so took one of the shelves I built and put it on wheels and attached it to a simple bracket setup it to the top of the shelves secured to the wall so it wouldn't fall over. **Now I can just slide that one 3 foot second back and forth to access the ones behind.* Working well so far!"
> 
> I've always suspected that the number of CD's one possesses is in inverse proportion to the number one has actually listened to...


Regarding size of collection vs. actual listening, here's a poem I wrote a few years back:

My Uncle John

My Uncle John collected old LPs,
all kinds of music, every style and taste.
He never could resist big spending sprees
or let the chance to buy more go to waste.

His records filled the shelves, rose ceiling high;
his mania to acquire was never done.
And all the while, you had to wonder why:
He never listened to a single one.

Now me, I'm into classical CDs;
the great recordings are my siren call.
My own collection grows by steep degrees;
I'll never have the time to hear them all.

And yet, I listen almost every day,
to savor all I can before I'm gone,
to get a good return on what I pay,
but mostly-to avoid being Uncle John.

I play my music without pause or rest-
for I'm determined not to be obsessed!


----------



## Nawdry

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm interested to know why we ever got suckered into thinking of classical music as "tracks"! If you go to the concert hall, you don't go to listen to four "tracks" of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5. You listen to a single symphony. And sure, it has four movements, but we tend not to walk out in the middle of them for a tea-break! We regard them as parts of an integrated whole when we go somewhere to listen to them. I wonder how we ever got to the place I think we're all in when it's OK to play just one movement from a symphony. Or to play half a symphony and then hit pause, have dinner, and come back and listen to the rest of it after.
> 
> Having just written a media player that deliberately (a) doesn't play or display tracks; (b) has no means of pausing playback; and (c) only records a 'play' when you've played all of something... well, I think there's a lot to be said for not thinking in 'tracks'. I get that when you buy a CD containing both Symphony No. 5 and Symphony No. 8 that you might well *not* want to listen to _both_ symphonies. So rip them to separate folders and call each folder an 'album'. Tracks are needed for _that_ job. But after that? I'm coming to the view that a composition should definitely _not_ be split up into separate 'tracks' and it was a mistake from the LP days that got carried forward that it ever was.


Let me note that in concerts, there's almost always a pause between movements. Separation grooves were traditionally cut between tracks in both 78s and LPs. Don't know why, but I personally find this very useful, whether for jumping to a totally different composition or to focus on or repeat, say, a specific movement.


----------



## ArtMusic

Listening to a CD in a good sound system is most exhilarating. By that I mean with floor standing loud speakers etc.


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> Let me note that in concerts, there's almost always a pause between movements. Separation grooves were traditionally cut between tracks in both 78s and LPs. Don't know why, but I personally find this very useful, whether for jumping to a totally different composition or to focus on or repeat, say, a specific movement.


Oh I know there's a pause. It's usually when the coughing fits break out.
But it's not a tea break, is it?!
There are always _pauses_ between movements on a CD, too. It's a momentary hiatus, however, not a half-hour break!

That you like to be able to repeat a movement or jump to a different composition: well, that was rather my point. It wasn't what people did before recordings with 'separation grooves' came out, was it? I'm not criticising or anything. I'm just intrigued how we have arrived at a position where music is something to be repeated or jumped to/from, rather than listened to from beginning to end, as would be the case in a concert.


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> Let me note that in concerts, there's almost always a pause between movements. Separation grooves were traditionally cut between tracks in both 78s and LPs. Don't know why, but I personally find this very useful, whether for jumping to a totally different composition or to focus on or repeat, say, a specific movement.


Incidentally, you prompted me to think whether 78 rpms actually did have separation grooves. I couldn't remember any from the many I have owned, and at only about 3½ minutes per side, I doubted they would really have ever been needed!

Anyway, I fetched my precious first edition 1944 version of Britten's _Serenade from Tenor, Horn and Strings_ and found...









No separation between movements. Curious, I then unearthed my LP version of it:









Also no separation between movements. The photo isn't great, and obviously there is a difference in groove appearance as the work progresses, but there are no discrete track-per-movement separations.

Now, obviously, I can't show you grooves on a CD! So, by way of CD evidence, I have to show you this instead:









Suddenly, the damned thing has become eight (8!!) separate tracks, where before it had been a unified piece.

Now, I don't claim that to be evidence of anything, other than being one data point in a sea of anecdote... but it's interesting, is it not, how the track business really got going -for this piece at least- only when the CD came in.


----------



## Rmathuln

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Incidentally, you prompted me to think whether 78 rpms actually did have separation grooves. I couldn't remember any from the many I have owned, and at only about 3½ minutes per side, I doubted they would really have ever been needed!
> 
> Anyway, I fetched my precious first edition 1944 version of Britten's _Serenade from Tenor, Horn and Strings_ and found...
> 
> View attachment 148882
> 
> 
> No separation between movements. Curious, I then unearthed my LP version of it:
> 
> View attachment 148883
> 
> 
> Also no separation between movements. The photo isn't great, and obviously there is a difference in groove appearance as the work progresses, but there are no discrete track-per-movement separations.
> 
> Now, obviously, I can't show you grooves on a CD! So, by way of CD evidence, I have to show you this instead:
> 
> View attachment 148884
> 
> 
> Suddenly, the damned thing has become eight (8!!) separate tracks, where before it had been a unified piece.
> 
> Now, I don't claim that to be evidence of anything, other than being one data point in a sea of anecdote... but it's interesting, is it not, how the track business really got going -for this piece at least- only when the CD came in.


With an LP you CAN place the stylus on any point manually. Gapless tracks like those on the CD of the recording make it possible reasonably accomplish this with a CD, though without as much flexibility as the LP.

One of Decca's first classical CDs was the Dutoit Montreal Daphnis et Chloe, and it had one track with no indexes. A few years later DG (then a Decca competitor) issued the Abbado LSO recording with several gapless tracks, but even better numerous indexes within each track. The combination of track and index points were included in a full synopsis in the booklet, making it possible to following the action an dunderstand what the music is describing. The Abbado CD converted many listeners to avid fans of the work, something the Dutoit disk failed at miserably.

Listening end to end without gaps is still possible with tracked CDs, provided that is the player supports gapless playback. Gapless playback was an issue with some early generation CD players, but I've not heard of it being an issue on CD players in a long time, perhaps a few decades. The gapless playback issue has however resurfaced with media players for MP3/FLAC/etc. I would love, for example, to get a top flight FiiO media player, but FiiO has never addressed the gapless playback issues on their devices.


----------



## Guest002

Rmathuln said:


> With an LP you CAN place the stylus on any point manually. Gapless tracks like those on the CD of the recording make it possible reasonably accomplish this with a CD, though without ad much flexibility as the LP.


Of course you can. I do know how gramophones and "turntables" work!

My sister was forever dropping the Dansette stylus in assorted places on her latest Bryan Ferry album. Since 'pop' albums were simply a collection of 3- or 4-minute tracks, it made a certain sense to drop your stylus down on what you fancied listening to: and the resulting scratches weren't really a problem, given the quality of the music being reproduced in the first place!

But I remember my brother-in-law's father playing me a Sibelius symphony one afternoon, on his what was, I'm sure, very expensive "hifi". The ritual was: extract LP from case and paper sleeve, blow, place gently on spinning platter, position dust-bug, press auto, close plastic lid... and then retire to the armchair, there to close eyes and sip a whisky.

And my point is: that's how I remember most people playing classical LPs back in the day. Sure, you _might_ skip a symphony for the filler orchestral piece. But you didn't really pick-and-choose a lot back then. The big 'pauses' came from having to turn the LP over and play its flip side. Otherwise, it tended to be: hit play and step away from the turntable until finished.



Rmathuln said:


> One of Decca's first classical CDs was the Dutoit Montreal Daphnis et Chloe, and it had one track with no indexes. A few years later DG (then a Decca competitor) issued the Abbado LSO recording with several gapless tracks, but even better numerous indexes within each track.


And I think my point is, "Hold it right there! Whaddyamean "even better"???!"

I mean, why did we ever think it good, or "better", to have index marks than to not have them, given that -as demonstrated earlier- we didn't necessarily expect our LPs (still less our 78s) to have the physical equivalent of them? When did that change in expectations happen and why? (I'm not saying you're wrong to call it 'even better'. I'm simply asking when did we think more index marks = even better?)

I can understand that if we bought a CD containing 3 symphonies, we might want index marks 1, 2 and 3, so we could pick the symphony we wanted to play. That would be perfectly sensible. But when and why did we all seem to agree that there should be 12 index marks on that disk, so we could pick the _bit_ of a symphony we wanted to play?



Rmathuln said:


> The combination of track and index points were included in a full synopsis in the booklet, making it possible to following the action an dunderstand what the music is describing. The Abbado CD converted many listeners to avid fans of the work, something the Dutoit disk failed at miserably.


Now you've kind of jumped on a bit to a topic I was discussing with myself in the shower this morning (too much info, I realise)! Opera, I get: I can definitely see why you'd want a way of orientating yourself in a 5-Act, 23-scene monster (but even then, I think index marks at the start of Acts and Scenes are drammatically and navigationally understandable, but marking out the big soprano and tenor numbers as they seem to do these days seems less _musically_ acceptable to me). But anyway: leaving that particular genre to one side for the moment: why do we need our symphonies or concertos broken up into separately playable 'bits' when we would never attend a concert in which those 'bits' would not follow one after the other (with slight cough breaks in between) without interruption?

I understand the technology. I wondering more about the social expectations.


----------



## Rmathuln

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Of course you can. I do know how gramophones and "turntables" work!
> 
> My sister was forever dropping the Dansette stylus in assorted places on her latest Bryan Ferry album. Since 'pop' albums were simply a collection of 3- or 4-minute tracks, it made a certain sense to drop your stylus down on what you fancied listening to: and the resulting scratches weren't really a problem, given the quality of the music being reproduced in the first place!
> 
> But I remember my brother-in-law's father playing me a Sibelius symphony one afternoon, on his what was, I'm sure, very expensive "hifi". The ritual was: extract LP from case and paper sleeve, blow, place gently on spinning platter, position dust-bug, press auto, close plastic lid... and then retire to the armchair, there to close eyes and sip a whisky.
> 
> And my point is: that's how I remember most people playing classical LPs back in the day. Sure, you _might_ skip a symphony for the filler orchestral piece. But you didn't really pick-and-choose a lot back then. The big 'pauses' came from having to turn the LP over and play its flip side. Otherwise, it tended to be: hit play and step away from the turntable until finished.
> 
> And I think my point is, "Hold it right there! Whaddyamean "even better"???!"
> 
> I mean, why did we ever think it good, or "better", to have index marks than to not have them, given that -as demonstrated earlier- we didn't necessarily expect our LPs (still less our 78s) to have the physical equivalent of them? When did that change in expectations happen and why? (I'm not saying you're wrong to call it 'even better'. I'm simply asking when did we think more index marks = even better?)
> 
> I can understand that if we bought a CD containing 3 symphonies, we might want index marks 1, 2 and 3, so we could pick the symphony we wanted to play. That would be perfectly sensible. But when and why did we all seem to agree that there should be 12 index marks on that disk, so we could pick the _bit_ of a symphony we wanted to play?
> 
> Now you've kind of jumped on a bit to a topic I was discussing with myself in the shower this morning (too much info, I realise)! Opera, I get: I can definitely see why you'd want a way of orientating yourself in a 5-Act, 23-scene monster (but even then, I think index marks at the start of Acts and Scenes are drammatically and navigationally understandable, but marking out the big soprano and tenor numbers as they seem to do these days seems less _musically_ acceptable to me). But anyway: leaving that particular genre to one side for the moment: why do we need our symphonies or concertos broken up into separately playable 'bits' when we would never attend a concert in which those 'bits' would not follow one after the other (with slight cough breaks in between) without interruption?
> 
> I understand the technology. I wondering more about the social expectations.


