Ever behind the the times, I finally have a good mp3 player.
The dilemma now: there are some new albums I'm eager to acquire, but CDs cost more than $20 (plus shipping), whereas a download is less than half that price.
So my question: download two albums, or buy one CD?
Download. Then if you want to later you can burn the CD and have both the CD and the download for much less than the cost of a CD with fancy packaging.
I would always choose to buy the cds myself. Aside from the better sound quality (which I negate by burning the cd to my iPod anyway) I like having the "fancy packaging". Sometimes a lot of effort has gone into producing that.
Some of the best recordings I have are old, scratchy things, either dumped from old 78 recordings, or recorded on tape recorders at sessions. For me, with Trad music, it's not the quality of the recording that matters, it's the quality of the music. I used to be an audiophile, and very up-tight about the components in my stereo systems. And now, I couldn't care less. I get so used to listening to music in noisy pub environments, that even the standard 128K mp3 files are more than adequate. And, depending on where you're buying from, they might be encoded at a higher bit rate anyway. I say go for the downloads...
I agree with Reverend totally. I don't need audiophile quality to learn a tune or to enjoy the music. I often find modern recording techniques so stiff and lifeless that they can bleed the flavor out of the tunes. Like an air-brushed centerfold. Real life has warts.
I started listening to Irish music with the old Avoca recording of Sean Ryan/PJ Maloney and the record of PJ Hayes, Paddy Canny, Bridie Lafferty and Peadar O'Loughlin. Aside from the distracting reverb on the Sean Ryan album, these are two of my favorite albums. Warts and all....
Of course. In fact I think if you load a CD into iTunes it'll import as an mp4, unless you set the default to mp3 in the preferences.
I'm a CD person myself, although I was late to the fold. There's no information with a down load and even if you burn your own disk you'll have to buy your own case.
For me downloads devalue music, no physical object = throwaway IMO.
Hey, don't forget about the quality of your headphones/speakers. I had a great pair of studio headphones that i listened to my iPod with. Everything sounded great, and as clear as crystal(except for the completely terrible recordings i found). Now with these new cheap headphones, even my good recordings sound like crap.
I download as much as possible, as (a) I usually listen to music on my laptop or on the iPod anyway, (b) CDs get lost and damaged, at least when in my custody, (c) downloads are so much cheaper. The MP3 audio-file was the best invention, ever, for the organizationally-challenged.
I'm less concerned with sound quality that with what I might call 'permanence of possession.' My music collection is one of my most cherished possessions, after my instruments. I have some CDs in good condition that are pushing 20 years old. But will I still have a download in 20 years?
Then again, will there be anything on which to play my CDs in 20 years? Maybe this all just points out that mechanical reproduction of music is unnatural. Good thing there's a live session in the offing...
More than likely, if you're reasonably careful about backing up your data. There are very few disasters that will destroy all of your data and your backups that won't also wipe out any CDs stored at the same location.
(electromagnetic pulse is one, but the accompanying shock wave and firestorm might cause some damage to the physical media).
mp3 might well be replaced as a format in the next two decades, but at this point you'll be able to convert on the fly to whatever format replaces it, so you should be in good shape.
The question is, will you be more likely to discard a CD or a data file in that period? Since a terabyte drive is about $100 these days, and 100 CDs in jewel boxes still occupy about a cubic foot, I think it's likely that you'll prune your CDs multiple times between now and 2031, but you'll still have all of your data files.
Not to say you shouldn't buy CDs, of course, but the permanence argument stale dated about five years ago.
99+% of my non-classical music is on CD, but I did download Trian I from iTunes a while ago. The bit-rate for the downloaded mp3 was 256kbps; I reckon you'd need golden ears (and young!), 5-figures worth of playback equipment, and the right acoustic environment, to tell the difference between that bit rate and a CD. I've downloaded a fair amount of classical music from Amazon (generally stuff that would be well out of a CD price range for me or otherwise difficult to get hold of), and that is between 256-320 kbps bit rate.
To paraphrase what Reverend and others have been saying, if you're more interested in high fidelity than the music, then you can't be listening to and understanding the music as you should.
I've invested in good quality headphones, both in-the-ear and cans, in the £45-£60 range, and these are far better than speakers, unless I were prepared to move into the 3-figure range. But I'm quite happy to listen to scratchy and hissy stuff from decades ago; my brain filters out the noise after a few seconds.
If you're seriously interested in getting the best possible conversion of a CD or LP to a computer or digital player, and you're not too concerned about memory or space requirements, you might like to try the lossless (and free) cross-platform FLAC format. Typically, it converts a WAV file to a FLAC file of about 40-50% the size of the original, and with no reduction in quality. FLAC is supported by increasing numbers of digital players such as Archos (hardware) and VLC Media Player (software), and by the better audio editors such as Magix.
"To paraphrase what Reverend and others have been saying, if you're more interested in high fidelity than the music, then you can't be listening to and understanding the music as you should."
I don't agree with this. Demanding the quality achieved in the recording studio or concert is actually very respectful of the musicians. Just because a massive majority of the populace are happy to get their music cheap, and as much of it as possible on those silly things with cheap white headphones at the expense of sound quality, does not mean that the small minority of us who prefer the best available are not listening or understanding. The opposite, if anything, I'd say. I'd much rather listen to a lot less recorded music but have that music I do listen to at the best available sound quality. And I can hear the difference between MP3 and CD quality, thanks.
Steve, I agree with you about respect for the music & the musicians. There are far too many average to poor quality recordings available. Pete, fair play though; about playing in noisy pubs.
"Just because a massive majority of the populace are happy to get their music cheap, and as much of it as possible on those silly things with cheap white headphones at the expense of sound quality, does not mean that the small minority of us who prefer the best available are not listening or understanding."
Hey, I have spent hours on buses, planes and trains listening to "those silly things with cheap white headphones." Mind you, I've never owned anything more high fidelity than a CD walkman in my life, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing, but when you listen to 99.999% of your music in the car or on a form of public transport, portability over sound quality is key. And Mp3s win in every respect on that count.
Admittedly, music sounds much better on a hi-fi system. But one would have to listen to it in the house to make use of that, and I don't.
99.999% of your music in transport ???? Get to a session, dear. The white ear things may give you a buzz, but they're nothing once you've had the real experience. ;)
I honestly can't understand the need to be constantly listening to music, to shut yerself off from the vibrant world around. I like hearing life as is on a bus, and I actually feel a bit sorry for people who jog through parks (or even on Cornish cliff paths) with phones stuck in their ears. To me, there's a time and place for listening to music, which I love doing, and a time and place for listening to the sound of a bus and the people in it, or the wind, or a few dickie birds singing. There isn't much you can sensibly listen to in a car. Maybe a repeat of "Clue," or, failing that, Classic FM with their awful compression. At least you can hum along. I don't go on planes much, but last time I did I tried listening to a bit of Beethoven on my minidisc. I was asleep within minutes, and it wasn't Ludwig's fault.
I wonder if I will ever step into the digital world. All my life, music has come on discs, albeit black disks for most of it. But the little silver disks are something I can wrap my brain around (even though they are digital, they are still a round, physical thing). Paying good money for some electrons on a disk drive just doesn't make sense to me.
When I was a science teacher we would get the class bad boy to "run errands" for us, usually of the spurious variety. My favourite was to send him to the lab tech for a tray of electrons. He'd come back with an empty tray that he had been instructed at all costs not to tilt lest he spilled electrons over the side. Other requests were for a set of SH/1/T valves and a litre of diluted water.
my favourites are from construction sites- " run out to the truck and get my nail sharpener" , and "" Go ask the plumbers where they left the fallopian tubing" ... fun!
