Is it my speakers? I think I'm done with CD's. Are paid-for downloadable files any better? (...and, "Can it reach 60", a quality test for CDs)

[barfle]

Bakelite? You have Edison Diamond Discs? I have a few.
Most 78 (and pre-78s) are made of shellac.

78 rpm was a NAB compromise of Victor 76 and Columbia 80 for a uniform speed standard the broadcasters wanted. They were sick of having to adjust speed for each record. Early records varied by company from 70 rpm to 120 rpm.

I have about 50 EDDs, given to me by my wife’s aunt. I have a similar number of newer 78s, including a couple of real “albums” from when that term made sense. Several records in individual sleeves, bound together in a book.

Some of the EDDs have embossed labels, some have paper, and there are, sadly, a few with missing paper labels. If I ever get breathing time (still revamping my wife’s den and a full bathroom, not to mention yardwork, etc., etc., etc) I’ll look them up on discogs from the embossed numbers.

 

[mandrix]

Thankfully I learned early on that tags are indeed important to an organized collection of music. Tags are universal, so they make every player better, including Foobar2000, jRiver, Kodi, ect. I may be an old dog, but thankfully I learned the tagging trick a couple decades ago. I did the iso thing a couple years before that.

I get it. Just not for me. I don't have time anyway. I'm not about to rip and tag 2000 discs, uh-uh, no way.
But by all means carry on!

 

[barfle]

I get it. Just not for me. I don't have time anyway. I'm not about to rip and tag 2000 discs, uh-uh, no way.
But by all means carry on!

On my NAS, I have a folder with pretty much all my ripped music. Folders are mostly artists’ names, with a few special folders like “playlists” and “test”. Classical works are in folders bt composers’ names.

Many, many years ago, I downloaded a bucketfull of MP3s of classical orchestras from a site called MP3 dot com. They’ve changed since then, and I was listening on PC speakers, so quality wasn’t paramount, and there weren’t a lot of choices as to format anyway.

Those files were, shall we say, occasionally sparse on tag info. So knowing just what piece I was playing was hit-and-miss. I’ve recently decided to figure out what all that stuff really is and organize it by composer, as I have done with my ripped classical CDs. Comparing the music on the file to a song on Amazon or YT has been both a chore and a learning experience, but it’s getting easier to find and play the pieces I want.

There are a few files with names like “Etude in G” that I haven’t been able to match up, but, as I often say, research continues.

It’s what works for me.

 

[mandrix]

On my NAS, I have a folder with pretty much all my ripped music. Folders are mostly artists’ names, with a few special folders like “playlists” and “test”. Classical works are in folders bt composers’ names.

Many, many years ago, I downloaded a bucketfull of MP3s of classical orchestras from a site called MP3 dot com. They’ve changed since then, and I was listening on PC speakers, so quality wasn’t paramount, and there weren’t a lot of choices as to format anyway.

Those files were, shall we say, occasionally sparse on tag info. So knowing just what piece I was playing was hit-and-miss. I’ve recently decided to figure out what all that stuff really is and organize it by composer, as I have done with my ripped classical CDs. Comparing the music on the file to a song on Amazon or YT has been both a chore and a learning experience, but it’s getting easier to find and play the pieces I want.

There are a few files with names like “Etude in G” that I haven’t been able to match up, but, as I often say, research continues.

It’s what works for me.

That's great! I think everyone should do whatever works for them.
I don't try to, or at least I don't think I do, denigrate what other people do with their music collection, I just elucidate what works for moi and what does not.

EDIT: Many people have chimed in over time about ripping and tagging, organizing music files. Often it feels as if the message is that I'm supposed to either be clueless or just an outlier.
I can live with that, QQ is a place of many opinions, like everywhere else. But what's right for some is not for all.
Not singling you out barfle...please don't take this as some sort of attack on you.

 

[MidiMagic]

I have about 50 EDDs, given to me by my wife’s aunt. I have a similar number of newer 78s, including a couple of real “albums” from when that term made sense. Several records in individual sleeves, bound together in a book.

Some of the EDDs have embossed labels, some have paper, and there are, sadly, a few with missing paper labels. If I ever get breathing time (still revamping my wife’s den and a full bathroom, not to mention yardwork, etc., etc., etc) I’ll look them up on discogs from the embossed numbers.

I have quit a few albums of 78s from the Big Band era. Yes, that's where the term "album" came from. Record companies kept the term after the LP put the entire album on one disc.
I also have several 45 albums RCA made before adopting the LP.

I also have three copies of the same Essex album, on 78, 45, and 33. The strange thing is that when you try to play the albums on a record changer, the songs come out in three different orders.
- The 78 album was made in manual sequence for a manual record player. Stacking the 4 records plays all of the odd songs, and then (turn over) the even songs in reverse order (1,3,5,7,8,6,4,2). It would play correctly on a 2-side changer.
- The 10-inch LP plays all of the songs in numeric order (turn over in the middle 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.,8).
- The 45 album (2 songs per side) was made in slide automatic order even though there never were slide automatic changers for 45s until the 1960s (1,2,3,4,7,8,5,6).
Slide automatic order was for the 78 changers that threw the top record off the turntable after playing it,

 

[SeeMoreDigital]

I hope you're playing your 78's using the correct type of stylus

 

[mandrix]

I hope you're playing your 78's using the correct type of stylus

You can pick up fresh nails almost anywhere.