The point is the track and index points enable experiences not available if one can only "play it all".
Can you imagine if musicians could only practice a work by playing it from beginning to end, that something prevents them from focussing on a portion in order to get it right?

I empathize with your annoyance with some listeners that hardly ever just sit and listen, start to finish. Any use of listening to recorded music in portion that stops at that and does not, having been enlightened, move on to the uninterrupted whole, is equivalent to musicians rehearsing, including repeating portions until they get it perfect, but never playing the work from beginning to end, preferably with an audience.


----------



## Guest002

Rmathuln said:


> The point is the track and index points enable experiences not available if one can only "play it all".
> Can you imagine if musicians could only practice a work by playing it from beginning to end, that something prevents them from focussing on a portion in order to get it right?
> 
> I empathize with your annoyance with some listeners that hardly ever just sit and listen, start to finish. Any use of listening to recorded music in portion that stops at that and does not, having been enlightened, move on to the uninterrupted whole, is equivalent to musicians rehearsing, including repeating portions until they get it perfect, but never playing the work from beginning to end, preferably with an audience.


Well, I'm not annoyed about anything. I'm merely curious and asking a question. Your mention of index points enabling "new experiences" is self-evidently true, but somewhat tautological: _why_ do/did classical music audiences ever want "new experiences" if they fly in the face of decades or even centuries of prior best listening practices?

As recently as 1980 (the approximate date of that LP I showed), separate tracks were *not* demanded, nor supplied, after all.

The mention of musicians needing to rehearse "bits" of a work is spurious. We're not talking about performers, but listeners (and cue letters in scores go back centuries).

I'm not expecting an answer from you. Or anyone else, come to that. I merely ask the question, since clearly CDs did something novel to the *way* we listen, and I'm not sure people generally are aware of that.


----------



## etipou

There are many good reasons for having works broken into movements. Some works are very uneven in quality. It would be annoying to listen to the whole work as often as one would like to hear the best parts, and a shame to hear the best parts only as often as one could stand the worst. Berlioz's _Romeo et Juliette_ contains some of the greatest music of the early Romantic era, and all of it is interesting enough to bear occasional listening, but it has everything to gain from the option to pick out highlights.

A similar consideration applies to personal preferences. I am a "slow movement" guy, and I like a lot of Brahms' slow movements more than their surroundings. Often I listen to them out of context. I cannot see I that I do anything but gain by doing so.

Some works are very long, and one wants to listen to the best parts more often than the whole work. And if we are honest, most people will enjoy the later acts of a Wagner opera, or the second half of Bach's Passions, better (in some respects) if they are not fatigued by several hours of preceding music. Even Donald Francis "thou shall not make excerpts from Wagner" Tovey admitted to a special pleasure in hearing Tristan Act II with fresh ears, after arriving late to the theatre and missing Act I.

Sometimes a movement I am listening to reminds me of a movement in another work, and it is convenient to have ready access to the other movement for comparison. In the past one would have dug out paper scores, I suppose, and it is certainly an improvement to be able to listen on demand instead.

Sometimes I am thinking about a movement, and I forget how some crucial part of it goes (say the development-recapitulation transition). I can remind myself much more easily by ear than by checking a score.

I do believe it is important to understand that artworks are wholes. I certainly wouldn't advocate treating individual movements as the basic unit of listening, as we do with pop songs in relation to albums. But again, if we are being honest, some works are more "whole" than others. Many individual movements are perfectly satisfactory in isolation. And even where they are not, beyond some point best practice has to become "do what you enjoy".

My own suspicion is that many composers before Beethoven wouldn't mind in the slightest anyway - after all, they were forever repurposing their own and others' work, writing alternative movements, producing excerpts and so on. I do understand the point of view from which listening this way is not best practice, but I doubt if treating a score or performance more like a holy relic than a work of entertainment is best practice either.


----------



## Guest002

Well, you're merely confirming that listening habits _have_ changed.... As well as managing to say, "I wouldn't advocate treating individual movements as the basic unit of listening" at the same time as saying "I'm a slow movement guy"! 

I'm not doubting that we do these sorts of things now. Technology is going to get used, after all. I'm questioning, I guess, whether it is a good thing that we do them. Berlioz presumably thought you *should* sit through the whole of Romeo, no matter it's longueurs. And we know what Wagner would have done to Tovey!

That the technology now allows you to jump between compositions when a comparison springs to mind is acknowledged, but prompts the question, "And how did people do this before?" You mention needing to do it by reading scores: have we perhaps lost a key skill because the CD makes it so easy to do without (rather as children are alleged not to be good with handwriting anymore as they simply type everything out, etc).


----------



## etipou

There's no tension there. I'm still a slow movement guy when I listen to a whole work. Those just tend to be the movements I enjoy most, and which disproportionately colour my opinion on the piece as a whole. I'm sure many people have a tendency of this kind. I still, most of the time, treat works as wholes.

Composer's intentions are obviously important - up to a point. On one hand, especially with the very best composers, you understand that the reach of their mind is vastly greater and deeper than yours, and you can almost certainly learn something by hearing exactly what they wanted you to hear in a spirit of humility. On the other hand, even good composers were not infallible and some of them were chronically sloppy, and besides you are doing this all for entertainment(!) rather than taking a course of unpleasant medicine. That aria in the Matthew Passion that always makes you fall asleep? What a joy to skip it and enjoy all the rest wide awake.

And the real crux here is that a lot of breaking up was done in the past, you just didn't get to choose how it was done. Everyone and their grandma made suites from operas and ballets - now you can make your own! Oratorios and operas were cut liberally, sometimes to shreds - now you can apply your own judgement. You'd never get the chance to hear _Romeo et Juliette_ in full, even though movements like the choral scherzetto and _Romeo au tombeau des Capulets_ are fascinating in their own way. Tovey has a great section somewhere on rescuing orchestral music from Schubert's operas and reassembling them into a concert piece - why should they be condemned beyond the reach of anyone unwilling to revive a whole Schubert opera?

And finally, if you are a musician of any kind, you can read a score well enough to find your place in it, and if you are not then you almost certainly can't. I doubt many people have learned to read scores with the intention merely of being able to look things up. And you'd have had to buy them all or - more likely - go to a library and find them in the first place.


----------



## Guest002

Well, I'm afraid I find it unpersuasive.

And whilst you say you listen to works as whole things, an entire classical music industry is pushing in the other direction. Classic.fm hardly ever broadcasts whole works. ABC Classic FM in Australia is movement-central. Even BBC Radio 3 has a tendency to excerpt.

And it is again begging the question to state that 'now we can apply our own judgments'. Of course we can... Technology is the great enabler. But what was that line from the movie: Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

I think it is an interesting issue, anyway. Not that there are any definitive answers. But just think: as late as 1980, you had no choice about which bits of Britten's Serenade you could listen to. Grandma's suites are in a bit of a different basket, I think!


----------



## Nawdry

Rmathuln said:


> The gapless playback issue has however resurfaced with media players for MP3/FLAC/etc. I would love, for example, to get a top flight FiiO media player, but FiiO has never addressed the gapless playback issues on their devices.


FiiO is one of the brands of FLAC media players I've been perusing on Amazon. If these stop after playing each track, so you have to keep pushing the Play button to proceed, this would drive me bonkers. I wonder if other brands have this problem.

Eliminating separate tracks in FLAC files, however, is not a "solution" I would wish for.

Our audio system is very good, but it dates from about 25 years ago. It has lots of options (e.g., RCA-type I/Os) that you pay big bucks for nowadays, but it doesn't have important I/Os like USB, HDMI, and optical. I've been browsing around for a reasonably priced FLAC/MP3 etc player, preferably portable, providing an analogue output to interface with our current system.

Right now, if I had a FLAC file, I presume I could convert/burn it to an audio CD to play it with the equipment I have. Alternatively, presuming I'd have FLAC-reading software on my PC, I guess I could run a very long cable through the house from the PC's analogue 3.5mm output to the RCA inputs on the audio system. That opens additional problems ... Just thinking aloud ...


----------



## apricissimus

I'm not ashamed to admit that sometimes I listen to full works, and sometimes I just listen to individual "tracks". I don't see the harm!

What if I don't particularly like some part of a whole work. Should I feel obligated to listen to the whole thing just to hear the parts that I do enjoy?

And the fact that you don't get to skip movements in a concert hall is irrelevant. Hearing music performed live and listening to a recording are completely different experiences, in my opinion.


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> FiiO is one of the brands of FLAC media players I've been perusing on Amazon. If these stop after playing each track, so you have to keep pushing the Play button to proceed, this would drive me bonkers. I wonder if other brands have this problem.
> 
> Eliminating separate tracks in FLAC files, however, is not a "solution" I would wish for.
> 
> Our audio system is very good, but it dates from about 25 years ago. It has lots of options (e.g., RCA-type I/Os) that you pay big bucks for nowadays, but it doesn't have important I/Os like USB, HDMI, and optical. I've been browsing around for a reasonably priced FLAC/MP3 etc player, preferably portable, providing an analogue output to interface with our current system.
> 
> Right now, if I had a FLAC file, I presume I could convert/burn it to an audio CD to play it with the equipment I have. Alternatively, presuming I'd have FLAC-reading software on my PC, I guess I could run a very long cable through the house from the PC's analogue 3.5mm output to the RCA inputs on the audio system. That opens additional problems ... Just thinking aloud ...


The problem with gapless playback isn't that you keep having to press the Play button. It is that there is a momentary pause between tracks that are supposed to run into each other. So it's not an issue with most symphonies: there's usually a good cough break between the Allegro and the Adagio! But when composers start throwing pesky _attaca_'s arround, so that the playback is supposed to be continuous, a non-gapless player will introduce a quarter-of-a-second gap. Quite rightly, it drives people bonkers, because it's essentially a solved problem for any player that knows how to cache a second or two ahead of where it's currently playing. Most do, I think, these days.

You are right that whole-album FLACs are not the way to solve the gapless problem (though they do): better software is called for, that's all. I'd certainly recommend whole-composition FLACs as a way to get out of bad listening habits, as I've explained tediously above! But they are overkill for gapless playback.

FLACs can't really be burned to an ordinary audio CD. They need to be turned into WAV files first, because the red book standard requires that. But a lot of burning software will handle that conversion for you under-the-hood, so it will _feel_ as if you're burning FLACs directly. Many CD players, on the other hand, can read more than just red book audio CDs: if they can read _data_ CDs, then they may indeed be able to read and playback FLAC files directly. It depends on your CD player, basically.