I can't help being a child of the '90s. Perhaps I should sit in the house and do nothing but sit still and listen to high quality music on a hifi system, but I should do a lot things, which include drinking less, practicing the pipes more,and not pretending that I'm doing work at 1:30am when in fact I'm dicking about on the internet. Shouldn't we all.
In the meantime, I really enjoy listening to music while I'm driving, even if it is shutting me off to the vibrant hum of a diesel engine.
My vote is for CD. As far as I'm concerned, the CD is the pinnacle of recording technology, and the MP3 is a step backward. I like dynamic range and clarity. CD > vinyl > MP3.
"The question is, will you be more likely to discard a CD or a data file in that period? Since a terabyte drive is about $100 these days, and 100 CDs in jewel boxes still occupy about a cubic foot, I think it's likely that you'll prune your CDs multiple times between now and 2031, but you'll still have all of your data files. "
I don't agree. I still have every CD I ever bought (minus those appropriated by ex girlfriends). Some of my CDs are almost 30 years old now, and still in perfect condition. I've lost lots of downloads.
Me, I'm a liner note junkie. I have never found much by way of liner note type stuff with downloads. Some liner notes have referred me to web sites with lots more info. Guess I'm stuck with my shelf of cd's; though i like the portablility of my ipod; and i like making playlists of tunes i'd like to play.
And occasionally we put on an old vinyl recording, say of Kevin Burke, and listen on the good speakers.
I'd drop all of that in a minute to hear someone really good play live some place, or sit around the edge and play with good people. Alas that isn't so easy to come by, round here.
"I don't agree. I still have every CD I ever bought (minus those appropriated by ex girlfriends). Some of my CDs are almost 30 years old now, and still in perfect condition. I've lost lots of downloads."
I think that may be rear-view thinking. Storage is so cheap and backup systems so easy to use now that there is absolutely no excuse for not having an on-site incremental backup of all of your data. Especially if you use a mac - it's built in, for the love of baal. Go to your local Big Electronics Outlet and purchase a terabyte drive, plug it in, and leave it alone. Now you pretty much have to burn your house down to lose your downloads - or anything else.
Now there are reasonable reasons to buy CDs, including the lossy compression of the MP3, if you happen to be listening in an environment where you can detect the lossage. Also included are the various sorts of physical fetishism which I subscribe to with respect to books, and so forth. But really, looking forward, the risk of loss or damage is much greater with the physical medium than with the digital. The CD is a very durable format, if you don't take it out of the case very much.
The funny thing is that one of the real problems I've always had with the CD, and one that's exacerbated with the digital players, is the horrible convenience of them. An LP side is under half an hour: a good amount of time for focused listening, and then you have to make a conscious effort to hear more: you have to flip the record over.
A CD can hold more than an hour and a quarter, and I really can't pay attention to music for that amount of time. There are records which constitute collections of great songs, but I don't hear the songs at the 45 minute point the way I hear the songs at the start of the record - they become a blur. That's made much worse of course when I can play my trad music for two weeks solid without a repeat.
You can't nosey round other people's collections of MP3's nearly as easily as you can with CD's, unless they file share with you, I suppose. A CD collection is a physical manifestation of the person, MP3's are invisible.
"It's slightly harder for your exes to appropriate your MP3s."
Ah, the wisdom of hindsight. I'm thinking back 20 years ago when I was out giging for no money while the girlfriend was back home selling my record collection.
On a slightly different angle, what are charity shops going to do without CDs and old vinyl and books too now that E-readers are taking off in a big way?
I don't expect they'll feel the effects for quite a while and there'll still be plenty of donations but browsers may be less reluctant to buy stuff.
I think of this a peculiarly American thread, because of the emphasis on gear, stuff, Equipment. Of course we have input on the gear side from other non-USA players, but Americans tend to emphasize owning Equipment over the doing: having the best even if they don't make full use of it.
When I first came to Ireland I was surprised that musicians didn't have the best instruments, never mind top-quality sound reproduction equipment. Tommy Peoples carried his cheap fiddle in a case held together with an old belt - or maybe it was rope. To this day, most of the musicians I know listen to recorded music on cheap equipment that seldom costs more than €100. It's seldom audiophile quality.
Of course we should keep in mind that Irish players of traditional music really know nothing about the music. How could they? All they have is those crappy little speakers and discount CD players. It's a wonder they can play at all!
I have fairly decent audio equipment these days but not the really expensive stuff which the "hi Fi" experts would approve.
However, in my younger days, it always seemed to be the case that those who had the most expensive stereo systems usually only had about half a dozen or so albums to play of them!
So, either they now couldn't really afford to buy records after spending all the money on equipment or they weren't really true music fans and the expensive stuff was more of a status symbol for many of them.
Also, as david points out, many actual musicians purchase very few records, Cds either let alone expensive equipment.
A few random thoughts arising out of recent posts -
I remember new trainees in our research labs being sent to the stores for: a packet of benzene rings / a long weight (wait) / a 3-inch sky-hook / a jar of elbow grease. They always fell for it.
Good quality LPs, imo, have a warmth (for want of a better word) that CDs don't quite seem to have. Good quality reel-to-reel analogue tapes where the sound has never been through a digitizing process have the same warmth (after all, tape was the master recording medium that superseded the old wax masters for decades). Now someone please tell me where I could still get a good quality reel-to-reel recorder and tapes! It is no accident that LPs are still in production for those who prefer the sound. I believe valve audio amplifiers are still available for their smoothness of response.
Bower & Wilkins' Society of Sound provide a subscription music download service in FLAC format, see http://www.bowers-wilkins.co.uk/Society_of_Sound/Society_of_Sound/Music/albums.html. There is a choice of 16- or 24-bit FLAC download, but most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The Real World Records are curated by Peter Gabriel (non-classical) and by the London Symphony Orchestra. One of Real World Records' artistes is the UK band Spiro, the violinist in which is my teacher (sorry, couldn't resist that plug!)
Nostalgia is a wonderful thing Trevor. There are still plenty of secondhand Revoxes and Teacs about if you really want one. But you only have to bounce a track three or four times, and watch the programme material disappear into the noise floor to realize how poor the recording quality really was. And 'warmth' is just a polite word for 'harmonic distortion'. If you want 'warmth' from a digital recording it's easy enough to do, but you also have the choice of an accurate recording. With tape you don't get the choice.
My lasting memory of tape is of hours and hours spent with razorblade and sticky tape, making fish-tail splices. Now all I have to do is click the mouse.
Long stands, left handed screwdrivers etc all have their uses ;~)
I'm not a HIFI aficionado nor gear freak (book freak is fair comment I do prefer the actual CD though, complete with sleeve notes. Just a little more bird in the hand to the two in the virtual bush.
A CD library is a bit like a book library - just a different medium. It tells a story of one person's journey. Having bought far too many CD's in Portree and Edinburgh last week I really need a throwout but I can't make myself do it. Another CD shelf seems a better bet I can't feel the same about computer files.
On the other hand, I've been trying to buy a Susana Seivanne CD - only place that has it is Amazon and they're out of stock. Plus it's £18 as a Spanish import - or £4.99 as a download.
which do you think is more rare: a collection of tunes available in download but not vinyl/cd, or a collection of tunes available somewhere on old vinyl/cd but not downloadable...
"Storage is so cheap and backup systems so easy to use now that there is absolutely no excuse for not having an on-site incremental backup of all of your data."
Maybe so, but my favorite backup method for music is to buy CDs and rip them. Largely because I really like having the CD to listen to when I'm not forced to listen through a portable device. The difference in sound between a CD and an MP3 is not minor, you don't have to be listening through an expensive sound system to tell the difference.
I'll admit though, I'm a bit of a collector. Ever since I was a teenager my prized possessions have been my instruments and my CD collection. I don't care much about furniture, TVs, etc., but I have a deep emotional attachment to the instruments and CDs.
