Favorite music archiving format?

[darksidZz]

What is it, explain why. Do you prefer CD's or stuff bought digitally online?

[Buddha12]

I don't find the need myself for I just use Youtube to listen to just about anything I enjoy today. True, not everything is there but its enough for me to be contented with.

[darksidZz]

I don't find the need myself for I just use Youtube to listen to just about anything I enjoy today. True, not everything is there but its enough for me to be contented with.

Would you consider using something like Rhapsody which lets you listen to unlimited songs for a monthly fee? They'd be better quality than YouTube etc.

[Buddha12]

Would you consider using something like Rhapsody which lets you listen to unlimited songs for a monthly fee? They'd be better quality than YouTube etc.

I find that the quality of Youtube is quite good today as compaired with a year ago. They now have a much improved format and videos than ever before.

[darksidZz]

I find that the quality of Youtube is quite good today as compaired with a year ago. They now have a much improved format and videos than ever before.

Understood :D

[spidergoat]

Bought? Funny.

I store all my music digitally. I do have a CD and tape collection, but I haven't looked at them for years.

[Repo Man]

I buy CDs on Amazon when I want something. I rip them to .wav files on my computer, burn a copy for my truck (it only has a CD player), then put them away. When I have a CD, I can rip it to .wav files for no loss at all, or if I have any reason to, I can rip it to whatever quality MP3 I desire. I don't have, or particularly want, a portable music player such as an Ipod. I don't want to listen to music when hiking or cycling.

[firdroirich]

Spotify is enough for me nowadays. I really like FLAC for ripping vinyl or CD to store on a media server, but on the go, then spotify will do.

[leopold]

I store all my music digitally. I do have a CD and tape collection, but I haven't looked at them for years.
music on CDs are digitally encoded, tapes and vinyl use an analog format.

[Believe]

What is it, explain why. Do you prefer CD's or stuff bought digitally online?

Digitally, no more paying $15.99 for an album with one good song on it. I can just buy the song for $1.99 :D

[Xotica]

I have a rather large collection. LPs, 45s, 8 tracks, cassette tapes, and CDs. I also have thousands of songs d/l to my iPod and a 2 TB hard-drive music library. You can't beat digital for transfer capability and portability. Artistically speaking however, I prefer the vinyl/tube format. The sound is much warmer and more full-bodied.

[Believe]

I have a rather large collection. LPs, 45s, 8 tracks, cassette tapes, and CDs. I also have thousands of songs d/l to my iPod and a 2 TB hard-drive music library. You can't beat digital for transfer capability and portability. Artistically speaking however, I prefer the vinyl/tube format. The sound is much warmer and more full-bodied.

Get a nice sound card for your computer and that will cease to be an issue. I have an Asus Xonar STX card with a pair of beyerdynamic DT 880's (neutral sound) and the sound is amazing. Also, lossless digital formats are definetely the way the go. I've listened to pink floyds money on a pair of martin logan purity speakers with only an Ipod plugged into them and won't believe the extra stuff you can hear! (the persons fingers coming off the guitar strings for instance)

[Sarkus]

Surely "lossless" digital formats are only lossless with regard the original digital format it is supposedly taken from - digital recordings always have an element of loss with respect to a recording that was originally analogue.

Obviously if you're listening to a vinyl / analogue recording taken from a digital source then there should be little difference.

But the standard 192 kb/s mp3, and even the iTunes+ of 256 kb/s, I find to be noticeably different from a true analogue source.

And obviously the quality of the system you're playing it through makes a difference - the cheaper the system the lower the quality of source you can get away with.

I don't d/l music, though... I still like the physicality of a CD, and prefer the CD over vinyl for purchasing, purely due to durability, although if money was no object I'd go for vinyl.

And while it is true you can just d/l the tracks you like rather than have to buy an entire album, many of my favourite tracks are ones I "find" on albums that I would never have otherwise heard.

My ultimate set up, however, would be vinyl and tubes.
When buying my last setup, some few years ago admittedly, the shop treated me to compare my system to their top-spec system... which was vinyl and tubes. They first played an album on my system... CD and fairly standard amp... and then the same album on their system. And I was almost in tears.

But for portable music I tend to use 192 kbps mp3 - it has adequate quality for the size of file and the quality of system I'm listening through (generally headphones). Works out around 100Mb per album

[Believe]

Surely "lossless" digital formats are only lossless with regard the original digital format it is supposedly taken from - digital recordings always have an element of loss with respect to a recording that was originally analogue.

Obviously if you're listening to a vinyl / analogue recording taken from a digital source then there should be little difference.

But the standard 192 kb/s mp3, and even the iTunes+ of 256 kb/s, I find to be noticeably different from a true analogue source.

And obviously the quality of the system you're playing it through makes a difference - the cheaper the system the lower the quality of source you can get away with.