For what you describe, I'm going to shamelessly plug my New Year blog post. In particular, I'd point you to my discussion about an external DAC (digital to analogue converter) I just bought myself. It's a little box, powered by a 5V USB plug, that you connect to your PC via a standard USB cable. That becomes your PC's 'sound card', but because it's outside of the PC itself, the electronic noise is greatly reduced and you generally get better sound reproduction which built-in integrated sound chips on motherboards or even separate sound cards from the likes of Creative cannot usually match. DACs _can_ cost a fortune, but mine cost just £100, and I think it does an excellent job. It handles ordinary CD audio just fine, but it can also do hi-res audio if that floats your boat. It outputs (as its name implies) analogue electrical signals via standard RCA plugs, which should plug into pretty much any competent amplifiier/receiver, so your existing kit should work with it fine.

If running long cables from your PC to the DAC is a problem, consider getting a small laptop, NUC (tiny full-blown PC) or even a Raspberry Pi (tiny, powerful but stupidly cheap computer), and have the Raspberry Pi connected to the DAC, and also connected to a home network, either wirelessly or via Ethernet cable. The use of wireless networking between your music source and the Raspberry Pi will not affect the quality of the music reproduction (unlike listening to music via Bluetooth headphones, for example).

Anyway: it's not really difficult, just a different set of problems than what traditional hifi enthusiasts were used to.


----------



## Guest002

apricissimus said:


> I'm not ashamed to admit that sometimes I listen to full works, and sometimes I just listen to individual "tracks". I don't see the harm!
> 
> What if I don't particularly like some part of a whole work. Should I feel obligated to listen to the whole thing just to hear the parts that I do enjoy?


Remember what your mother used to say about 'if you don't eat the Brussels sprouts, you can't have the chocolate pudding afterwards'? No... maybe yours didn't say that sort of thing, but mine did!

I say it with tongue-in-cheek to some extent, obviously. You do what makes you happy. But yes, I personally believe that you shouldn't get to pick and choose which bits you like. Listening is obviously entertainment and is supposed to be fun. But it's also a discipline where classical music is concerned. My worry is if we've brought up a generation of pick-and-choosers, how do we expect them to cope in the concert hall?



apricissimus said:


> And the fact that you don't get to skip movements in a concert hall is irrelevant. Hearing music performed live and listening to a recording are completely different experiences, in my opinion.


I wasn't suggesting they are equivalent experiences. But if you've gotten into bad table manners at home, it's likely to be a bit embarrassing when you get taken out to a swish restaurant. If we don't know how to listen to classical music properly, what do we expect people to do when confronted to a listening experience that _mandates_ a certain approach?

I'm not stupid: I realise I'm not going to change anyone's mind, or turn them away from the conveniences that they've become used to. But I think it's an interesting point and software can help fix that. Use a media player that generally plays per-album, and plays per-track if you really, really insist on cherry-picking, for example. Or combine your per-track music files into per-composition ones and then use a player that can display an embedded cue file as separate tracks, or not, as occasion arises. It's what I've chosen to do, and I think there are big benefits from doing so.

As ever, your (and everyone else's, probably) mileage may vary


----------



## Nawdry

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> For what you describe, I'm going to shamelessly plug my New Year blog post. In particular, I'd point you to my discussion about an external DAC (digital to analogue converter) I just bought myself. It's a little box, powered by a 5V USB plug, that you connect to your PC via a standard USB cable. That becomes your PC's 'sound card', but because it's outside of the PC itself, the electronic noise is greatly reduced and you generally get better sound reproduction which built-in integrated sound chips on motherboards or even separate sound cards from the likes of Creative cannot usually match. DACs _can_ cost a fortune, but mine cost just £100, and I think it does an excellent job. It handles ordinary CD audio just fine, but it can also do hi-res audio if that floats your boat. It outputs (as its name implies) analogue electrical signals via standard RCA plugs, which should plug into pretty much any competent amplifiier/receiver, so your existing kit should work with it fine.
> 
> If running long cables from your PC to the DAC is a problem, consider getting a small laptop, NUC (tiny full-blown PC) or even a Raspberry Pi (tiny, powerful but stupidly cheap computer), and have the Raspberry Pi connected to the DAC, and also connected to a home network, either wirelessly or via Ethernet cable. The use of wireless networking between your music source and the Raspberry Pi will not affect the quality of the music reproduction (unlike listening to music via Bluetooth headphones, for example).
> 
> Anyway: it's not really difficult, just a different set of problems than what traditional hifi enthusiasts were used to.


Absolutely, your suggestion about the teeny-tiny Raspberry Pi (which I've never heard of before) triggered another and more obvious thought for me: my little Lenovo netbook (rather small 10.1" 2-in-1 notebook that runs Windows 10). This has several I/O ports: 3 USB, 1 mini HDMI, 1 3.5" combo earphone-mic. While it has just 4GB RAM, it's been running videos on occasion quite well.

Thanks for your info about DACs and the helpful link to your blog post. Now I'm fantasizing about having some kind of FLAC-reading software on the netbook, plugging the netbook into a DAC, and the DAC into my audio system. I'm also fantasizing that the netbook would display graphic and text material from the FLAC file while playing the music.

Besides the Topping model DAC (which retails on Amazon for about $150) there are quite a number of cheaper DACs ($20-$50 range), some with either RCA or 3.5" audio output ports. Unfortunately the prevalent input ports seem to be either coax or some kind of optical (incompatible with my netbook), but I'm still looking. Of course, there's always the Topping; seems very high quality, but rather pricey for me.

Leaving aside the issue of connecting to my larger audio system ... possibly I could use my laptop as a portable FLAC player. Of course, there are lots of small portable audio devices that play a smorgasbord of formats - FLACs, MP3s, WAVs, etc. - with easy I/O connection to PC. There's also my Android phone, but possibly an issue for another discussion.

I hope this discussion over technicalities is not straying off-topic from this forum, but I'd think the issues are very relevant to other classical music lovers who might be interested in applying newer technological options to potentially improve their listening experience.


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> Absolutely, your suggestion about the teeny-tiny Raspberry Pi (which I've never heard of before) triggered another and more obvious thought for me: my little Lenovo netbook (rather small 10.1" 2-in-1 notebook that runs Windows 10). This has several I/O ports: 3 USB, 1 mini HDMI, 1 3.5" combo earphone-mic. While it has just 4GB RAM, it's been running videos on occasion quite well.


If it runs Windows 10, it can play FLACs just fine: playing audio takes hardly enough computing power to make an asthmatic ant breathless. Just install Foobar2000 and you're done, basically. (There are other players, of course, but they tend to be a bit heavy on the glitz and glamour, which might not be what you really need on a small notebook type device).



Nawdry said:


> Thanks for your info about DACs and the helpful link to your blog post. Now I'm fantasizing about having some kind of FLAC-reading software on the netbook, plugging the netbook into a DAC, and the DAC into my audio system. I'm also fantasizing that the netbook would display graphic and text material from the FLAC file while playing the music.


If you are after that sort of thing, whilst Foobar2000 will certain display the graphics stuff from a FLAC, you might prefer MusicBee, which can pull in information from Wikipedia about composers and so on. Take a look at my comparative review of Windows music players to see if any of the screenshots whet your appetite.



Nawdry said:


> Besides the Topping model DAC (which retails on Amazon for about $150) there are quite a number of cheaper DACs ($20-$50 range), some with either RCA or 3.5" audio output ports. Unfortunately the prevalent input ports seem to be either coax or some kind of optical (incompatible with my netbook), but I'm still looking. Of course, there's always the Topping; seems very high quality, but rather pricey for me.


It's a complex subject, I'm afraid. I only got the Topping because it got a good review in a What Hi-Fi webpage somewhere; I claim no great expertise in telling one good DAC apart from a poor one. Good luck with finding something suitable.



Nawdry said:


> Leaving aside the issue of connecting to my larger audio system ... possibly I could use my laptop as a portable FLAC player. Of course, there are lots of small portable audio devices that play a smorgasbord of formats - FLACs, MP3s, WAVs, etc. - with easy I/O connection to PC. There's also my Android phone, but possibly an issue for another discussion.
> 
> I hope this discussion over technicalities is not straying off-topic from this forum, but I'd think the issues are very relevant to other classical music lovers who might be interested in applying newer technological options to potentially improve their listening experience.


Personally, I would steer clear of dedicated portable audio devices (unless they are high-end and meet a specific need). There's no need to get stuck with bits of hardware that can only do one thing (and which might have limitations you won't realise until after you've been using it for a bit! A general purposes computer (desktop, laptop, raspberry pi etc) or phone are, I think, the best ways to go. I've got a drawer-full of old smartphones: any one of which could plausibly be plugged into a hifi system and become the 'network gateway' for accessing music files stored elsewhere (i.e., your phone can effectively turn your hifi system into a wifi-connected one). The limitation with phones is, often, the playing software and its interface. Some good player software exists for Android (such as the Rocket Music Player), but the interface may not be to your taste or your fingers' ability to navigate nicely!

Good luck, anyway.


----------



## amfortas

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And it is again begging the question to state that 'now we can apply our own judgments'. Of course we can... Technology is the great enabler. But what was that line from the movie: Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.


So if we pick and choose among tracks on a CD, we risk unleashing killer dinosaurs upon the earth?


----------



## Guest002

amfortas said:


> So if we pick and choose among tracks on a CD, we risk unleashing killer dinosaurs upon the earth?


Of course not! That film was fiction, obviously.

God merely kills a kitten for every track you pick.

:devil:



(PS, you're clearly allowed to pick amongst _compositions_ on a CD. No kittens harmed. Just not bits _within_ compositions.)


----------



## Guest002

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Of course not! That film was fiction, obviously.
> 
> God merely kills a kitten for every track you pick.
> 
> :devil:


Incidentally, and in case anyone's even slightly interested, the last few pages of discussion triggered me into writing some software that will merge per-track FLACs into a single 'super-FLAC' (that has an embedded cue sheet, so some playing software will still be able to access tracks, even though it's a single FLAC file. Kitten-murderers though you be!).

Metadata and album art is preserved through the merge process.

And if you don't like the results, you can also de-merge a 'super-FLAC' into a set of per-track FLACs too. So the process is reversible, in case you like killing kittens.

Here's the blog post introducing the rationale for the script.
And here's the page providing the script+"manual".

Linux and FLAC users only, please!

(And, sincerely: thanks to everyone who's contributed. It was an interesting discussion and made me think things I'd not thought of before. I know we probably don't agree, but my music colleciton thanks you nonetheless!)


----------



## NoCoPilot

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Incidentally, and in case anyone's even slightly interested, the last few pages of discussion triggered me into writing some software that will merge per-track FLACs into a single 'super-FLAC'


One reason I still play CDs is this idea of keeping tracks together that belong together.

A couple years ago I put everything The Beatles had ever released on a USB stick to play in the car. I discovered I had to do some fiddling because, for instance, the side two suite of "Abbey Road" and much of "Yellow Submarine" have to play as a suite because the tracks all run together. If you simply go with the CD track numbering, and if you allow your car stereo to choose tracks in "shuffle mode" which is my preferred way, then sometimes you'll get a track that cuts off just as its going into another song. Or starts with the downbeat of the previous song.

So I had to merge continuous segues into single tracks. With CM you'd have to do the same thing with all movements of a symphony, or all movements of any piece that you want to hear in toto.