And I'll admit that there's a lot of nastolgia involved as well. Going through my collection stirs memories of when I bought this or that CD, who I listened to it with, etc., and I don't really get that from an MP3 collection (though maybe I'm just too old and kids today will feel the same way about their MP3s when they're older).
Also, since CDs have been painfully expensive to me for most of my life, they have been careful purchases sometimes agonized over, which probably adds to the emotional investment.
One more thing: as digital downloads overtake CD sales, the album as a work of art is dying. As people become used to buying tracks rather than albums, it becomes less important to create a coherent and cohesive album. Really, though, these kinds of albums have always been somewhat rare, but it makes me sad because the album as an art form is dying.
Having said all of that, it really comes down to a combination of sound quality (trust me, I really hear the difference) and emotional attachment. It's both rational and irrational. Which seem appropriate when it comes to music.
"And I'll admit that there's a lot of nastolgia involved as well. Going through my collection stirs memories of when I bought this or that CD, who I listened to it with, etc., and I don't really get that from an MP3 collection "
CDs are still too new-fangled to raise any nostalgia with me.
I would suggest that only you can answer your question McSwiss. The thread has raised interesting comments but I don't think anyone can think for you.
Oh I don't know. There are a lot of what I think are self-issues which are still quite nice. I have even learned to like the cardboard wallet type rather than the jewel box.Try these for size (not all self-issues of course...)
John McSherry, Soma
Daimh, Diversions
Bellevous Rendezvous, Salamander
Fiddler's Bid, All Dressed in Yellow
Gabe McVarish, Eclection
Carol Anderson/Martin McDonald, Single Track Road Trip
Caladh Nua, Next Stop
Full Set, Notes at Liberty
Sharon Shannon, Renegade
IMHO it is worth spending good money on a quality listening system. We put a lot of money into one about ten years ago on the rationale that we spend far more time listening to music than watching TV, downing pints etc. Initially it was for the full effect of a symphony orchestra, but it does great things to trad music too. It is still as good as new and repays the cost every day.
I do trust you. So do I. And, what's more, you don't need super-hifi gear to hear it. I'm the first to admit that there are noisy places where one might choose to listen to music where it doesn't matter much, but if you're listening closely to a recording and you pick up on that MP3 degradation of sound you are never really happy ever again with what you're hearing. If it really didn't make any difference, as is claimed by many, the guys in professional recording studios would all be using cheap minidisc recorders.
My ears aren't what they once were and I can't really say I hear the difference, but we did do an AIFF v's mp3 A/B test once using track one of Paddy Glakin's "In full spate" (sporting paddy) set quite loud on the amp (not up to 11 mind) and speakers in the house.
To me, the mp3 sounded fine as did the AIFF. The difference was presence and this had a physical manifestation, so not imagined, you could actually feel it literally in the air.
We swapped channels, same thing except this time things actually fell off the shelves
So a bit like an acoustic band playing through a PA with a sub woofer out front, can't hear it per se (I can't but others reckon they can) but you can certainly feel a presence thats absent without it.
I suppose mp3s are OK, but I think people who play this music should be miserable, sardonic, questioning blighters who haven't moved far beyond the Edison cylinder. Technology will go away when we haven't got electricity any more, but we might still have fiddles and tallow candles.
When comparing CD and mp3 quality it is important to specify the mp3 bit rate and to use the same play-back system for the comparison. The difference between the ubiquitous 128kbps bit rate and CD is, to me, obvious on any play-back system. 160kbps - I can tell the difference if I concentrate a little, but it may depend on the type of music. 192kbps - the difference is just about detectable, but not on the equipment I have unless I concentrate really hard (and am I then really listening to the music itself?). 224 - 320kbps (the maximum for mp3) - I've never been able to tell the difference, no matter the type of music or its source. But I must make the proviso that I can no longer hear frequencies above 10KHz.
A FLAC recording is, where I've checked it out, usually somewhere in the range 450-800kbps, depending on the level of lossless compression chosen, and on the frequency range of the recording, and this can be seen to vary throughout the recording (esp. with classical orchestral music). Some playback systems playing FLAC will indicate the current bit rate; FLAC's own playback player, Foobar, certainly does, and also provides a live spectrogram of the audio if you want it.
To summarise, 128kbps is best for speech and radio, and is ok for pop music as background. Less than 128 is for speech and radio, unless you're desperate. 160 is ok, at a pinch, but for the best mp3 playback go for 224 or higher. The likes of Amazon and iTunes use bit rates of 256-320 for their downloads.
Yes, that's right. I can't find it now, but I remember seeing the results of a blind-test conducted by one of the hi-fi magazines. The only person who could clearly tell the difference at the higher bitrates was someone who had never been to a loud concert in their life and always listened to music at very moderate levels.
8GB of memory will hold the contents of almost 11 full CDs, which is equivalent to,
47 CDs converted to 320kbps mp3
59 CDs converted to 256kbps mp3
68 CDs converted to 224kbps mp3
79 CDs converted to 192kbps mp3
95 CDs converted to 160kbps mp3
119 CDs converted to 128kbps mp3 (you really don't want this)
24 CDs (approximately) converted to the lossless FLAC format
"Ha, I laughed at that too ... nostalgia for CDs ... tee he."
I was talking about nostalgia for the albums, not the for the CD format itself.
I would have thought that saying something like "memories of when I bought this or that CD, who I listened to it with, etc" would have made that clear, along with the fact that I've mentioned that some of those CDs are almost 30 years old, but I guess not.
" along with the fact that I've mentioned that some of those CDs are almost 30 years old, but I guess not."
Well, it's not even 30 years since the first CD came on the market, and you had to be pretty well off to afford a CD player to play your ABBA disc when it came out.
I'm not sure when the first traditional Irish music CD came out, but it would have been a while after 1882.
To fully paid up members of the old farts club, 29 years ago is like yesterday.
Nope. The first production CD came on the market in 1982. It was Abba's “The Visitors”, this was followed by Karajan's rendition of “The Alpine Symphony" by Richard Strauss.
"Paid about $200 in 1984."
1984 is not "nearly 30 years ago", and I said you had to be pretty well off to afford a CD player to play your ABBA disc when it first came out (1982- they were around 900 bucks or more then).
"Anyway, 26 year is "nearly" 30 years to me, in this context, YMMV."
It's just over 25 years - which is quite different to nearly 30 years.
"I paid $200 for a discontinued CD player on clearance in 1984. They were not $900 for a basic model in '84."
Irrelevant. You couldn't have played the first production CD on it when it first came out (which was my point). Mind you, I did know someone who bought CDs quite a while before he had a player to listen to them on.
"You couldn't have played the first production CD on it when it first came out (which was my point). "
And what point was that? Did I ever claim to have played the first production CD when it first came out?
Yes, when I initially said "about 30 years" I was going by memory, and off by a couple of years. It seemed about 30 years going by memory off the top of my head, and I was pretty close. Is that important? You seem to be implying that I'm lying by picking nits.
The point that CDs have not even been on the market for 30 years, and even when they did first come out, only the well off could afford to listen to them at home.
"Yes, when I initially said "about 30 years" I was going by memory, and off by a couple of years"
You said "almost 30 years" and from what you say later, you were out by more than a couple of years (it's 2011, remember?). I'm not trying to imply that you were lying, just that there was some justification in finding "nostalgia" amusing when related to a CD collection.
As I said earlier, to an old farts' club member, CDs are still new-fangled - and they would be even if your sums had been correct.
"You said "almost 30 years" and from what you say later, you were out by more than a couple of years (it's 2011, remember?"
It will have been 29 years since 1984 in a couple of years, right? Or does it have to be 30 years to be "almost 30 years"? Seems a pretty petty thing to carry on about.