 

[Sal1950]

You can pick up fresh nails almost anywhere.

Nails work OK, but real audiophiles use custom sharpened cactus needles.

 

[Rango]

Where music's concerned, high resolution audio I think has spoiled me

So you still don't realize that it isn't the format, it is how well it is mastered, and how great the original production was?

You do realize that a CD can sound better than a high resolution release if it is more dynamic, and that the industry also limits the dynamics of high resolution releases?

Not sure how, but you're reading me out of context?

What I wrote was:

Where music's concerned, high resolution audio I think has spoiled me; now that I've experienced how good it can be, it's hard to go back to the low-res stuff; impossible in fact, at least as far as loudness war CD's are concerned; I can't listen to them.

Relevant responses posted to this thread, in chronological order:

I was beginning to wonder if vinyl might be the better option, if no SACD, DVD-A or BluRay is available. I think I'd take the pops and ticks over the horrible treble compression every time...

I've got an original masters gold CD of Breakfast in America and it sounds great.

I've got a couple of CD's that sound fantastic too; maybe it's the mastering but might just be the mix? Anything with a ton of crash symbols on CD it seems is just going to be obstructive to enjoyment (at least for me).

I "liked" this post:

CD's are capable of higher resolution than we get from vinyl. We just have not been getting it due to the loudness war. Not a fault of the medium itself.

The mastering is often an obvious culprit.

I think so.

Blaming the format instead of the mastering, mix and production, is rookie mistake 101.

I am new to this; was trying to get across in my first post what it is I'm experiencing and it seems it is a "known issue":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Call it what you will, master, mix, whatever but it's not the media. Take that same recording and put it on any digital media you like and it will sound the same. The only real answer for any of us is to purchase the best releases irrespective of the media.

I couldn't agree more, re. having to purchase the best available option, I just wish people would vote with their wallets for higher-res formats than Vinyl and/or CD; or just better produced CD's.

Respect for the medium. Bad mastering gives the CD a bad name.

...I think it's just a case of being aware of the problems with CD and not actually disregarding it out of hand. The Dynamic Range Database seems to be a ray of hope in all of this.

Where music's concerned, high resolution audio I think has spoiled me; now that I've experienced how good it can be, it's hard to go back to the low-res stuff; impossible in fact, at least as far as loudness war CD's are concerned; I can't listen to them.

That having been said....

I was hoping to put together a multichannel playlist, so I'm probably going to be looking at FLAC, although I see the value in just ripping ISO's for the menu structures etc.

I always thought FLAC was a stable format but if I had the number of records that some of the people here have I doubt I'd want to invest the time in converting it all if there's a chance FLAC might become obsolete. I can totally understand not wanting to spend time on something like that, but where I differ is I don't think I'd pass up Blu-ray audio. Maybe if I'd seen that many formats come and go I might think differently but I just can't imagine that. I love high res sound.

 

[mandrix]

I'm not so sure FLAC is on dead legs. After all it's free, for one thing. I myself buy flac downloads from time to time of 5.1 mixes from Bandcamp and such.

But all of us are here because of our love of music, and just like one post can lead to 130, we all have our preferences and dislikes and disagreements about everything from maintaining a large music collection to quality of sound, preferred formats and so forth.

That's one of things I like about QQ, as over the years I feel I gained a lot by being a member here and finding things I did not know about or were only peripherally in my vision.
A great source over the years I'm saying.

No matter how each of us do things, we all have the music in common. How cool is that? It's a unifying force of great import.

 

[himey]

if there's a chance FLAC might become obsolete

It is a lossless format so switching between FLAC and something else that is also lossless is a breeze. I started with lossless APE files and switched to FLAC.

 

[par4ken]

It is a lossless format so switching between FLAC and something else that is also lossless is a breeze. I started with lossless APE files and switched to FLAC.

I have also used wma lossless. I was excited when my car deck reportedly supported wma as well as mp3, but it turned out that it only liked lossy files! Foobar seems to be fine with whatever you throw at it, as long as you have the necessary components installed.

 

[himey]

I have also used wma lossless. I was excited when my car deck reportedly supported wma as well as mp3, but it turned out that it only liked lossy files! Foobar seems to be fine with whatever you throw at it, as long as you have the necessary components installed.

Worrying about flac going away is silly.

 

[MidiMagic]

Worrying about flac going away is silly.

What if Windows goes away from FLAC? They could change Windows so it no longer works.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

It is a lossless format so switching between FLAC and something else that is also lossless is a breeze. I started with lossless APE files and switched to FLAC.

Well, lossless for PCM.
WavPack is the equivalent to FLAC for DSD. However, those that don't care about tags will have no need for it, as ISO has a slightly higher compression ratio.

 

[himey]

They could change Windows so it no longer works.

Care to make a wager they won't?

 

[par4ken]

What if Windows goes away from FLAC? They could change Windows so it no longer works.

Very unlikely but you could just convert back to wav!

 

[himey]

Very unlikely but you could just convert back to wav!

They would have to start banning third party apps that support flac. That doesn't make any sense. How did this conversation get here?

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Very unlikely but you could just convert back to wav!

Or install a third-party playback software...which you should be doing regardless for optimal sound quality.

 

[Sal1950]

What if Windows goes away from FLAC? They could change Windows so it no longer works.

Friends don't let friends run Windoz.

GO Linux