I made a copy of the USB stick for my sister for Christmas last year, and about June she asked me how many songs were on it. I said 176, why? She said she'd heard the same 25 or 30 songs each time she plugged in the USB stick, and was getting tired of just hearing Beatle songs that began with the letter 'A'. I told her about shuffle mode, and she was amazed.


----------



## Guest002

NoCoPilot said:


> One reason I still play CDs is this idea of keeping tracks together that belong together.
> 
> A couple years ago I put everything The Beatles had ever released on a USB stick to play in the car. I discovered I had to do some fiddling because, for instance, the side two suite of "Abbey Road" and much of "Yellow Submarine" have to play as a suite because the tracks all run together. If you simply go with the CD track numbering, and if you allow your car stereo to choose tracks in "shuffle mode" which is my preferred way, then sometimes you'll get a track that cuts off just as its going into another song. Or starts with the downbeat of the previous song.


Yes, this is the problem of 'gapless playback' (or, rather, non-gapless playback!)

This is a long-solved problem on the software front, though you still find software that doesn't do it properly. Basically, you need the software to 'read ahead' and cache a second or two's music, so that when there's a physical 'move' from one file to another, the cache can play over the gap and it sounds seamless. If your desktop software doesn't do proper gapless playback, ditch it for something that does. 'Disc-in-One' approaches can help in these situations, definitely. But they need to be flexible, so that what you prepare for the car doesn't have to be re-prepared (or de-prepared!) for the desktop, etc.

You make an excellent point, however (and something I'd forgotten): sometimes, we are _hardware_ dependent (and car stereos are a perfect example). If _they_ don't do gapless, you can't very easily 'ditch it for something else that does'!



NoCoPilot said:


> So I had to merge continuous segues into single tracks. With CM you'd have to do the same thing with all movements of a symphony, or all movements of any piece that you want to hear in toto.
> 
> I made a copy of the USB stick for my sister for Christmas last year, and about June she asked me how many songs were on it. I said 176, why? She said she'd heard the same 25 or 30 songs each time she plugged in the USB stick, and was getting tired of just hearing Beatle songs that began with the letter 'A'. I told her about shuffle mode, and she was amazed.


Can we not mention shuffle mode on a classical music site, please?! 

Just joking... It is amazing how classical music needs are not met, have no counterpart in, nor any equivalence to, the needs of the non-classical music industry. On a good day, I find it amusing how my nephew talks about music (half my age, no classical music experience at all etc etc).

True fact: when 'tagging' of MP3 files was first invented, they allowed 80 'genres' to be specified to describe the type of music being tagged. 79 of them consisted of things like 'ska', 'death metal', 'soul', 'punk', 'southern rock' and something called 'Acid Jazz'. A whole 1 of them consisted of 'classical'. So none of your string quartets, masses, symphonies, concertos, song cycles or ballets: it was all just 'classical'! It's like the UK and America: two lands separated by a common language!


----------



## Nawdry

Bill Schuster said:


> I also fully agree that there is a plethora of cheap physical media available now. It is so easy to find old cds and records for ridiculously low prices. I picked up the 8 disc Beethoven complete quartets set by the Cleveland Quartet for 99 cents, not long ago. So, yes, cheers to cds!


... Which reminds me of another great advantage of CDs over LPs: their relative resilience, facilitating a much more robust used-CD market. Clearly some of us have expanded our classical collections significantly via used-CD stores and other resources.

So, since it's so easy to copy FLAC files, is there a similar market for "used" digital media? Is this even legal? Do the equivalents of used-CD stores, brick & mortar or online, operate nowadays, doing a brisk business in "previously owned" digital files or media?


----------



## Dave Langlois

I can certainly see where you're coming from. I'm a bit of a luddite and have never even explored streaming options. The one thing I've got against CDs is that awful moment when it suddenly goes kchung kchung kchung in the middle of a Mahler symphony, Beethoven quartet or Bach fugue. GRRRRRR. For all their scratchiness LPs never irretrievably jammed like that. At worst you might have to give the needle a nudge. I've got records 50 years old that still work. I doubt I'll be able to say the same of any CD. And the opera libretti are unreadable. At least the Solti ring cycle gives you a PDF to watch on screen while listening. The tiny booklets are ridiculous.


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> ... Which reminds me of another great advantage of CDs over LPs: their relative resilience, facilitating a much more robust used-CD market. Clearly some of us have expanded our classical collections significantly via used-CD stores and other resources.
> 
> So, since it's so easy to copy FLAC files, is there a similar market for "used" digital media? Is this even legal? Do the equivalents of used-CD stores, brick & mortar or online, operate nowadays, doing a brisk business in "previously owned" digital files or media?


I can answer your penultimate question: no, it's not legal.

I sometimes wonder about leaving my hard disks to my rellos on my demise, but it would technically be illegal. Actually, ripping is itself illegal. There was a couple of years, if memory serves, when it was considered legally acceptable to back up a CD, but EU law kicked in (which still applies in the UK) and closed that off. There's no such thing (technically) as 'backing up a CD'. It's all now considered copyright infringement (in the UK). Sharing your ripped CDs with relatives, even after one's demise, is definitely 'distribution of copyrighted goods without authorisation or license to do so', which is even hotter legal waters.

Of course, unless you have a copper camping out in your music listening room, what happens between you, your CD player and a proximate hard disk is between you and the lamp post. No harm, no foul. But distribute your digital collection... well, we are in legally treacherous waters, for sure.


----------



## Guest002

Dave Langlois said:


> I can certainly see where you're coming from. I'm a bit of a luddite and have never even explored streaming options. The one thing I've got against CDs is that awful moment when it suddenly goes kchung kchung kchung in the middle of a Mahler symphony, Beethoven quartet or Bach fugue. GRRRRRR. For all their scratchiness LPs never irretrievably jammed like that. At worst you might have to give the needle a nudge. I've got records 50 years old that still work. I doubt I'll be able to say the same of any CD. And the opera libretti are unreadable. At least the Solti ring cycle gives you a PDF to watch on screen while listening. The tiny booklets are ridiculous.


Yup. I remember when digital TV kicked in, with the promise of better resolutions and no interference patterns, or wobbly signals as an aeroplane flew nearby. What did we get instead?! Block pictures on a frozen screen, because drop-out means _total_ drop-out, not 'degrade gracefully'. CDs suffer the same issue.

Believe it or not, toothpaste can help. By _gently_ abrading the surface to create smoother scratch marks, you can restore a CD to playability, where a previous sharp gash rendered it unplayable. Personally, I play a CD precisely once, for exactly this reason: the play it takes me to rip it. Then it's back into its jewel case and never to see the light of day again.


----------



## Azol

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Yup. I remember when digital TV kicked in, with the promise of better resolutions and no interference patterns, or wobbly signals as an aeroplane flew nearby. What did we get instead?! Block pictures on a frozen screen, because drop-out means _total_ drop-out, not 'degrade gracefully'. CDs suffer the same issue.
> 
> Believe it or not, toothpaste can help. By _gently_ abrading the surface to create smoother scratch marks, you can restore a CD to playability, where a previous sharp gash rendered it unplayable.


Still, better use special polish paste. But! (and this is very important!) When you do this, make sure the label side of the CD resides on a flat but soft surface without any dust particles: the label side is very easy to damage and this is point of no return for a CD.


----------



## Guest002

Azol said:


> Still, better use special polish paste. But! (and this is very important!) When you do this, make sure the label side of the CD resides on a flat but soft surface without any dust particles: the label side is very easy to damage and this is point of no return for a CD.


In case you weren't sure, this is actually sound advice.

If you were wondering, the point is that the top (printed) surface of a CD is just 0.1mm thick, so there's very little between it and the reflective layer that carries your data. So it's very thin and capable of being damaged. So Azol's point is entirely correct. DVDs by way of contrast have half a millimetre extra to worry about before damage ensues.


----------



## NoCoPilot

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> A whole 1 of them consisted of 'classical'. So none of your string quartets, masses, symphonies, concertos, song cycles or ballets: it was all just 'classical'!!


Reminds me of the great line from "The Blues Brothers" movie. When Jake Elwood comes into the tavern to play, he asks, "Say, what kind of music do you usually get in here?"

The waitress replies, "Oh, we have BOTH kinds. Country AND Western!"


----------



## NoCoPilot

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Of course, unless you have a copper camping out in your music listening room, what happens between you, your CD player and a proximate hard disk is between you and the lamp post. No harm, no foul. But distribute your digital collection... well, we are in legally treacherous waters, for sure.


Well, maybe technically. It's unlikely any lawyer would come after you (or your "rellos") over inheriting a hard drive. There's no profit in it for a lawyer -- and money makes their world spin.

SELLING digital files, now that might get their attention.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Azol said:


> Still, better use special polish paste. But! (and this is very important!) When you do this, make sure the label side of the CD resides on a flat but soft surface without any dust particles: the label side is very easy to damage and this is point of no return for a CD.


Damaged CDs can often be recovered by importing them to your hard drive, then burning a CD-R of the result. Unlike a player, which reads the CD files in real time, a CD import process will go over and over and over a damaged portion the disc, using error correction routines, until an error free image is obtained. If the disc is too badly damaged the import will fail, but I've had LOTS of unplayable discs recovered by reburning. One took several hours to import -- but in the end I got a perfect result!


----------



## Guest002

NoCoPilot said:


> Well, maybe technically. It's unlikely any lawyer would come after you (or your "rellos") over inheriting a hard drive. There's no profit in it for a lawyer -- and money makes their world spin.
> 
> SELLING digital files, now that might get their attention.


As I said, unless you have a policeman camping out in your study/bedroom/listening room...

No need to quote the word rellos, either: it is perfectly cromulent in the southern hemisphere and places with more spiders than you want to deal with.

The question was what was legal, not what you could be "done" for. The one is a black and white answer; the other is more a question of what you think you can get away with.


----------



## Guest002

NoCoPilot said:


> Damaged CDs can often be recovered by importing them to your hard drive, then burning a CD-R of the result. Unlike a player, which reads the CD files in real time, a CD import process will go over and over and over a damaged portion the disc, using error correction routines, until an error free image is obtained. If the disc is too badly damaged the import will fail, but I've had LOTS of unplayable discs recovered by reburning. One took several hours to import -- but in the end I got a perfect result!


Well, it depends, and it depends on the nature of the damage, but yes: software such as _cdparanoia_ will potentially spend _days_ attempting to read and re-read damaged sectors on a disk. However, even when it manages to effect a repair, I wouldn't want to vouch for the integrity of the _music signal_ thus "recovered!". (A lot of padding with zeroes tends to happen...)

You are right that non-real-time reading of CDs can make things playable which are otherwise not, however.

But it is not the way I would want to obtain a perfect audio signal.


----------



## Guest002

NoCoPilot said:


> Reminds me of the great line from "The Blues Brothers" movie. When Jake Elwood comes into the tavern to play, he asks, "Say, what kind of music do you usually get in here?"
> 
> The waitress replies, "Oh, we have BOTH kinds. Country AND Western!"


That is a great story!