"As I said earlier, to an old farts' club member, CDs are still new-fangled"
I'm sure that's true, especially if you didn't start buying them until the '90s. But a middle-aged man can be nostalgic about his teenage years.
"It will have been 29 years since 1984 in a couple of years, right? Or does it have to be 30 years to be "almost 30 years"? Seems a pretty petty thing to carry on about. "
It seems that you are the one trying to justify this nostalgia thing by not quite getting your timeline right. Which is quite funny in itself.
"I'm sure that's true, especially if you didn't start buying them until the '90s. But a middle-aged man can be nostalgic about his teenage years."
I bought CDs a wee bit before the 90s - but at wholesale prices. I didn't actually have any in my personal collection until the 90s indeed. The reason for that being that there were few actual recordings available that I wanted, and they were always available in other formats anyway.
I didn't stock CDs until well into the latter half of the 80s, because few could actually afford CD players (even the relatively cheap Sony D-50 was not that cheap when it came out in 1984) and there wasn't enough of a demand to justify stocking them (the high street record retailers seemed to be the only outlets who had them on the shelves - and I was selling records as a sideline). Moreover, I was quite happy to listen to LPs on an old beaten up 'Dansette' style record player - or cassettes on a portable player, as you could learn the tunes just as well using that medium.
The 'folkie' distributors didn't have very much on CD until the end of the 80s. I was quite cautious when it came to that claim that CDs were 'virtually indestructible' too. Some of the early releases had problems and there were a few returns.
The comparison with LPs was an ongoing discussion - the old farts would complain about the covers (some justification too - the fact that CD covers aren't quite square like LPs meant photographers had to compromise when they clicked their Hasselblads, and that tiny print on flimsy paper).
So, for those who still get nostalgic about LPs, nostalgia over CDs is quite amusing.
BTW, it's almost 29 years since the release of the first production CD, yet it was released in 1982. It just happened to be in the fall of 1982, and we are still in the summer of 2011(supposedly) up here in the northern hemisphere.
Now that's what I call almost!
"So, for those who still get nostalgic about LPs, nostalgia over CDs is quite amusing."
I get that, but I was originally making a distinction between physical albums versus downloads. It didn't really matter whether I was talking about CDs or vinyl. And again, I wasn't talking about nostalgia for the CD format, but for a physical thing kept for many years versus a file on a computer. Which was the point I was making before you took my mental calendar arithmetic to task.
"BTW, it's almost 29 years since the release of the first production CD, yet it was released in 1982..."
Good grief, what is your problem? That's totally irrelevant since I said I wasn't buying CDs until 1984. Why do you keep going on about the fact that I was a couple years off in mental arithmetic? Do you have an actual contribution to make to this discussion?
Anyway, I've got better things to do than play this game. I'll leave you to it.
Anyone want to know the story of why the playing time of CDs was chosen to be 74 minutes (now 80)? Probably not. Anyway, the story is that a Sony executive thought it would be a great idea to produce for the first time a single disc that could play the whole of Beethoven's 9th Symphony without being turned over. (3 LP sides would have been needed in times gone by for that symphony, raising the problem of what to put on the 4th side - and don't even think about the old 78s).
" I wasn't talking about nostalgia for the CD format, but for a physical thing kept for many years versus a file on a computer."
Steady on....CDs are still very much available - they haven't been superceded by MP3s quite yet. You used the word "nostalgia" (well, "nastolgia", actually) to describe your sentiments, but the word literally means a "painful longing to return home" (homesickness). Granted, those CDs of yours might bring on some homesickness by association, but it's still amusing to the old farts' club, in whatever context it was used.
"That's totally irrelevant since I said I wasn't buying CDs until 1984"
Which you were trying to say was "almost 30 years" ago, then you were trying to define "almost" in the context of 'if it's 29 years in a couple of years, then that's almost 30 years' I simply pointed out that time can be measured in multiples of less than years too - so 'almost' can be even more 'almost'.
"Why do you keep going on about the fact that I was a couple years off in mental arithmetic? "
I don't think I was belabouring the "couple" aspect - it was the complete package (like thinking it was 2012).
"Do you have an actual contribution to make to this discussion?" I think I have made one. The OP wanted people to make up his/ her mind for him/her. I suggested that things like that are best undertaken by yourself, otherwise, you just end up with a thread full of conflicting opinions and pedantry.
Might as well add to the pedantry too.
CD vs mp3
CD vs mp3
Ever behind the the times, I finally have a good mp3 player.
The dilemma now: there are some new albums I'm eager to acquire, but CDs cost more than $20 (plus shipping), whereas a download is less than half that price.
So my question: download two albums, or buy one CD?
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by mcswiss
Re: CD vs mp3
Download. Then if you want to later you can burn the CD and have both the CD and the download for much less than the cost of a CD with fancy packaging.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by David Levine
Free Printable Coupons
Grocery Coupons - Great give away of <a href=http://www.mclips.it/members/Coupons.aspx>Free Printable Coupons</a> . I thought you fellows could maybe use some of these <a href=http://community.usatourist.com/members/Coupons.aspx>Free Printable Coupons</a> .
Also, users could possibly like <a href=http://studentclub.ro/user/Profile.aspx?UserID=14525>Grocery Coupons</a> .
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by Coupons
Re: CD vs mp3
Except that the download stuff is way worse quality than the CD. So it depends if you can hear the difference.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by ...
Re: CD vs mp3
I would always choose to buy the cds myself. Aside from the better sound quality (which I negate by burning the cd to my iPod anyway) I like having the "fancy packaging". Sometimes a lot of effort has gone into producing that.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: CD vs mp3
do ipods support mp4?
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by ...
Re: CD vs mp3
Some of the best recordings I have are old, scratchy things, either dumped from old 78 recordings, or recorded on tape recorders at sessions. For me, with Trad music, it's not the quality of the recording that matters, it's the quality of the music. I used to be an audiophile, and very up-tight about the components in my stereo systems. And now, I couldn't care less. I get so used to listening to music in noisy pub environments, that even the standard 128K mp3 files are more than adequate. And, depending on where you're buying from, they might be encoded at a higher bit rate anyway. I say go for the downloads...
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by Reverend
Re: CD vs mp3
I agree with Reverend totally. I don't need audiophile quality to learn a tune or to enjoy the music. I often find modern recording techniques so stiff and lifeless that they can bleed the flavor out of the tunes. Like an air-brushed centerfold. Real life has warts.
I started listening to Irish music with the old Avoca recording of Sean Ryan/PJ Maloney and the record of PJ Hayes, Paddy Canny, Bridie Lafferty and Peadar O'Loughlin. Aside from the distracting reverb on the Sean Ryan album, these are two of my favorite albums. Warts and all....
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by David Levine
Re: CD vs mp3
"do ipods support mp4?" llig leahcim
Of course. In fact I think if you load a CD into iTunes it'll import as an mp4, unless you set the default to mp3 in the preferences.
I'm a CD person myself, although I was late to the fold. There's no information with a down load and even if you burn your own disk you'll have to buy your own case.
For me downloads devalue music, no physical object = throwaway IMO.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by Solidmahog
Re: CD vs mp3
Hey, don't forget about the quality of your headphones/speakers. I had a great pair of studio headphones that i listened to my iPod with. Everything sounded great, and as clear as crystal(except for the completely terrible recordings i found). Now with these new cheap headphones, even my good recordings sound like crap.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by fiddlelearner
Re: CD vs mp3
I download as much as possible, as (a) I usually listen to music on my laptop or on the iPod anyway, (b) CDs get lost and damaged, at least when in my custody, (c) downloads are so much cheaper. The MP3 audio-file was the best invention, ever, for the organizationally-challenged.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by DrSilverSpear
Re: CD vs mp3
CDs and mp3/4- Both reality, Both irrelevant- or maybe a necessary hazard of the addiction.
