CDs vs MP3s vs FLAC, etc. ?

[monafam]

My last post on the Knowles Paine thread got me thinking about how everyone else listens to their classical music collection.   While I have a decent CD collection, I've pretty much gone exclusively the MP3 (occasional FLAC-lossless type) route.  I can remember when our Best Buy in town had a Classical Collection that had it's own room, now it's like one section of the same, well known composers, so maybe my hand was forced a bit, but it doesn't help that I don't like to wait.

I used to have a stereo that we gave away for space reasons and because we got a surround sound system, which I thought would suffice...although I can't say that it really has.  Now I'm stuck listening to classical music through headphones on my computer or my MP3 player.

I guess there are a few questions --

1)  What is your format of choice?  You could also indicated why, although it might be part of my other inquiries below.

2)  Do you hear a sound difference?  I've read things that indicate why MP3s in particular are so much inferior to CDs or lossless type formats, but my biggest problem is that I just don't hear the difference.  I am guessing my hearing isn't what it used to be.  I feel like classical music is really tough to listen to on my mp3 player -- it's so soft at points that there are parts that I'm missing altogether.

3) What do you listen to your classical music on?  Computer/stereo/etc.?

Sorry for  the length of a somewhat trivial, off-topic, issue! 

[albion]

If a recording is available as an original CD release complete with booklet, then that's by far my preferred 'carrier': the only MP3s I have are of recordings either long-deleted and impossible to obtain in any other way, or recordings that have never been available on CD.

A mountain of CDRs in clear plastic wallets just wouldn't do it for me, and storing files exclusively on the computer doesn't appeal either: I don't think that I notice any perceptible sound difference between downloaded/ burned and 'original' discs, but I just like to be able to survey the rows of titles, take a CD down from the shelf, open the jewel case, read the booklet notes, and appreciate the long process (research, performance, manufacture, distribution) that has brought this object into my home - and, if I've got the time, I might actually listen to it!

I'm afraid that I also actively enjoy periodically re-arranging the collection into new and ever-more-arcane sequences and pondering just where a multi-composer disc should be slotted in.

As to listening, I've got a decent stand-alone music system but it doesn't really get much use - pretty much all waking hours spent at home find me carrying a CD Walkman round the house or the garden - I'm listening again to the Klughardt Violin Concerto on CPO as I type this. The portability of the device and the headphones enable me to listen without obtrusive exterior noise (living on a busy main road) and ensure that I can potter around, make innumerable cups of tea, etc. without having to break the music off.

[Amphissa]

There's more to it than just the quality of the audio recording. The quality of the playback is also a big factor. The audio circuitry built into the mainboard of a computer is marginal. And MP3 players are typically even worse. Then there's the quality of the headphones. If they are buds or just generic cheap headphones, that's another limitation.

So, I'd say, it's no wonder that you hear no difference. If you had a good audio card in your computer and very good headphones, you could probably hear a difference between FLAC and CD vs low rez MP3. But high rez MP3 (320) is good enough that you wouldn't hear much difference at all, except through a good stereo system.

The only meaningful question is -- is the audio quality satisfying for you? If you enjoy listening, it really doesn't matter.

As for myself, well, I'm fussy. I listen to (1) LP, (2) SACD if LP isn't available, and (3) CD if neither of those two are available. I prefer my dedicated stereo system, but I do have a high quality audio card in my computer with very good headphones. I only listen to MP3 if I have no other choice. I do not have (or want) an MP3 player. I also like watching classical DVDs via my home theater.

[Alan Howe]

CDs - I'm with Albion on this one.
I listen almost exclusively over headphones - so as not to annoy the neighbours (small children and all that...)

[Richard Moss]

I too agree with Albion & Alan about the pleasure of the complete CD package.
.
I'm not a technical expert but original label CDs do seem to be the least  trouble, whereas other formats occasionally cause problems (possibly the software?).  Downloads either need to be listened to on the PC (lower quality) /convenience) or burned to CD (drop in audio quality?) or transferred to an MP3 player (earphones not always acceptable if you're not in the house alone!)