----------



## MrWD57

The quality of playback largely depends on the quality of the system you have. I prefer CD's because I have a CD/AMP and Speaker set up that cost around £6k. So, unsurprisingly, the music sounds vivid with wide soundstage and instruments clearly defined. I wouldn't go near streaming or compressed files, and cannot fathom why anyone would listen to music on a crappy phone or car stereo. Vinyl has never really attracted me-the pops and crackles are intensely annoying, and also the much vaunted 'warm' sound of vinyl is an artificial artefact of the medium. The only issue with my set up is that some poorly produced or mastered CD's have their flaws clearly highlighted, but otherwise CD is the medium for me and I am delighted at how cheaply you can pick titles up for! The current fad for vinyl, is just that-and I wince when people spend north of £20 for some albums and then play them on a system that is cheap and cheerful and not only sounds awful, but has a cartridge that damages the vinyl on each play.


----------



## adriesba

I still buy vinyl and CDs. There is something enticing about having a physical copy of a recording, going to a record store, or opening a package from the mail. But there are other reasons I buy physical copies. 

The biggest reason I buy physical copies is availability of recordings. I use streaming, so I don't have to buy every single thing I want to hear. Buying everything is not practical, so I mostly just buy my favorite recordings. But some recordings are not on streaming services, and I seem to like a lot of obscure things. Some recordings aren't even on CDs, much less streaming. And sometimes streaming services get rid of recordings.

Another reason is faulty files. It doesn't happen too often, but some recordings on streaming services have problems with the files. These have mostly been things that gave gone under the umbrella of Warner. Missing music, audio fades and cutouts, and repeated audio have been some problems I've found in some releases. These are not problems on physical releases.


----------



## Helgi

I had problems with a BIS recording on Spotify recently, weird fluctuation between channels that gave me motion sickness. Bought the FLAC files from Presto and have no problem with those.


----------



## Guest002

MrWD57 said:


> The quality of playback largely depends on the quality of the system you have. I prefer CD's because I have a CD/AMP and Speaker set up that cost around £6k. So, unsurprisingly, the music sounds vivid with wide soundstage and instruments clearly defined.


Well, we can perhaps discuss whether one _needs_ to spend quite that much to achieve those qualities, I guess. There are people on this forum that would argue that unless you're doing 5:1 (or even 7:1) surround sound off BluRay audio, you've cheapo-d out! On the other hand, I've got a system I'm extremely happy with for around £1000. It's also horses for courses: I could spend a lot more and get stonkingly great speakers that swallow floor area like a hungry hippo digests water hyacinth. But I wouldn't, because I listen in my listening room, and I only need bookshelf speakers for that. Others I know on this forum listen on eye-wateringly expensive headphones (but ones which still cost peanuts compared to the sort of hifi system you're talking about): they would want to argue with you about whether your vivid soundstage is any better than theirs (as would I, come to that).

I was also going to impertinently ask how old you are, because unless your ears are less than about 30 years old, you can spend _waaay_ more than your ears will ever reasonably detect.



MrWD57 said:


> I wouldn't go near streaming or compressed files...


Well, I think we need to define our terms a little more tightly. What do you mean by "compressed" in that context? Because there's nothing inherently wrong with a compressed music file. If we were talking ZIP, for example: mathematically, it's a perfectly fine compression of something. It is completely reversible and what you put in comes straight back out, bit for bit, and with no degradation whatsoever. It's mathematically _perfect_ compression.

Now, if you're talking MP3: that's compressed. It's also lossy, in that the (theoretically) 'inaudible' parts of the audio signal are thrown away before compression. But 'lossy' and 'compressed' are two entirely different things. One can be lossy and uncompressed (but there's no functional use for that combo, since it's logically rather silly); and one can be compressed and lossless (which is what FLAC and Lossless WMA, to name two, do).

If you meant to say, "I wouldn't go near lossy files", fine. If you actually meant "I wouldn't go near compressed files", then you are barking up a mathematically incorrect tree, since the audio quality of a losslessly compressed audio file is 100% of an uncompressed file, mathematically, so there's zero difference.

Now, as to why anyone would want to go near streaming (which usually implies lossy conversion somewhere along the audio signal train) or lossy files... the answer is really, really simple: because, at the time, that's all that's available. If I'm at an airport or on the motorway, and I want to listen to some music, and all I've got is 320kbps lossy MP3s on a smartphone stream from somewhere... or silence... well, what do you suppose I would do?!

Besides, we could also have another discussion about whether lossily compressed audio is such a bad thing in the first place... and this comes back to the age of your ears, really. I am fairly sure that if you were to sample 100 over-50s, nearly 60% of them will not be able to tell the difference between a CD, a WAV (lossless, uncompressed), a FLAC (lossless, compressed) and a 320kbps MP3 (lossy, compressed). A high-def MP3 can sound practically indistinguishable from an original CD signal, unless you have ears that can hear above around 17000Hz (which is rare for people beyond their teens).



MrWD57 said:


> ...and cannot fathom why anyone would listen to music on a crappy phone or car stereo.


Er, because they're on a train or in a car?

Given a choice between a good smartphone and decent headphones on a train and silence, what do you think most of the people on this forum would opt for?

Also: very good MP3s are still 10 times smaller than the source CD. If you are restricted to a 64GB SD Card in your phone, and you want a lot of music on it, and you can fit maybe 100 CDs as uncompressed WAVs, or 200CDs as compressed but lossless FLACs.... or 1000CDs as good-quality MP3s... well, for some people, it's a reasonable option.



MrWD57 said:


> Vinyl has never really attracted me-the pops and crackles are intensely annoying, and also the much vaunted 'warm' sound of vinyl is an artificial artefact of the medium. The only issue with my set up is that some poorly produced or mastered CD's have their flaws clearly highlighted, but otherwise CD is the medium for me and I am delighted at how cheaply you can pick titles up for! The current fad for vinyl, is just that-and I wince when people spend north of £20 for some albums and then play them on a system that is cheap and cheerful and not only sounds awful, but has a cartridge that damages the vinyl on each play.


I have a 78rpm wind-up gramophone and a first pressing of Britten's _Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings_ from 1944. You won't get me to swap that for anything, ever!

But yes, in general, I would agree with you that vinyl was something we put up with because we had no alternative, and I'm immensely grateful for the CD revolution. As you note, however, CDs are not perfect: so much depends on the mastering and the sound engineer. But, other things being equal, CD v. vinyl isn't even close: CD every time, of course.


----------



## Guest002

adriesba said:


> I still buy vinyl and CDs. There is something enticing about having a physical copy of a recording, going to a record store, or opening a package from the mail. But there are other reasons I buy physical copies.
> 
> The biggest reason I buy physical copies is availability of recordings. I use streaming, so I don't have to buy every single thing I want to hear. Buying everything is not practical, so I mostly just buy my favorite recordings. But some recordings are not on streaming services, and I seem to like a lot of obscure things. Some recordings aren't even on CDs, much less streaming. And sometimes streaming services get rid of recordings.
> 
> Another reason is faulty files. It doesn't happen too often, but some recordings on streaming services have problems with the files. These have mostly been things that gave gone under the umbrella of Warner. Missing music, audio fades and cutouts, and repeated audio have been some problems I've found in some releases. These are not problems on physical releases.


I would simplify. What you're really describing (I think) is the difference between ownership and rental.

When you rent, you are at the mercy of the media provider's ability to catalogue, to care, to be correct (and to continue to provide in the first place). When you own, you take on those responsibilities for yourself (or can do), and the question of 'provision' has been taken care of, once and for all, by you 'providing' the recording in permanent, physical format.

These issues are the same whether we're talking physical media versus digital files. If you own your digital files, you have full curatorial control over them -and no-one's taking them away from you in the future.

So you can read this thread many ways.

I prefer CDs to LPs: No quesiton for most people, I think.
I prefer CDs to BluRay Audio, DVD Audio and SACD. Hmmm: I think there's a lot more debate on that point.
I prefer owning music to renting it (i.e. streaming it). Streaming has many, many benefits (ability to audition before buying is the main reason I indulge in it from time to time!). But no: I'm firmly in the camp that says I want to own my music, not rent it.

It's on the last question I think this thread is really hanging it's coat: "I still like CD" is really an assertion that "I prefer owning CDs to streaming music". I wouldn't argue with that in the slightest... but it's because it's an ownership v. rental question, not a 'physical v. digital' one ...especially when, fundamentally, there's no such distinction (CDs _are_ conveyances of digital music, after all!)

And as an interesting rejoinder to your 'faulty files' complaint: the very first LP of Vaughan Williams's Sea Symphony (conducted by André Preview) that I ever bought had the first side of the LP in perfectly gripping form: I was wowed and I couldn't wait to get to the climax. Flip the LP over... and Brahms' first symphony started playing. What?! Yup... I'd managed to buy a duff pressing. One side, half a composition by one composer; B side, half a completely different composition by a completely different composer that wasn't even stylistically close to the A-side!

My point, simply is: things happen no matter how you obtain your music. But ownership means you fix them. Rental means you hope someone else gets round to fixing them eventually... but don't hold your breath!

*And as a quick(ish) post-script*. The manner in which you obtain ownership of your music is really irrelevant. If you can only obtain recording X on LP, buy the LP. Fine: I would then transcode that into a FLAC file, mark it up into tracks, and tag them appropriately and file the LP away where it never gets played again. I did that, precisely, to my 78rpm of Britten's Serenade (good luck finding a wind-up gramophone-to-USB cable, though!! Modern turntable-to-USB is a thing, however.)

In the end, I would always end up with digital files... that I own and curate and care for. Where I got them from, and what medium they were originally supplied on, is really irrelevant.


----------



## adriesba

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I would simplify. What you're really describing (I think) is the difference between ownership and rental.
> 
> When you rent, you are at the mercy of the media provider's ability to catalogue, to care, to be correct (and to continue to provide in the first place). When you own, you take on those responsibilities for yourself (or can do), and the question of 'provision' has been taken care of, once and for all, by you 'providing' the recording in permanent, physical format.
> 
> These issues are the same whether we're talking physical media versus digital files. If you own your digital files, you have full curatorial control over them -and no-one's taking them away from you in the future.
> 
> So you can read this thread many ways.
> 
> I prefer CDs to LPs: No quesiton for most people, I think.
> I prefer CDs to BluRay Audio, DVD Audio and SACD. Hmmm: I think there's a lot more debate on that point.
> I prefer owning music to renting it (i.e. streaming it). Streaming has many, many benefits (ability to audition before buying is the main reason I indulge in it from time to time!). But no: I'm firmly in the camp that says I want to own my music, not rent it.
> 
> It's on the last question I think this thread is really hanging it's coat: "I still like CD" is really an assertion that "I prefer owning CDs to streaming music". I wouldn't argue with that in the slightest... but it's because it's an ownership v. rental question, not a 'physical v. digital' one ...especially when, fundamentally, there's no such distinction (CDs _are_ conveyances of digital music, after all!)
> 
> And as an interesting rejoinder to your 'faulty files' complaint: the very first LP of Vaughan Williams's Sea Symphony (conducted by André Preview) that I ever bought had the first side of the LP in perfectly gripping form: I was wowed and I couldn't wait to get to the climax. Flip the LP over... and Brahms' first symphony started playing. What?! Yup... I'd managed to buy a duff pressing. One side, half a composition by one composer; B side, half a completely different composition by a completely different composer that wasn't even stylistically close to the A-side!
> 
> My point, simply is: things happen no matter how you obtain your music. But ownership means you fix them. Rental means you hope someone else gets round to fixing them eventually... but don't hold your breath!
> 
> *And as a quick(ish) post-script*. The manner in which you obtain ownership of your music is really irrelevant. If you can only obtain recording X on LP, buy the LP. Fine: I would then transcode that into a FLAC file, mark it up into tracks, and tag them appropriately and file the LP away where it never gets played again. I did that, precisely, to my 78rpm of Britten's Serenade (good luck finding a wind-up gramophone-to-USB cable, though!!)
> 
> In the end, I would always end up with digital files... that I own and curate and care for. Where I got them from, and what medium they were originally supplied on, is really irrelevant.