Sounds a re clear hollow and lifeless. But the technology demands it...
Use them for what they are worth. I have a CD collection and an mp3- like someone said, burn discs if you feel so inclined.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by zippydw
Re: CD vs mp3
"There's no information with a down load..."
Don't album downloads usually include the notes and artwork?
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by Bob himself
Re: CD vs mp3
I'm less concerned with sound quality that with what I might call 'permanence of possession.' My music collection is one of my most cherished possessions, after my instruments. I have some CDs in good condition that are pushing 20 years old. But will I still have a download in 20 years?
Then again, will there be anything on which to play my CDs in 20 years? Maybe this all just points out that mechanical reproduction of music is unnatural. Good thing there's a live session in the offing...
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by mcswiss
Re: CD vs mp3
*than with
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by mcswiss
Re: CD vs mp3
"But will I still have a download in 20 years?"
More than likely, if you're reasonably careful about backing up your data. There are very few disasters that will destroy all of your data and your backups that won't also wipe out any CDs stored at the same location.
(electromagnetic pulse is one, but the accompanying shock wave and firestorm might cause some damage to the physical media).
mp3 might well be replaced as a format in the next two decades, but at this point you'll be able to convert on the fly to whatever format replaces it, so you should be in good shape.
The question is, will you be more likely to discard a CD or a data file in that period? Since a terabyte drive is about $100 these days, and 100 CDs in jewel boxes still occupy about a cubic foot, I think it's likely that you'll prune your CDs multiple times between now and 2031, but you'll still have all of your data files.
Not to say you shouldn't buy CDs, of course, but the permanence argument stale dated about five years ago.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: CD vs mp3
99+% of my non-classical music is on CD, but I did download Trian I from iTunes a while ago. The bit-rate for the downloaded mp3 was 256kbps; I reckon you'd need golden ears (and young!), 5-figures worth of playback equipment, and the right acoustic environment, to tell the difference between that bit rate and a CD. I've downloaded a fair amount of classical music from Amazon (generally stuff that would be well out of a CD price range for me or otherwise difficult to get hold of), and that is between 256-320 kbps bit rate.
To paraphrase what Reverend and others have been saying, if you're more interested in high fidelity than the music, then you can't be listening to and understanding the music as you should.
I've invested in good quality headphones, both in-the-ear and cans, in the £45-£60 range, and these are far better than speakers, unless I were prepared to move into the 3-figure range. But I'm quite happy to listen to scratchy and hissy stuff from decades ago; my brain filters out the noise after a few seconds.
If you're seriously interested in getting the best possible conversion of a CD or LP to a computer or digital player, and you're not too concerned about memory or space requirements, you might like to try the lossless (and free) cross-platform FLAC format. Typically, it converts a WAV file to a FLAC file of about 40-50% the size of the original, and with no reduction in quality. FLAC is supported by increasing numbers of digital players such as Archos (hardware) and VLC Media Player (software), and by the better audio editors such as Magix.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
Re: CD vs mp3
take trevor's advice, he knows what he's talking about. Flac is the future.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by pavlf
Re: CD vs mp3
"To paraphrase what Reverend and others have been saying, if you're more interested in high fidelity than the music, then you can't be listening to and understanding the music as you should."
I don't agree with this. Demanding the quality achieved in the recording studio or concert is actually very respectful of the musicians. Just because a massive majority of the populace are happy to get their music cheap, and as much of it as possible on those silly things with cheap white headphones at the expense of sound quality, does not mean that the small minority of us who prefer the best available are not listening or understanding. The opposite, if anything, I'd say. I'd much rather listen to a lot less recorded music but have that music I do listen to at the best available sound quality. And I can hear the difference between MP3 and CD quality, thanks.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by Steve Shaw
Re: CD vs mp3
Steve, I agree with you about respect for the music & the musicians. There are far too many average to poor quality recordings available. Pete, fair play though; about playing in noisy pubs.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by Batgirl has left the GPL ;)
Re: CD vs mp3
"Just because a massive majority of the populace are happy to get their music cheap, and as much of it as possible on those silly things with cheap white headphones at the expense of sound quality, does not mean that the small minority of us who prefer the best available are not listening or understanding."
Hey, I have spent hours on buses, planes and trains listening to "those silly things with cheap white headphones." Mind you, I've never owned anything more high fidelity than a CD walkman in my life, so maybe I don't know what I'm missing, but when you listen to 99.999% of your music in the car or on a form of public transport, portability over sound quality is key. And Mp3s win in every respect on that count.
Admittedly, music sounds much better on a hi-fi system. But one would have to listen to it in the house to make use of that, and I don't.
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by DrSilverSpear
~ ~
99.999% of your music in transport ???? Get to a session, dear. The white ear things may give you a buzz, but they're nothing once you've had the real experience. ;)
# Posted on August 16th 2011 by Batgirl has left the GPL ;)
Re: CD vs mp3
I meant 99.999% of recorded music. Anyone who knows me can testify that I go to too many damned sessions. I don't need the patronizing.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by DrSilverSpear
Re: CD vs mp3
I honestly can't understand the need to be constantly listening to music, to shut yerself off from the vibrant world around. I like hearing life as is on a bus, and I actually feel a bit sorry for people who jog through parks (or even on Cornish cliff paths) with phones stuck in their ears. To me, there's a time and place for listening to music, which I love doing, and a time and place for listening to the sound of a bus and the people in it, or the wind, or a few dickie birds singing. There isn't much you can sensibly listen to in a car. Maybe a repeat of "Clue," or, failing that, Classic FM with their awful compression. At least you can hum along. I don't go on planes much, but last time I did I tried listening to a bit of Beethoven on my minidisc. I was asleep within minutes, and it wasn't Ludwig's fault.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by Steve Shaw
Re: CD vs mp3
"Anyone who knows me can testify that I go to too many damned sessions."
Oh dear. Sometimes you make it just too easy!
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: CD vs mp3
I wonder if I will ever step into the digital world. All my life, music has come on discs, albeit black disks for most of it. But the little silver disks are something I can wrap my brain around (even though they are digital, they are still a round, physical thing). Paying good money for some electrons on a disk drive just doesn't make sense to me.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by AlBrown
Re: CD vs mp3
When I was a science teacher we would get the class bad boy to "run errands" for us, usually of the spurious variety. My favourite was to send him to the lab tech for a tray of electrons. He'd come back with an empty tray that he had been instructed at all costs not to tilt lest he spilled electrons over the side. Other requests were for a set of SH/1/T valves and a litre of diluted water.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by Steve Shaw
Re: CD vs mp3
At sea, it was a trip to fetch the mythical relative bearing grease...
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by AlBrown
Re: CD vs mp3
my favourites are from construction sites- " run out to the truck and get my nail sharpener" , and "" Go ask the plumbers where they left the fallopian tubing" ... fun!
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by pipewatcher
Re: CD vs mp3
I can't help being a child of the '90s. Perhaps I should sit in the house and do nothing but sit still and listen to high quality music on a hifi system, but I should do a lot things, which include drinking less, practicing the pipes more,and not pretending that I'm doing work at 1:30am when in fact I'm dicking about on the internet. Shouldn't we all.
In the meantime, I really enjoy listening to music while I'm driving, even if it is shutting me off to the vibrant hum of a diesel engine.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by DrSilverSpear
Re: CD vs mp3
"A child of the 90's." Way to make me feel old, TSS!
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by AlBrown
Re: CD vs mp3
My vote is for CD. As far as I'm concerned, the CD is the pinnacle of recording technology, and the MP3 is a step backward. I like dynamic range and clarity. CD > vinyl > MP3.