I don't d/l music, though... I still like the physicality of a CD, and prefer the CD over vinyl for purchasing, purely due to durability, although if money was no object I'd go for vinyl.

And while it is true you can just d/l the tracks you like rather than have to buy an entire album, many of my favourite tracks are ones I "find" on albums that I would never have otherwise heard.

My ultimate set up, however, would be vinyl and tubes.
When buying my last setup, some few years ago admittedly, the shop treated me to compare my system to their top-spec system... which was vinyl and tubes. They first played an album on my system... CD and fairly standard amp... and then the same album on their system. And I was almost in tears.

But for portable music I tend to use 192 kbps mp3 - it has adequate quality for the size of file and the quality of system I'm listening through (generally headphones). Works out around 100Mb per album

I'm not sure where this vinyl > digital thing comes from. Every vinyl I've heard sounded noisy with static, crackling, and popping. How is that better then a nice clean digital recording??

[Sarkus]

Sure, vinyl is far more susceptible to wear and tear and degradation than CDs/digital recordings for sure, which is why I buy CDs.

But if you've only ever seen clapped-out Ferraris then I'm sure you'd think Ferraris to be worse cars than a brand new Prius. ;)

[quadraphonics]

Get I have an Asus Xonar STX card with a pair of beyerdynamic DT 880's (neutral sound) and the sound is amazing.

The DT 880's are a nice set of closed cans and all, but unless you require closed cans for some reason (listening in a noisy environment, need to avoid disturbing others) you should consider picking up some open headphones (Sennheiser HD600 is the standard here). The level of transparency and detail - not to mention the superior comfort for long usage - is impressive.

[quadraphonics]

Surely "lossless" digital formats are only lossless with regard the original digital format it is supposedly taken from - digital recordings always have an element of loss with respect to a recording that was originally analogue.

Theoretically you are correct, but there's no reason that said element of loss can't be far below the level of noise in the analog source, or even below the level that human hearing can detect.

And then let's note that almost all modern music is mixed and mastered in the digital domain in the first place, so there's no "original analogue" recording to speak of. This goes double for electronic music that is digital from start to finish.


But the standard 192 kb/s mp3, and even the iTunes+ of 256 kb/s, I find to be noticeably different from a true analogue source.

Got any blind tests which substantiate that assertion?


And while it is true you can just d/l the tracks you like rather than have to buy an entire album, many of my favourite tracks are ones I "find" on albums that I would never have otherwise heard.

Yeah, downloaded music is killing the album and, with it, the "deep cut."

But then, 95% of artists never produced any good deep cuts in the first place.


But for portable music I tend to use 192 kbps mp3 - it has adequate quality for the size of file and the quality of system I'm listening through (generally headphones). Works out around 100Mb per album

You should switch to AAC. 192kbps AAC is close enough to transparent quality that you'll never need any better.

[Believe]

The DT 880's are a nice set of closed cans and all, but unless you require closed cans for some reason (listening in a noisy environment, need to avoid disturbing others) you should consider picking up some open headphones (Sennheiser HD600 is the standard here). The level of transparency and detail - not to mention the superior comfort for long usage - is impressive.

They are semi-open actually. Also, comfort would debatable, I have used these all day long listening to music and doing homework (16 hours) and they were perfectly comfortable, I'm wearing them on a 6 hour stretch right now. The design is rather comfy.

[quadraphonics]

They are semi-open actually.

Ah, you're right - I had mixed them up with the 770's.

I'm told that the 880 is actually an open headphone that is mis-marketted as "semi-open." Compare it to a classic semi-open headphone like the DT 835 or various AKG models, for example. Guess it comes down to exactly how you define "semi-open." Personally I no longer have any interest in semi-open designs - if I need closed I'll get closed (again, Sennheiser, although the DT770 is decent as well), otherwise I want fully open. A few months on the HD600s made a believer out of me.



Also, comfort would debatable, I have used these all day long listening to music and doing homework (16 hours) and they were perfectly comfortable, I'm wearing them on a 6 hour stretch right now. The design is rather comfy.

Yeah, the 880 is pretty good, but I still prefer the Sennheiser HD600 - it's lighter and has a larger, more ergonomic ear cup. I also dislike the light grey Beyerdynamic ear cup covers, since they end up looking all dirty and gross after a year of use or so. Not that they're actually any dirtier than a headphone with black covers would be, but it just looks bad. Similar story with the cheapo liner they put inside the earcups - that always seems to end up all torn and nasty after a year or two.

I've also had a lot of issues with Beyerdynamic headphones kind of falling apart over the years - seems like they put all of their engineering into the transducers/cups and then scrimp on the rest to save money and weight. I had a pair of 770s where pieces were falling off right out of the box, simply because they weren't glued on properly. Sennheiser seems to put more thought into these other aspects - I especially like that the cables on their sets can be easily removed and replaced (at least, with newer models).