Yes, a lot of it is that I want to purchase and not simply rent. I largely feel the same way as what you've expressed, but I still do like actually having physical copies of the recordings.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but if given the option between a CD or simply purchasing digital files, I'll most likely go for the CD, even though I'll make a digital file from them. For me it is enjoyable to actually have a tangible object when I buy something. This doesn't necessarily give me any practical advantage, but it is pleasing to me. Considering that I'm not typically buying massive amounts of CDs and my collection is growing rather slowly, this doesn't really pose a problem. It's doubtful that I would be saving drastic amounts of money going completely digital with how much I get. My intent isn't to make an exhaustive, all-encompassing library. And I still find playing vinyl records fascinating, probably because I didn't grow up with them.

Indeed there are some problems with buying physical copies. I have a poorly pressed CD that needs replacing in which the metal layer has a noticeable gap which prevents a track from playing. Plus finding CDs but especially vinyl in good condition can be frustrating.

In regards to those faulty files, I discussed this more in another thread but have concluded that they are most likely problems directly from the files put out by the record company (Warner at least), not the streaming service. And with any I own, I can confirm that the CDs of the recordings are not problematic. So that is one case to avoid buying only the digital files since one might not expect the company to fix these.

I neglected to mention another reason I buy physical copies - the literature with the physical set. Not all albums come with digital booklets. These aren't always necessary, but when it comes to obscure operas, this can be crucial. Not all libretti are online. A couple examples are _Les Huguenots _for which I haven't found a thorough libretto online and _Das Liebesverbot _for which there seems to be no English translation of on the internet.

It seems I ended up saying more about this than expected, but basically I like buying CDs so that I can have more control over what I listen to and, yes, to have a tangible object.


----------



## NoCoPilot

MrWD57 said:


> I have a CD/AMP and Speaker set up that cost around £6k. So, unsurprisingly, the music sounds vivid with wide soundstage and instruments clearly defined.


A wonking great investment does not guarantee great sound. Neither are reasonably-priced components inherently inferior.

In my experience, the ROI goes up to a plateau and then begins dropping off again.


----------



## Guest002

adriesba said:


> ...Maybe I'm old fashioned, but if given the option between a CD or simply purchasing digital files, I'll most likely go for the CD, even though I'll make a digital file from them. For me it is enjoyable to actually have a tangible object when I buy something...


Snipping for brevity. I think this is a valid point, which my own/rent points didn't pay regard to.

I get where you're coming from, but after doing files for 20 years, I can say I didn't get comfortable without a 'tangible object' until around 10 years in. It is definitely a psychological change that takes some getting used to.

However, these days, I care about the CD about as much as I care about the envelope my sister's birthday card comes in. It's a delivery mechanism. I prefer to worry about the content.

But, each to their own: I get that lots of people are (entirely validly) not thinking that way as yet.


----------



## Azol

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> However, these days, I care about the CD about as much as I care about the envelope my sister's birthday card comes in. It's a delivery mechanism. I prefer to worry about the content.


If there is no delivery mechanism available there is no content to worry about.
CD is there but online services can come and go. The online service and the Internet provider are two extra points of failure between you and your music. Music is important to me so I am looking to eliminate these unneeded extra hops. This is valid for any recordings I care about. In all other cases YouTube, Spotify, Bandcamp do their work just perfectly.
Oh, and one more. Your relatives can inherit your CD collection (if they care about it at all). They cannot inherit any of your digital assets.


----------



## Guest002

Azol said:


> If there is no delivery mechanism available there is no content to worry about.
> CD is there but online services can come and go. The online service and the Internet provider are two extra points of failure between you and your music.


As I said further up-thread, you are (I think) talking about ownership v. renting. I would never rent.

So, if by 'extra points of failure' you mean depending on a streaming service, I agree with you.

But if you're suggesting that physical CDs _alone_ free you from that worry and other forms of music don't, I disagree. I own my FLACs, and I am dependent on no service or ISP for access to them. My Internet could go off-line tomorrow and Warner Classics could file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy tomorrow, and I've still got 70,000 files of music to listen to.

One as may well complain about being dependent on the post office for the delivery of the physical CD you've ordered from somewhere: the chain is just as tenuous, but once it's in your hands (or, in my case, on my hard disk) there's no chain of dependency any more.

But _rental_ (i.e. streaming services): yes, for precisely the reason you mention, I would never want to be dependent on that.



Azol said:


> Music is important to me so I am looking to eliminate these unneeded extra hops. This is valid for any recordings I care about. In all other cases YouTube, Spotify, Bandcamp do their work just perfectly.
> 
> Oh, and one more. Your relatives can inherit your CD collection (if they care about it at all). They cannot inherit any of your digital assets.


How so? All my digital assets live on a pair of servers I own. I can bequeath them to anyone I like, along with their contents.

Again, I think you're talking about streaming services: since you never own the music you stream, sure you can't bequeath it to anyone. But you can own music that isn't in physical form -and that's as inheritable as anything else you own.

Think of it as a matter of cash v. bank balance. One is good, old-fashioned tangible, one is an electronic ledger, in very intangible form. Both represent personal property that belongs to (and which you can therefore bequeath).


----------



## Nawdry

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I sometimes wonder about leaving my hard disks to my rellos on my demise, but it would technically be illegal. Actually, ripping is itself illegal. There was a couple of years, if memory serves, when it was considered legally acceptable to back up a CD, but EU law kicked in (which still applies in the UK) and closed that off. There's no such thing (technically) as 'backing up a CD'. It's all now considered copyright infringement (in the UK). Sharing your ripped CDs with relatives, even after one's demise, is definitely 'distribution of copyrighted goods without authorisation or license to do so', which is even hotter legal waters.


Intriguingly, there are lots of recordings posted on YouTube; here's just one example:

Panufnik: Four Pieces for Orchestra (LSO, Horenstein)
This includes Panufnik's Heroic Overture, Tragic Overture, Nocturne, and Autumn music.





I also see his Symphony No. 9 and Bassoon Concerto are available. And that's just one composer; there are many, many more posted on YouTube.

So my questions are:

(1) How does all this get past the copyright gatekeepers?

(2) What format are these posted in? MP3/MP4?


----------



## Ad Astra

I still but physical media even if it means repeat purchases. It would be all to easy to say oh X composer is “problematic” we’ve deleted his entire life’s work. So I try to keep a hard copy of everything that is important to me. My fiancé feels the same so we often run out of space. I’m glad others are still buying physical media really makes me feel relieved.


----------



## amfortas

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> The very first LP of Vaughan Williams's Sea Symphony (conducted by André Preview) . . .


A great and underappreciated conductor, who made his mark by giving us a few tempting snippets of works yet to be premiered.


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> Intriguingly, there are lots of recordings posted on YouTube; here's just one example:
> 
> Panufnik: Four Pieces for Orchestra (LSO, Horenstein)
> This includes Panufnik's Heroic Overture, Tragic Overture, Nocturne, and Autumn music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also see his Symphony No. 9 and Bassoon Concerto are available. And that's just one composer; there are many, many more posted on YouTube.
> 
> So my questions are:
> 
> (1) How does all this get past the copyright gatekeepers?
> 
> (2) What format are these posted in? MP3/MP4?


Regarding (2): they're video, so the audio format is somewhat irrelevant.

With respect to (1) If you are not trying to monetise the content, they probably just turn the other cheek: there's no point suing someone with zero assets and drawing attention to something that, if left to pass, won't cost them much.

Short version is that you can get away with flagrant copyright breach if you are a two-bit player that is worth nothing.

They will come calling, however, if you get a few tens of thousands subscribers and start advertising. If _you're_ earning from their industry, they will want their cut (and rightly so)


----------



## starthrower

Much of the recorded material uploaded to YouTube is by the artists or record companies so obviously they want people to discover it in hopes for some interest and potential sales.


----------



## Guest002

Ad Astra said:


> I still but physical media even if it means repeat purchases. It would be all to easy to say oh X composer is "problematic" we've deleted his entire life's work. So I try to keep a hard copy of everything that is important to me. My fiancé feels the same so we often run out of space. I'm glad others are still buying physical media really makes me feel relieved.


I don't get the premise. £250 buys you a 14TB hard disk. Why would you _ever_ delete something, given that storage capacity? I mean, I'd move a 'problematic' composer into my 'overflow' folder rather than keep him in my main library, but the idea that non-physical media means you ever go around deleting content is just daft: it's not a logical consequence.

And compare the physical space you and your finacé reserve for these 'questionable' composers in physical form (i.e., meters of shelf-space) compared to what I have to do in a non-physical environment:

cd /; 
mkdir /overflow/odd-composers; 
mv /weird-composer /overflow/odd-composers. 

Job done. Music preserved for all time. No dusting. Nothing lost, nothing to worry about.

Seriously: if you're going to argue for physical media, you need to come up with a better argument than 'I might delete his entire work!'. That only ever happens if you haven't the faintest idea how to manage non-physical storage (and I suspect you'd be having trouble with physical storage too, if that was the case).

If you want to argue physical v. non-physical, come up with an argument that isn't easily refuted, basically! Find me something you can do in the physical world for which there is zero non-physical equivalent.


----------



## Guest002

starthrower said:


> Much of the recorded material uploaded to YouTube is by the artists or record companies so obviously they want people to discover it in hopes for some interest and potential sales.


I think a cursory walk through Youtube tells you that "much" of the content is* not at all *uploaded as a marketing exercise by recording companies or artists.

It gets through because no-one cares. That's all.
If it were the latest pop-hits, different story.

That said: sure, there is quite a lot of authorised content. But I'd say 99% of it isn't in anyway authorised.


----------



## starthrower

I didn't say all, but if you look at the channel owner you will see the official names like Universal Music, or the artist's name.


----------



## Guest002

starthrower said:


> I didn't say all, but if you look at the channel owner you will see the official names like Universal Music, or the artist's name.


Of course you see official names and so on, occasionally, and I didn't suggest that that sort of thing didn't exist. But the original question was why so much classical music content exists on Youtube without copyright enforcement.

It's not because it's officially endorsed. It's because the posters are too small to care about.

The specific URL mentioned, for example, has no signs of being an official channel in any way. And since it appears to have been recorded in 1970, I would be astonished if it was otherwise.

You specifically said "*much* of the content...was authorised". I dispute the "much". Some is, most (the vast majority) isn't.


----------



## starthrower

It's the way the world is today. I still buy some CDs to support artists, labels, and vendors. YouTube is now what radio and TV was to people 40 years ago. And as you said, most uploaders are not profiting from this stuff.