"The question is, will you be more likely to discard a CD or a data file in that period? Since a terabyte drive is about $100 these days, and 100 CDs in jewel boxes still occupy about a cubic foot, I think it's likely that you'll prune your CDs multiple times between now and 2031, but you'll still have all of your data files. "
I don't agree. I still have every CD I ever bought (minus those appropriated by ex girlfriends). Some of my CDs are almost 30 years old now, and still in perfect condition. I've lost lots of downloads.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by Marklar
Re: CD vs mp3
Me, I'm a liner note junkie. I have never found much by way of liner note type stuff with downloads. Some liner notes have referred me to web sites with lots more info. Guess I'm stuck with my shelf of cd's; though i like the portablility of my ipod; and i like making playlists of tunes i'd like to play.
And occasionally we put on an old vinyl recording, say of Kevin Burke, and listen on the good speakers.
I'd drop all of that in a minute to hear someone really good play live some place, or sit around the edge and play with good people. Alas that isn't so easy to come by, round here.
There's room for all of it.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by full measure
Re: CD vs mp3
"I don't agree. I still have every CD I ever bought (minus those appropriated by ex girlfriends). Some of my CDs are almost 30 years old now, and still in perfect condition. I've lost lots of downloads."
I think that may be rear-view thinking. Storage is so cheap and backup systems so easy to use now that there is absolutely no excuse for not having an on-site incremental backup of all of your data. Especially if you use a mac - it's built in, for the love of baal. Go to your local Big Electronics Outlet and purchase a terabyte drive, plug it in, and leave it alone. Now you pretty much have to burn your house down to lose your downloads - or anything else.
Now there are reasonable reasons to buy CDs, including the lossy compression of the MP3, if you happen to be listening in an environment where you can detect the lossage. Also included are the various sorts of physical fetishism which I subscribe to with respect to books, and so forth. But really, looking forward, the risk of loss or damage is much greater with the physical medium than with the digital. The CD is a very durable format, if you don't take it out of the case very much.
The funny thing is that one of the real problems I've always had with the CD, and one that's exacerbated with the digital players, is the horrible convenience of them. An LP side is under half an hour: a good amount of time for focused listening, and then you have to make a conscious effort to hear more: you have to flip the record over.
A CD can hold more than an hour and a quarter, and I really can't pay attention to music for that amount of time. There are records which constitute collections of great songs, but I don't hear the songs at the 45 minute point the way I hear the songs at the start of the record - they become a blur. That's made much worse of course when I can play my trad music for two weeks solid without a repeat.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: CD vs mp3
If you want to collect things, get the cds. If you want to listen to music, get the mp3s.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by gam
Re: CD vs mp3
You can't nosey round other people's collections of MP3's nearly as easily as you can with CD's, unless they file share with you, I suppose. A CD collection is a physical manifestation of the person, MP3's are invisible.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by ian stock
Re: CD vs mp3
It's slightly harder for your exes to appropriate your MP3s.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by DrSilverSpear
Re: CD vs mp3
"Maybe this all just points out that mechanical reproduction of music is unnatural. Good thing there's a live session in the offing..." McSwiss
The transcience of music, filling our heads one minute and wafting away the next..
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by the wounded hussar
Re: CD vs mp3
"It's slightly harder for your exes to appropriate your MP3s."
Ah, the wisdom of hindsight. I'm thinking back 20 years ago when I was out giging for no money while the girlfriend was back home selling my record collection.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by ...
Re: CD vs mp3
The story of many a decent man, Michael!!!
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by the wounded hussar
Re: CD vs mp3
Emily, fortunately, my exes stopped happening before I had a CD collection worth stealing (and not many years after CD's became common
)
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by ian stock
Re: CD vs mp3
On a slightly different angle, what are charity shops going to do without CDs and old vinyl and books too now that E-readers are taking off in a big way?
I don't expect they'll feel the effects for quite a while and there'll still be plenty of donations but browsers may be less reluctant to buy stuff.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by Johnny Jay
Re: CD vs mp3
I think of this a peculiarly American thread, because of the emphasis on gear, stuff, Equipment. Of course we have input on the gear side from other non-USA players, but Americans tend to emphasize owning Equipment over the doing: having the best even if they don't make full use of it.
When I first came to Ireland I was surprised that musicians didn't have the best instruments, never mind top-quality sound reproduction equipment. Tommy Peoples carried his cheap fiddle in a case held together with an old belt - or maybe it was rope. To this day, most of the musicians I know listen to recorded music on cheap equipment that seldom costs more than €100. It's seldom audiophile quality.
Of course we should keep in mind that Irish players of traditional music really know nothing about the music. How could they? All they have is those crappy little speakers and discount CD players. It's a wonder they can play at all!
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by David Levine
Re: CD vs mp3
I have fairly decent audio equipment these days but not the really expensive stuff which the "hi Fi" experts would approve.
However, in my younger days, it always seemed to be the case that those who had the most expensive stereo systems usually only had about half a dozen or so albums to play of them!
So, either they now couldn't really afford to buy records after spending all the money on equipment or they weren't really true music fans and the expensive stuff was more of a status symbol for many of them.
Also, as david points out, many actual musicians purchase very few records, Cds either let alone expensive equipment.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by Johnny Jay
Re: CD vs mp3
A few random thoughts arising out of recent posts -
I remember new trainees in our research labs being sent to the stores for: a packet of benzene rings / a long weight (wait) / a 3-inch sky-hook / a jar of elbow grease. They always fell for it.
Good quality LPs, imo, have a warmth (for want of a better word) that CDs don't quite seem to have. Good quality reel-to-reel analogue tapes where the sound has never been through a digitizing process have the same warmth (after all, tape was the master recording medium that superseded the old wax masters for decades). Now someone please tell me where I could still get a good quality reel-to-reel recorder and tapes! It is no accident that LPs are still in production for those who prefer the sound. I believe valve audio amplifiers are still available for their smoothness of response.
Bower & Wilkins' Society of Sound provide a subscription music download service in FLAC format, see
http://www.bowers-wilkins.co.uk/Society_of_Sound/Society_of_Sound/Music/albums.html. There is a choice of 16- or 24-bit FLAC download, but most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The Real World Records are curated by Peter Gabriel (non-classical) and by the London Symphony Orchestra. One of Real World Records' artistes is the UK band Spiro, the violinist in which is my teacher (sorry, couldn't resist that plug!)
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
Re: CD vs mp3
Nostalgia is a wonderful thing Trevor. There are still plenty of secondhand Revoxes and Teacs about if you really want one. But you only have to bounce a track three or four times, and watch the programme material disappear into the noise floor to realize how poor the recording quality really was. And 'warmth' is just a polite word for 'harmonic distortion'. If you want 'warmth' from a digital recording it's easy enough to do, but you also have the choice of an accurate recording. With tape you don't get the choice.
My lasting memory of tape is of hours and hours spent with razorblade and sticky tape, making fish-tail splices. Now all I have to do is click the mouse.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by skreech
Re: CD vs mp3
Long stands, left handed screwdrivers etc all have their uses ;~)
I do prefer the actual CD though, complete with sleeve notes. Just a little more bird in the hand to the two in the virtual bush.
I'm not a HIFI aficionado nor gear freak (book freak is fair comment
Maybe I'm just old fashioned!
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by Solidmahog
Re: CD vs mp3
http://designrecital.blogspot.com/2007/08/abba-visitors-first-cd-turns-25.html
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by Batgirl has left the GPL ;)
Re: CD vs mp3
A CD library is a bit like a book library - just a different medium. It tells a story of one person's journey. Having bought far too many CD's in Portree and Edinburgh last week I really need a throwout but I can't make myself do it. Another CD shelf seems a better bet
I can't feel the same about computer files.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by ian stock
Re: CD vs mp3
On the other hand, I've been trying to buy a Susana Seivanne CD - only place that has it is Amazon and they're out of stock. Plus it's £18 as a Spanish import - or £4.99 as a download.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by ian stock
Re: CD vs mp3
which do you think is more rare: a collection of tunes available in download but not vinyl/cd, or a collection of tunes available somewhere on old vinyl/cd but not downloadable...
i still want liner notes.