A 6ft rack (or so) on the wall (RED et al do some very nice slim jobs custom-designed to hold about 700 each) enable s my CD collection to be readily available and properly indexed on the PC then printed A% for quick access (broadly as per Gramaphone/RED catalogue - i.e.CDs filed by composer then by title of work within the broad categories of: symphonic; other orchestral; concertante works; chamber; instrumental; choral/vocal etc.) for quick retrieval. 

As to where to 'file' a multi composer CD, I tend to file it under the composer who was the reason I bought it and then cross-reference the other items in my index - it works and the delay to look something up and retrieve form the racks  is less than finding it in the PC.

Does anyone else share my feeling that all PC software seems oriented towards popular music - none of the facilities I've come across (WINDOWS or web-sites other than dedicated classical music labels) seem to have the first clue as to how you might wish to organise/access/search for things.  For example, when I've downloaded some tracks from Albion's British Music Broadcasts and renamed them to conform to my own file labelling system, then when I burn them to CD the software ignores my own file name and persists in using the one it had when it was downloaded!!  Similarly, if you 'rip' a CD to the  PC (I tried to use it as a back-up just in case my original gets damaged but gave up), the software is clueless as to how and where to file it other than doing it 'its' way!  Is it just me??

Come on Microsoft - consult some classical users as to what they might like!

Enough of a rant - what do others think!

Richard

[jerfilm]

Well, friends, at 75 both my eyes and my ears ain't what they once was....to paraphrase a popular country song......I listen alot with headphones off the desktop - have an aging but super set of monitor AKG headphones.   Occasionally things get played through the tv surround sound system (a not too shabby old Pioneer system) but since my musical life seems to center around the computer, that option is more annoyance than I need.   I buy CD's when no MP3 download is available now.  Burn my own CDs.  For 1/2 price, I frankly can't hear the difference.  Amphissa is correct - if it sounds good to you, what difference does it make....

Oh, and one of the reasons that the commecial CD's don't have quite the appeal that they used to:  the damned print is so small that it's almost impossible for me to read it anymore.  Which is a great loss when dealing with our unsungs......

I was interested in how you folks catalogue your collections.  Early on, I tried doing it by composer but it soon became unwieldly.  When it grows to over 2000 composers, how can you possibly allocate space in a meaningful way?  Unless you have a huge vault with tons of shelf space.  Which most of us don't.   So my CDs (and older Lps and cassette tapes, etc) are simply numbered by type and filed numerically.  The whole shebang is cataloged using Alpha Five for the database.  Actually two databases - a composer one and a composition one linked by a composer ID number.  Not too fancy but it works.  And by doing that, I can print it out (not often, incidentally) without having Rachmaninoffs name appear 35 times.... Otherwise, a simple Excel spreadsheet would work about as well.

Well, I ramble. 

Jerry

[monafam]

Thanks for the replies.  I definitely understand what many are saying about being whatever sounds good to you.  Maybe my issue was that I don't know if I'm really missing something big.  I think I gravitated towards the MP3s due in large part to the price, convenience, and sort of secondarily for the lessening clutter (I've got five kids so space is at a premium sometime  ) .  I think ultimately my concern is if I am missing something by going the MP3 route (eclassical pushes a better-than-CD-electronic audio format, but it's more expensive), but I guessd as long as I hear what I need, it's ok.

As for Jerfilm's cataloging question, I'd be interested to know what others do as well.   My CDs are in a large sleeve booklet arranged by composer, while my electonic formats are by composer in specific file folders.  I don't think I'm fair, but I don't care to make any performer cataloging -- this does make for problems when a performer has more than one composer on a specific CD. 

I am really curious as to how people catalog these in any sort of database.  I did start an excel program, but I ultimately wasn't positive what I wanted to include.  Do I care about performer?  Do I care to note each movement?  What about Opus #s?   Etc.

[jerfilm]

Well, again, I think it's mostly keeping track of the information that interests you.  In my database I don't have any performer information.  Nor do I track movements and performance markings.   But in the title, there will appear the key if applicable, the opus number if there is one, or sometimes the date of composition (and sometimes both).  I do have a two digit field for "type" - 1 is symphonys, 2 symphonic poems, 30 is piano concertos, etc.  That way I can sort it down by composition type and keep counts. 

Jerry