----------



## Ad Astra

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I don't get the premise. £250 buys you a 14TB hard disk. Why would you _ever_ delete something, given that storage capacity? I mean, I'd move a 'problematic' composer into my 'overflow' folder rather than keep him in my main library, but the idea that non-physical media means you ever go around deleting content is just daft: it's not a logical consequence.
> 
> And compare the physical space you and your finacé reserve for these 'questionable' composers in physical form (i.e., meters of shelf-space) compared to what I have to do in a non-physical environment:
> 
> cd /;
> mkdir /overflow/odd-composers;
> mv /weird-composer /overflow/odd-composers.
> 
> Job done. Music preserved for all time. No dusting. Nothing lost, nothing to worry about.
> 
> Seriously: if you're going to argue for physical media, you need to come up with a better argument than 'I might delete his entire work!'. That only ever happens if you haven't the faintest idea how to manage non-physical storage (and I suspect you'd be having trouble with physical storage too, if that was the case).
> 
> If you want to argue physical v. non-physical, come up with an argument that isn't easily refuted, basically! Find me something you can do in the physical world for which there is zero non-physical equivalent.


You are ignoring hard drive failure, software issues I could go on but I would actually consider a music or video file you own on a hard drive or SSD (which have limited read/write capacity) to be physical media. We do store all our music ripped by EAC to a server grade RAID array.

My problem is with not owning the music or the film or whatever Spotify, Netflix, Amazon or whatever is around in 50 years. If the only people to own the music are companies like the aforementioned then I could for see them just deleting say Wagner because of his unjust link to a certain German. They already remove books from sale.

Even if it's not on purpose human error, mechanical failure, natural disasters etc could wipe a server farm and poof it's gone. However unlikely it may be it is possible.


----------



## Guest002

Ad Astra said:


> You are ignoring hard drive failure, software issues I could go on but I would actually consider a music or video file you own on a hard drive or SSD (which have limited read/write capacity) to be physical media. We do store all our music ripped by EAC to a server grade RAID array.


I wasn't ignoring anything. I was simply responding to your own assertion that, and I quote, "we often run out of space". There is no need to do that, is all I was saying. Hard disk prices allow extremely large drives to be purchased surprisingly cheaply, so I really don't get why anyone would be suffering from lack of storage capacity these days. That's all.

(Entirely as an aside, though: I hope you aren't _really_ using a RAID array: as far back as 2010, the industry was arguing it was becoming unviable with the size of hard disks they had then. RAID6 buys you more time for sure, but even so single-drive failures result in array rebuilds that can stress the surviving disks to the point that you incur additional disk failures in consequence of the first. Also, traditional RAID arrays usually mean traditional file systems, and if you aren't using ZFS (or Btrfs at a pinch), you have no bit-rot protection. So when you say 'a server grade RAID array', I _hope_ you really mean 'a ZFS RAIDZ-2 array' or something similar).



Ad Astra said:


> My problem is with not owning the music or the film or whatever Spotify, Netflix, Amazon or whatever is around in 50 years.


I've already explained my position on this extensively above: I would never 'rent' my music for precisely the reasons you describe. It's a non-starter for me, and we entirely agree on this point.



Ad Astra said:


> Even if it's not on purpose human error, mechanical failure, natural disasters etc could wipe a server farm and poof it's gone. However unlikely it may be it is possible.


If that's genuinely a concern you have, then (1) the same sort of things would probably wipe out a physical collection of CDs too (and given what they're made of, I think that's a much more probable outcome than anything taking out my digital music! Polycarbonate is flammable and even at relatively low temperatures is prone to break down into various nasty by-products)

And (2), really, perhaps you're disaster recovery planning isn't all it should be (or you're just of a very nervous disposition, I guess!). And I know that can sound smug, but it really isn't meant to be.

If you plan carefully for the worst that all those things can throw at you, you _can_ be confident that a significant proportion of your data can be recovered should any of those mishaps strike.

For example, I have multiple servers that replicate amongst themselves on a staggered schedule. So if I make an error on one (such as deleting a folder instead of copying it: it's happened), I have a week before I would be unable to restore the music from the second server. Miss that deadline, and I have a month before I couldn't get it from the third.

Each of those servers runs a different operating system (Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris). So if Oracle pull the plug on Solaris, I can keep going (or switch to OpenIndiana); if some nasty data-eating bug affects a Linux release one day, I can keep going, and so on).

There is even an old server that I switch on twice a year and re-synchronise. It's offline, because I don't want anyone successfully hacking my network having access to it, and it gives me a 6-month last chance ability to recover something (although, clearly, it wouldn't be a suitable restore choice for anything acquired recently).

In addition to that, I have 3 USB 3.0 drives taking 4-times a day cumulative backups of each server, plus a fourth which is rotated between me and my sister 120 miles away on a roughly-quarterly schedule (or at least, it was that before the plague came to town and stopped journeys entirely). Any natural disaster that takes out both Nottingham and the south of England at the same time is probably going to be on such a scale that I doubt anyone will be listening to music for a while.

And ZFS in RAIDZ2 or better (I usually aim for the ZFS equivalent of Raid 1+0) on all servers means I'm comfortable with my risk levels from hardware failure. Plus, the use of ECC memory _and_ ZFS throughout means my music is not subject to bit-rot and/or single-bit flips.

It is potentially more complex than it really needs to be. It is certainly more expensive than I want it to be! But, as I mentioned to someone up-stream, it took me around a decade to get myself in a position where a purely digital music collection is something I'm entirely comfortable with. Ditching traditional RAID and Windows was an important first step. Everything else eventually came down to doing the same sort of disaster recovery planning I used to do in a professional capacity, which probably accounts for both the complexity and the cost. But it means I really am as comfortable with my risk levels as I can realistically be.


----------



## Ad Astra

We live in a small cottage that belonged to my fiancé's Grandmother. She passed away and he moved here to take care of her in the last days of her life. When I said we run out of space I mean physical room to store our books, CDs etc. We have children from his first marriage and they monopolise much of the space. :lol:

We had planned to move when the pandemic hit and while we were cleared for travel. Neither of us wanted to abandon the elderly residents here.

Excluding a fire I think CDs would survive. My real concern is the monopoly certain companies have on the internet and music streaming services. They've already shown themselves to be censorious. Even Wikipedia is altering articles to fit the current political milieu. I genuinely don't feel classical music is safe in their hands.


----------



## Guest002

Ad Astra said:


> We live in a small cottage that belonged to my fiancé's Grandmother. She passed away and he moved here to take care of her in the last days of her life. When I said we run out of space I mean physical room to store our books, CDs etc. We have children from his first marriage and they monopolise much of the space. :lol:


I'm afraid it was your juxtaposition of being afraid of deleting a composer's entire life's work with running out of space that made me assume you were talking in both cases about digital files on a hard disk.

I get what you're saying now.

Though I think small cottages are an excellent reason to *ditch* physical CDs., however.


----------



## golfer72

Ad Astra said:


> We live in a small cottage that belonged to my fiancé's Grandmother. She passed away and he moved here to take care of her in the last days of her life. When I said we run out of space I mean physical room to store our books, CDs etc. We have children from his first marriage and they monopolise much of the space. :lol:
> 
> We had planned to move when the pandemic hit and while we were cleared for travel. Neither of us wanted to abandon the elderly residents here.
> 
> Excluding a fire I think CDs would survive. My real concern is the monopoly certain companies have on the internet and music streaming services. They've already shown themselves to be censorious. Even Wikipedia is altering articles to fit the current political milieu. I genuinely don't feel classical music is safe in their hands.


Well said. Ill keep my physical CD's thank you very much


----------



## Ad Astra

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I'm afraid it was your juxtaposition of being afraid of deleting a composer's entire life's work with running out of space that made me assume you were talking in both cases about digital files on a hard disk.
> 
> I get what you're saying now.
> 
> Though I think small cottages are an excellent reason to *ditch* physical CDs., however.


Apologies I am lazy and English is not my first language combined I'm surprised people understand me at all.


----------



## Nawdry

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Regarding (2): they're video, so the audio format is somewhat irrelevant.


Thanks for responding. What I'm wondering about is basically the audio quality of YouTube videos compared to, say, MP3, WAV, CDDA, or FLAC ...

When I was learning in prep for digitizing my LPs, I recorded several pop-music YouTube songs into WAVs. The results sounded darn good. If a classical YouTube recording sounds sounds good on my PC, might I expect to be able to stream it into my audio recording project and subsequently into a WAV etc. with equally pleasant results?


----------



## Guest002

Nawdry said:


> Thanks for responding. What I'm wondering about is basically the audio quality of YouTube videos compared to, say, MP3, WAV, CDDA, or FLAC ...


Good question. The short answer is: it won't be good!

There is a page listing the audio bitrates used in videos.

Looking under the 'Legacy Video' paragraph, even a full HD 1080p video would have a 192Kbps MP3 audio component.

The paragraph or two above that has the author uploading a 2160p video... and measuring the audio at 126-and-a-bit Kbps.

So, poor quality MP3, basically.



Nawdry said:


> When I was learning in prep for digitizing my LPs, I recorded several pop-music YouTube songs into WAVs. The results sounded darn good. If a classical YouTube recording sounds sounds good on my PC, might I expect to be able to stream it into my audio recording project and subsequently into a WAV etc. with equally pleasant results?


Perhaps oddly, given my previous answer: yes. There are a lot of very nice Youtube classical music videos around these days, and they sound fine to my ears. Even if they are, fundamentally, not very good MP3s, I have not-very-young ears, and given a choice between hearing _something_, even if not optimal and ideal quality, versus hearing _nothing_, I'd take the "something" option every day.

You have nothing to lose by doing what you describe, basically. One day, you may invest in newer, better kit and source material and be cursing yourself for having put up with Youtube for so long, but if it's Youtube or nothing, take the Youtube!

(True story: I had one of those all-in-one el-cheapo hifi systems in the late 1980s, though it wasn't especially cheap. I used it for listening to classical music for many years. I was finally able to upgrade to a proper 'separate' amp and a set of Bose speakers. And the first time I played anything on it, I blubbed my eyes out for a good hour. It was light and dark, chalk and cheese -I couldn't believe I'd put up with such rubbish music reproduction for so long. But it's all I could afford, and my ears were none the wiser... until they were. My point is, we listen to what we can listen to at the time, and with the resources, we have at our disposal. That changes over the years (hopefully for the better). But don't hold off listening now because you think it might not be the best quality etc. Listen and enjoy, now, not later. Later, you can work other listening solutions out as time, experience and budget allows.)

*Incidentally, and to add*: you understand of course that if you take a 128Kbps MP3 audio signal and record it as a WAV or a FLAC, the file size will grow substantially, but you won't be adding extra quality to the audio signal, right? You can't add back what has already been lost, and saving a piece of music as a FLAC or a WAV doesn't make it re-acquire the bits of the music signal that were tossed away when Youtube got their mitts on the original video. So, don't expect miracles, but there's no harm at all in saving Youtube audio. (It's technically a breach of the Youtube terms and conditions, but since no-one but you will know, no harm no foul, right?!)

*Also to add*: there are websites which allow you to extract and save the audio component of a Youtube video automatically, no home-recording needed. Just type in the Youtube URL, then choose an audio quality (or even a video quality if you actually want to save the video, too). Again, a breach of Youtube's terms and conditions, I think, but I doubt it's more illegal than users uploading copyrighted material to Youtube in the first place!