# Posted on August 17th 2011 by full measure
Re: CD vs mp3
"Storage is so cheap and backup systems so easy to use now that there is absolutely no excuse for not having an on-site incremental backup of all of your data."
Maybe so, but my favorite backup method for music is to buy CDs and rip them. Largely because I really like having the CD to listen to when I'm not forced to listen through a portable device. The difference in sound between a CD and an MP3 is not minor, you don't have to be listening through an expensive sound system to tell the difference.
I'll admit though, I'm a bit of a collector. Ever since I was a teenager my prized possessions have been my instruments and my CD collection. I don't care much about furniture, TVs, etc., but I have a deep emotional attachment to the instruments and CDs.
And I'll admit that there's a lot of nastolgia involved as well. Going through my collection stirs memories of when I bought this or that CD, who I listened to it with, etc., and I don't really get that from an MP3 collection (though maybe I'm just too old and kids today will feel the same way about their MP3s when they're older).
Also, since CDs have been painfully expensive to me for most of my life, they have been careful purchases sometimes agonized over, which probably adds to the emotional investment.
One more thing: as digital downloads overtake CD sales, the album as a work of art is dying. As people become used to buying tracks rather than albums, it becomes less important to create a coherent and cohesive album. Really, though, these kinds of albums have always been somewhat rare, but it makes me sad because the album as an art form is dying.
Having said all of that, it really comes down to a combination of sound quality (trust me, I really hear the difference) and emotional attachment. It's both rational and irrational. Which seem appropriate when it comes to music.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by Marklar
Re: CD vs mp3
"And I'll admit that there's a lot of nastolgia involved as well. Going through my collection stirs memories of when I bought this or that CD, who I listened to it with, etc., and I don't really get that from an MP3 collection "
CDs are still too new-fangled to raise any nostalgia with me.
I would suggest that only you can answer your question McSwiss. The thread has raised interesting comments but I don't think anyone can think for you.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by Weejie
Re: CD vs mp3
Ha, I laughed at that too ... nostalgia for CDs ... tee he.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by ...
Re: CD vs mp3
"Ha, I laughed at that too ... nostalgia for CDs ... tee he." llig
I agree, but nostalgia for albums whatever the format is understandable.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by Solidmahog
Re: CD vs mp3
>>the album as a work of art is dying
Oh I don't know. There are a lot of what I think are self-issues which are still quite nice. I have even learned to like the cardboard wallet type rather than the jewel box.Try these for size (not all self-issues of course...)
John McSherry, Soma
Daimh, Diversions
Bellevous Rendezvous, Salamander
Fiddler's Bid, All Dressed in Yellow
Gabe McVarish, Eclection
Carol Anderson/Martin McDonald, Single Track Road Trip
Caladh Nua, Next Stop
Full Set, Notes at Liberty
Sharon Shannon, Renegade
IMHO it is worth spending good money on a quality listening system. We put a lot of money into one about ten years ago on the rationale that we spend far more time listening to music than watching TV, downing pints etc. Initially it was for the full effect of a symphony orchestra, but it does great things to trad music too. It is still as good as new and repays the cost every day.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by ian stock
Re: CD vs mp3
"trust me, I really hear the difference"
I do trust you. So do I. And, what's more, you don't need super-hifi gear to hear it. I'm the first to admit that there are noisy places where one might choose to listen to music where it doesn't matter much, but if you're listening closely to a recording and you pick up on that MP3 degradation of sound you are never really happy ever again with what you're hearing. If it really didn't make any difference, as is claimed by many, the guys in professional recording studios would all be using cheap minidisc recorders.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by Steve Shaw
Re: CD vs mp3
My ears aren't what they once were and I can't really say I hear the difference, but we did do an AIFF v's mp3 A/B test once using track one of Paddy Glakin's "In full spate" (sporting paddy) set quite loud on the amp (not up to 11 mind) and speakers in the house.
To me, the mp3 sounded fine as did the AIFF. The difference was presence and this had a physical manifestation, so not imagined, you could actually feel it literally in the air.
We swapped channels, same thing except this time things actually fell off the shelves
So a bit like an acoustic band playing through a PA with a sub woofer out front, can't hear it per se (I can't but others reckon they can) but you can certainly feel a presence thats absent without it.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by Solidmahog
Re: CD vs mp3
I suppose mp3s are OK, but I think people who play this music should be miserable, sardonic, questioning blighters who haven't moved far beyond the Edison cylinder. Technology will go away when we haven't got electricity any more, but we might still have fiddles and tallow candles.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by RichardB
Re: CD vs mp3
When comparing CD and mp3 quality it is important to specify the mp3 bit rate and to use the same play-back system for the comparison. The difference between the ubiquitous 128kbps bit rate and CD is, to me, obvious on any play-back system. 160kbps - I can tell the difference if I concentrate a little, but it may depend on the type of music. 192kbps - the difference is just about detectable, but not on the equipment I have unless I concentrate really hard (and am I then really listening to the music itself?). 224 - 320kbps (the maximum for mp3) - I've never been able to tell the difference, no matter the type of music or its source. But I must make the proviso that I can no longer hear frequencies above 10KHz.
A FLAC recording is, where I've checked it out, usually somewhere in the range 450-800kbps, depending on the level of lossless compression chosen, and on the frequency range of the recording, and this can be seen to vary throughout the recording (esp. with classical orchestral music). Some playback systems playing FLAC will indicate the current bit rate; FLAC's own playback player, Foobar, certainly does, and also provides a live spectrogram of the audio if you want it.
To summarise, 128kbps is best for speech and radio, and is ok for pop music as background. Less than 128 is for speech and radio, unless you're desperate. 160 is ok, at a pinch, but for the best mp3 playback go for 224 or higher. The likes of Amazon and iTunes use bit rates of 256-320 for their downloads.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
Re: CD vs mp3
Yes, that's right. I can't find it now, but I remember seeing the results of a blind-test conducted by one of the hi-fi magazines. The only person who could clearly tell the difference at the higher bitrates was someone who had never been to a loud concert in their life and always listened to music at very moderate levels.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by johndsamuels
Re: CD vs mp3
8GB of memory will hold the contents of almost 11 full CDs, which is equivalent to,
47 CDs converted to 320kbps mp3
59 CDs converted to 256kbps mp3
68 CDs converted to 224kbps mp3
79 CDs converted to 192kbps mp3
95 CDs converted to 160kbps mp3
119 CDs converted to 128kbps mp3 (you really don't want this)
24 CDs (approximately) converted to the lossless FLAC format
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
Re: CD vs mp3
"Ha, I laughed at that too ... nostalgia for CDs ... tee he."
I was talking about nostalgia for the albums, not the for the CD format itself.
I would have thought that saying something like "memories of when I bought this or that CD, who I listened to it with, etc" would have made that clear, along with the fact that I've mentioned that some of those CDs are almost 30 years old, but I guess not.
# Posted on August 18th 2011 by Marklar
Re: CD vs mp3
" along with the fact that I've mentioned that some of those CDs are almost 30 years old, but I guess not."
Well, it's not even 30 years since the first CD came on the market, and you had to be pretty well off to afford a CD player to play your ABBA disc when it came out.
I'm not sure when the first traditional Irish music CD came out, but it would have been a while after 1882.