[Repo Man]

I've never been able to shake my suspicion that those who prefer vinyl actually prefer the way the music has been mixed by the engineers so that it will work with vinyl.

Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, Or Not (NPR's Talk of the Nation). (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/10/146697658/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not)


METCALFE: Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that I'm primarily a recording engineer, as far as working with music. And it's - the closer thing to what I'm sending into the recorder is very much what I'm getting back out. With analog formats, although the sound can be very pleasing in certain styles, it's definitely imparting its own sound on it. And I think, to an extent, it's that sound that some people are really drawn to. But it's nice as an engineer to have the confidence of knowing that what I'm putting into - in most cases these days, the computer - is pretty close to what I'm going to get out.

[Believe]

Ah, you're right - I had mixed them up with the 770's.

I'm told that the 880 is actually an open headphone that is mis-marketted as "semi-open." Compare it to a classic semi-open headphone like the DT 835 or various AKG models, for example. Guess it comes down to exactly how you define "semi-open." Personally I no longer have any interest in semi-open designs - if I need closed I'll get closed (again, Sennheiser, although the DT770 is decent as well), otherwise I want fully open. A few months on the HD600s made a believer out of me.



Yeah, the 880 is pretty good, but I still prefer the Sennheiser HD600 - it's lighter and has a larger, more ergonomic ear cup. I also dislike the light grey Beyerdynamic ear cup covers, since they end up looking all dirty and gross after a year of use or so. Not that they're actually any dirtier than a headphone with black covers would be, but it just looks bad. Similar story with the cheapo liner they put inside the earcups - that always seems to end up all torn and nasty after a year or two.

I've also had a lot of issues with Beyerdynamic headphones kind of falling apart over the years - seems like they put all of their engineering into the transducers/cups and then scrimp on the rest to save money and weight. I had a pair of 770s where pieces were falling off right out of the box, simply because they weren't glued on properly. Sennheiser seems to put more thought into these other aspects - I especially like that the cables on their sets can be easily removed and replaced (at least, with newer models).

I'm suprised at your build quality issues, the online reviews don't give any inkiling of such things. Also, I have had a pair of their cheepo units (the $50 model) for years and the build quality was better then anything I had have before, even over headphones that were 2x as much (sony).

[quadraphonics]

I've never been able to shake my suspicion that those who prefer vinyl actually prefer the way the music has been mixed by the engineers so that it will work with vinyl.

Probably, but then lots of the techniques used for that are sensible things to do in general (mixing low bass down to mono, thinking carefully about dynamic range, etc.) and lots of them have since been adopted for general mastering on CDs and the like. One reason that early CDs are said to have sounded worse than vinyl is that mixing and mastering engineers at the time had decades of experience with vinyl and so produced consistent, high quality results, but most CDs were quicky re-masters of old master tapes. So they didn't have much thought put into them, nor did the engineers really have much grasp of what should and shouldn't be done for the medium. This is what led to the later surge in "remastered" rereleases of CDs.

[quadraphonics]

I'm suprised at your build quality issues, the online reviews don't give any inkiling of such things.

Well, to be fair we had ordered a lot of units, and then subjected them to heavy usage (many different listeners, none of whom took particularly good care of the phones) over many years. It kinda varies by the particular model - the DT835's had a rather flimsy plastic notch connecting the earcups to the headpiece, and a bit of damage there would ruin a unit. But, this is to be expected given the lightweight construction (which is good for comfort) and price point (which is very reasonable for the audio quality).

The DT770s were much more robust in this regard (metal pieces with bolts and everything), but I had cosmetic parts falling off of them literally right out of the box. And they had annoying resonances and were uncomfortable to wear for too long at a stretch.



Also, I have had a pair of their cheepo units (the $50 model) for years and the build quality was better then anything I had have before, even over headphones that were 2x as much (sony).

To be honest I find Sony headphones to generally be pretty crap in the build-quality department. Depends on the exact model, of course, but I'm not much of a fan. I buy their in-ear phones despite the flimsy build quality on them because they sound good, are priced right, and anything sturdier on an in-ear headphone is too heavy to be comfortable anyway.

I also have some complaints about AKG build quality, but they do take a beating before finally falling apart, and tend to work just great even after they're visibly disintegrating.

The Sennheisers, on the other hand, have a flawless build quality record in my experience and have sensible design touches that make it easy to replace broken components if required (which, again, it never has been in my experience). Having spent lots of quality time with many models from the top manufacturers, I've eventually become a true believer in Sennheiser.

[Gustav]

if one has a decent dac that does 24bit/96khz, treat yourself to releases from some audiophile labels like linn and chesky