----------



## GrosseFugue

Hey, you know you're in good company as a CD-lover if NY Times Classical Music critic, Anthony Tommasini, is in your camp!  This article dates from just a few months ago (Dec. '20): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/arts/music/classical-music-recordings-cds.html

To quote a relevant passage: *"...the act of going to a shelf, pulling out a recording of the piece I want to hear and sitting down to listen focuses my attention and enriches the experience."*

He has over 4,000 CDs! The pics of his collection lining a wall in custom shelves is pretty cool. So is the one showing off his LPs. He looks to have nice speakers too. :clap:


----------



## Dan Ante

Thank goodness I am not alone, I have only about 2500 CDs but she is right you can listen to what you want when you want.


----------



## erki

I buy CDs more than ever. In last three months about 200. I can get them for pennies. Wonderful times! I like that many listeners navigate to non-physical media and get rid of their CD collections. Great!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Another advantage of CDs is that you can't hide a rip in the wallpaper with a smartphone or laptop.


----------



## skroderider

CDs are not easily available in my part of the world, but I still buy them from Amazon and brilliantclassics.com. I use both Primephonic and Spotify but a CD forces me to sit and listen to the whole thing (provided I keep my CD player remote out of reach). Growing up with cassettes and vinyl, I don't think I can ditch physical media ever. Streaming gives me convenience and an easy means to explore though.


----------



## Kreisler jr

GrosseFugue said:


> Hey, you know you're in good company as a CD-lover if NY Times Classical Music critic, Anthony Tommasini, is in your camp!  This article dates from just a few months ago (Dec. '20): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/arts/music/classical-music-recordings-cds.html
> 
> To quote a relevant passage: *"...the act of going to a shelf, pulling out a recording of the piece I want to hear and sitting down to listen focuses my attention and enriches the experience."*
> 
> He has over *4,000* CDs! The pics of his collection lining a wall in custom shelves is pretty cool. So is the one showing off his LPs. He looks to have nice speakers too. :clap:


Is there a zero missing? I have considerably more than 4000 CDs (about 5k, I estimate) and I am a total layman who never made a penny writing about music, not even received review copies...


----------



## Parley

Kreisler jr said:


> Is there a zero missing? I have considerably more than 4000 CDs (about 5k, I estimate) and I am a total layman who never made a penny writing about music, not even received review copies...


Same here! Thousands of them! I do receive books for review though, much to my wife's chagrin!


----------



## Kreisler jr

I have the impression that Hurwitz is closer to 40,000 than 4000, though. And I have frequently seen pictures of whole walls of CDs and/or LPs of collectors, critics or DJs, I'd usually have estimated >10,000 at the very least. 
The collections I have seen personally were sometimes big (about like mine), but I am not sure if I ever saw a huge one in real life. I know a person who has so many books that despite one study and two walls of a living room and probably a guest or kid's bedroom filled with sometimes doubly stacked books, they also have a small shelf in the guest bathroom, so you can grab a Latin classic if you need some distraction...


----------



## Parley

Kreisler jr said:


> I have the impression that Hurwitz is closer to 40,000 than 4000, though. And I have frequently seen pictures of whole walls of CDs and/or LPs of collectors, critics or DJs, I'd usually have estimated >10,000 at the very least.
> The collections I have seen personally were sometimes big (about like mine), but I am not sure if I ever saw a huge one in real life. I know a person who has so many books that despite one study and two walls of a living room and probably a guest or kid's bedroom filled with sometimes doubly stacked books, they also have a small shelf in the guest bathroom, so you can grab a Latin classic if you need some distraction...


Books are like an old friend - difficult to part with.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Yes, but this guy acquires them much faster than he can befriend them. When I asked about that shelf in the bathroom, he said that he got one car trunk's worth of the private library of a university librarian for a pittance and could not resist and apparently it was fastest to put up that shelf on the bathroom (no kidding, this is a tiny room with a toilet and a wash basin, not a full bathroom, but a lot of space because of the high ceiling).

Back to topic. My "career" as a listener is far too tightly entwined with CDs that I could get rid of them. I am old enough to have lived with CDs and cassette tapes but only for a fairly short period of time as I was hardly interested in any music before I got into classical music at about 15. I love LPs but don't really have a longer history with them because back then; I never bought CDs and only very few pre-recorded cassette tapes myself before switching to CD in fall 1988. The arrival of the CD was simply great. Everybody loved them, despite both the discs and the players being comparably expensive even ~5 years after their introduction. As I mentioned in another thread, the "techno-optimism" of the late 1980s and 1990s is in my recollection clearly tied to CDs and personal computers. But more personally, my discovery and enjoyment of classical music is tied with CDs, despite having listened to other media for a couple of years before and also parallel with CDs. I will never get rid of my CDs (although I try to contain the size of the collection and cull several dozen disc a year) or mostly listen in another way.


----------



## Subutai

Hate is a strong word, but I seriously dislike mp3. I collect CDs growing up on vinyl, only because it gives one the opportunity to listen to a complete work. I'm tech savvy and have a bunch of stuff on mp3 on my mobile. But for the life of me I cannot sit and listen to any track just because 'digital' allows me the opportunity to just keep flicking. And flicking. And flicking.


----------



## progmatist

Subutai said:


> Hate is a strong word, but I seriously dislike mp3. I collect CDs growing up on vinyl, only because it gives one the opportunity to listen to a complete work. I'm tech savvy and have a bunch of stuff on mp3 on my mobile. But for the life of me I cannot sit and listen to any track just because 'digital' allows me the opportunity to just keep flicking. And flicking. And flicking.


I have my CDs ripped in FLAC. I take that, along with all my Hi-Res downloads, and vinyl recorded in Hi-Res on the road. I also don't get the jumping around from song to song. In fact, I don't even bother dividing my vinyl rips in separate tracks. I leave them as such and such album side 1, and side 2. On the go, I simply let the music play through, one complete album after another.


----------



## LAS

And then there's trying to give music as presents. I'm supposed to rely on my 8 year old grandson or his parents to download a favorite piece and remember he's got it to listen to it??? It's a real problem for me.


----------



## Merl

LAS said:


> And then there's trying to give music as presents. I'm supposed to rely on my 8 year old grandson or his parents to download a favorite piece and remember he's got it to listen to it??? It's a real problem for me.


Amazon / digital music voucher sorts this.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I used to promote physical media, but I've gone digital for all my art viewings (movies, music and books). It's healthier for my constantly changing mind on music, but I think I've calming down, finally!


----------



## Neo Romanza

I love CDs. I’ve ripped a good portion of my classical collection to my computer using a high bitrate and I manage the recordings via the Music app on Apple, but I honestly don’t think I’ll ever stop buying CDs as long as I continue to find repertoire that I enjoy. I could never get into the whole streaming thing, though, and this is in large part because my collection is quite extensive now that I just couldn’t imagine paying for a streaming service when I own so many recordings already.


----------



## Radames

They are so cheap now in shops. Just before the world ended I got the Barenboim Bruckner 5th FREE. It's an amazing recording. So many $1 deals now too. But I can't keep track anymore. I have well over 10,000 and they are in boxes unorganized. It's a real project.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Radames said:


> They are so cheap now in shops. Just before the world ended I got the Barenboim Bruckner 5th FREE. It's an amazing recording. So many $1 deals now too. But I can't keep track anymore. I have well over 10,000 and they are in boxes unorganized. It's a real project.


Mine aren't organized either.  I can only imagine what kind of time it's going to take to organize them all, especially since I have close to the same amount as you or perhaps less (I'm thinking more like 8,000 or so --- this is just a guess).


----------



## Art Rock

I've been doing that with my classical CD's (also in the 10000 range), playing them at the same time, cataloging them and putting them alphabetically (per composer) in storage cabinets. I started 4 years ago with the A. Doing the S now.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Art Rock said:


> I've been doing that with my classical CD's (also in the 10000 range), playing them at the same time, cataloging them and putting them alphabetically (per composer) in storage cabinets. I started 4 years ago with the A. Doing the S now.


Four years? That's daunting.


----------



## Open Book

Art Rock said:


> I've been doing that with my classical CD's (also in the 10000 range), playing them at the same time, cataloging them and putting them alphabetically (per composer) in storage cabinets. I started 4 years ago with the A. Doing the S now.


What to do with the ones that have music by multiple composers? Stick an index card into the proper slot for each composer and have it point to the CD's location maybe.


----------



## Dan Ante

Open Book said:


> What to do with the ones that have music by multiple composers? Stick an index card into the proper slot for each composer and have it point to the CD's location maybe.


Just file alphabetically under artists surname.


----------



## GrosseFugue

Subutai said:


> Hate is a strong word, but I seriously dislike mp3. I collect CDs growing up on vinyl, only because it gives one the opportunity to listen to a complete work. I'm tech savvy and have a bunch of stuff on mp3 on my mobile. But for the life of me I cannot sit and listen to any track just because 'digital' allows me the opportunity to just keep flicking. And flicking. And flicking.


You hit it on the nail! It's that "flicking" that's maddening.

I'd also say it's the same for movies. I seldom can stream a movie from start to end without being sidelined by something else on my computer/internet. The whole digital landscape is designed to be one big clickbait.

That's why having a strict division between one's audio (or home theater) equipment vs. computer is good.


----------



## Art Rock

Open Book said:


> What to do with the ones that have music by multiple composers? Stick an index card into the proper slot for each composer and have it point to the CD's location maybe.


I stick them where I prefer them if it's two composers. In my on-line catalog I have references for cases like this. CD's with more than two composers go in a separate file, split over orchestral, chamber, instrumental, vocal, and miscellaneous.

Example:



> *Albeniz, Isaac*
> 
> 
> Piano concerto, Iberia suite, Catalonia suite, Navarra (Various, Regis)
> Piano concerto, Rapsodia Espanola [with Granados, PC] (BBCSSO, Brabbins, Hyperion)
> Iberia-orchestration Breiner (MSO, Golovschin, Naxos)
> Iberia-orchestration Arbos [with Falla - Three cornered hat] (Philharmonia, Tortelier, Chandos)
> 
> Archived under other composers:
> 
> Rapsodia Espanola [see Falla, Nights in the gardens of Spain]
> Suite Espanola etc [see Granados, Valses poeticos etc]
> Azulejos {reworked Granados} [see Granados, Piano quintets etc]
> 
> Archived under compilation CD's:
> 
> Recuerdos 6, Torre Bermeja etc [see Instrumental, Various, Spanish guitar music by Yepes]
> Asturias, Tango, Cordoba, Sevilla [see Instrumental, Various, Spanish guitar music by Williams]
> Asturias, Sevilla, Mallorca, Malaguena [see Instrumental, Various, Guitare festival]
> Granada [see Instrumental, Various, Cavatina]
> Mallorca, Tango Espagnol, Zaragoza etc [see Instrumental, Various, Arpa Española]


----------



## Neo Romanza

Open Book said:


> What to do with the ones that have music by multiple composers? Stick an index card into the proper slot for each composer and have it point to the CD's location maybe.


In this particular situation, one might file one of these multi-composer recordings under the composer in which you bought the recording in the first-place. Like for example, if you bought a recording of Stravinsky's _Le sacre du printemps_ that was coupled with Strauss' _Schlagobers Suite_, but you had bought this recording for the Stravinsky, file it under this composer's name. Sometimes remembering _why_ you bought a recording in the first-place is even more difficult, especially when you have as many as I do!


----------