To fully paid up members of the old farts club, 29 years ago is like yesterday.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Weejie
Re: CD vs mp3
"it's not even 30 years since the first CD came on the market"
It's been exactly 30 years. Not much was available the first few years, but it exploded around '84-'85.
"you had to be pretty well off to afford a CD player"
Paid about $200 in 1984.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Marklar
Re: CD vs mp3
"It's been exactly 30 years. "
Nope. The first production CD came on the market in 1982. It was Abba's “The Visitors”, this was followed by Karajan's rendition of “The Alpine Symphony" by Richard Strauss.
"Paid about $200 in 1984."
1984 is not "nearly 30 years ago", and I said you had to be pretty well off to afford a CD player to play your ABBA disc when it first came out (1982- they were around 900 bucks or more then).
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Weejie
Re: CD vs mp3
OK, for some reason I thought it was 2012 already. Anyway, 26 year is "nearly" 30 years to me, in this context, YMMV.
I've never owned an ABBA CD. Classical recordings were one of the first things to make it to CD. I was a classical player then.
I paid $200 for a discontinued CD player on clearance in 1984. They were not $900 for a basic model in '84.
Do you seriously think I'm making all this up?
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Marklar
Re: CD vs mp3
"Anyway, 26 year is "nearly" 30 years to me, in this context, YMMV."
It's just over 25 years - which is quite different to nearly 30 years.
"I paid $200 for a discontinued CD player on clearance in 1984. They were not $900 for a basic model in '84."
Irrelevant. You couldn't have played the first production CD on it when it first came out (which was my point). Mind you, I did know someone who bought CDs quite a while before he had a player to listen to them on.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Weejie
Re: CD vs mp3
"You couldn't have played the first production CD on it when it first came out (which was my point). "
And what point was that? Did I ever claim to have played the first production CD when it first came out?
Yes, when I initially said "about 30 years" I was going by memory, and off by a couple of years. It seemed about 30 years going by memory off the top of my head, and I was pretty close. Is that important? You seem to be implying that I'm lying by picking nits.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Marklar
Re: CD vs mp3
"And what point was that?"
The point that CDs have not even been on the market for 30 years, and even when they did first come out, only the well off could afford to listen to them at home.
"Yes, when I initially said "about 30 years" I was going by memory, and off by a couple of years"
You said "almost 30 years" and from what you say later, you were out by more than a couple of years (it's 2011, remember?). I'm not trying to imply that you were lying, just that there was some justification in finding "nostalgia" amusing when related to a CD collection.
As I said earlier, to an old farts' club member, CDs are still new-fangled - and they would be even if your sums had been correct.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Weejie
Re: CD vs mp3
"You said "almost 30 years" and from what you say later, you were out by more than a couple of years (it's 2011, remember?"
It will have been 29 years since 1984 in a couple of years, right? Or does it have to be 30 years to be "almost 30 years"? Seems a pretty petty thing to carry on about.
"As I said earlier, to an old farts' club member, CDs are still new-fangled"
I'm sure that's true, especially if you didn't start buying them until the '90s. But a middle-aged man can be nostalgic about his teenage years.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Marklar
Re: CD vs mp3
"It will have been 29 years since 1984 in a couple of years, right? Or does it have to be 30 years to be "almost 30 years"? Seems a pretty petty thing to carry on about. "
It seems that you are the one trying to justify this nostalgia thing by not quite getting your timeline right. Which is quite funny in itself.
"I'm sure that's true, especially if you didn't start buying them until the '90s. But a middle-aged man can be nostalgic about his teenage years."
I bought CDs a wee bit before the 90s - but at wholesale prices. I didn't actually have any in my personal collection until the 90s indeed. The reason for that being that there were few actual recordings available that I wanted, and they were always available in other formats anyway.
I didn't stock CDs until well into the latter half of the 80s, because few could actually afford CD players (even the relatively cheap Sony D-50 was not that cheap when it came out in 1984) and there wasn't enough of a demand to justify stocking them (the high street record retailers seemed to be the only outlets who had them on the shelves - and I was selling records as a sideline). Moreover, I was quite happy to listen to LPs on an old beaten up 'Dansette' style record player - or cassettes on a portable player, as you could learn the tunes just as well using that medium.
The 'folkie' distributors didn't have very much on CD until the end of the 80s. I was quite cautious when it came to that claim that CDs were 'virtually indestructible' too. Some of the early releases had problems and there were a few returns.
The comparison with LPs was an ongoing discussion - the old farts would complain about the covers (some justification too - the fact that CD covers aren't quite square like LPs meant photographers had to compromise when they clicked their Hasselblads, and that tiny print on flimsy paper).
So, for those who still get nostalgic about LPs, nostalgia over CDs is quite amusing.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Weejie
Re: CD vs mp3
BTW, it's almost 29 years since the release of the first production CD, yet it was released in 1982. It just happened to be in the fall of 1982, and we are still in the summer of 2011(supposedly) up here in the northern hemisphere.
Now that's what I call almost!
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Weejie
Re: CD vs mp3
"So, for those who still get nostalgic about LPs, nostalgia over CDs is quite amusing."
I get that, but I was originally making a distinction between physical albums versus downloads. It didn't really matter whether I was talking about CDs or vinyl. And again, I wasn't talking about nostalgia for the CD format, but for a physical thing kept for many years versus a file on a computer. Which was the point I was making before you took my mental calendar arithmetic to task.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Marklar
Re: CD vs mp3
"BTW, it's almost 29 years since the release of the first production CD, yet it was released in 1982..."
Good grief, what is your problem? That's totally irrelevant since I said I wasn't buying CDs until 1984. Why do you keep going on about the fact that I was a couple years off in mental arithmetic? Do you have an actual contribution to make to this discussion?
Anyway, I've got better things to do than play this game. I'll leave you to it.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Marklar
Re: CD vs mp3
Anyone want to know the story of why the playing time of CDs was chosen to be 74 minutes (now 80)? Probably not. Anyway, the story is that a Sony executive thought it would be a great idea to produce for the first time a single disc that could play the whole of Beethoven's 9th Symphony without being turned over. (3 LP sides would have been needed in times gone by for that symphony, raising the problem of what to put on the 4th side - and don't even think about the old 78s).
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Trevor Jennings
Re: CD vs mp3
" I wasn't talking about nostalgia for the CD format, but for a physical thing kept for many years versus a file on a computer."
Steady on....CDs are still very much available - they haven't been superceded by MP3s quite yet. You used the word "nostalgia" (well, "nastolgia", actually) to describe your sentiments, but the word literally means a "painful longing to return home" (homesickness). Granted, those CDs of yours might bring on some homesickness by association, but it's still amusing to the old farts' club, in whatever context it was used.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Weejie
Re: CD vs mp3
"Good grief, what is your problem?"
I don't have one.
"That's totally irrelevant since I said I wasn't buying CDs until 1984"
Which you were trying to say was "almost 30 years" ago, then you were trying to define "almost" in the context of 'if it's 29 years in a couple of years, then that's almost 30 years' I simply pointed out that time can be measured in multiples of less than years too - so 'almost' can be even more 'almost'.
"Why do you keep going on about the fact that I was a couple years off in mental arithmetic? "
I don't think I was belabouring the "couple" aspect - it was the complete package (like thinking it was 2012).
"Do you have an actual contribution to make to this discussion?" I think I have made one. The OP wanted people to make up his/ her mind for him/her. I suggested that things like that are best undertaken by yourself, otherwise, you just end up with a thread full of conflicting opinions and pedantry.
Might as well add to the pedantry too.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Weejie
Re: CD vs mp3
" and don't even think about the old 78s"
Ahh...now those were the days. You could make tunes last for hours if you wound the handle in a certain way....
" raising the problem of what to put on the 4th side"
The 4th side was often used to plug an obscure opus.
# Posted on August 19th 2011 by Weejie