[Mag]

The CD was a dead medium!

However, sacd wasn't being supported and the news was dts wasn't going to support Blu-ray like I had hoped.
It made sense then to invest money in a cd player that elevates that medium to a high resolution, at an affordable cost. I already had hundreds of cd's that I don't need to repurchase like I would have had to do for sacd or Blu-ray.

Thankfully the BCD-1 lived up to the hype restoring the cd to the #1 format. It's record-ability and huge numbers of cd albums that are available on the market. Ensuring that the cd will be around for quite awhile.

[rob80b]

Hi Robert - Nothing has brought me closer to all of my music than my music server with 5 TB of storage and having the liner notes one click away. I now listen to much more music than I ever did. I no longer reach for the greatest hits collections because they are a convenient way to hear many "good" songs without getting up to change the disc. I listen to the discs with one "good" song and each time I will try a few of the songs I may never have listened to. When the "bad" songs are a click away I am more willing to give them a second and third try. It is so cool to find the songs that never make it to radio and never make anyone's playlist, but are often the best songs on the album.

Hi Chris,

For those who truly enjoy music I d not have a problem with mass storage, I’m just stating my own preferences and approach to the medium.
What happens with technology is that it becomes de rigueur for the masses and slowly (or quickly as it seems in this day and age) erodes the appreciation the work that artists have taken to create the music.
It’s what I call the Klennex syndrome, one blow of the nose and it’s on to the next, it’s not just music, we almost expect a new selection of DVDs (movies) each time we go to rent one.
By getting away from mass storage we will spend more intimate time with each artist and appreciate their work in a broader sense, and hopefully this will have a reverse effect on the artist where his or her recording merits full attention to all tracks.

Robert

[KeithA]

By getting away from mass storage we will spend more intimate time with each artist and appreciate their work in a broader sense, and hopefully this will have a reverse effect on the artist where his or her recording merits full attention to all tracks.

Robert

I would have to disagree somewhat with this arguement, as it relates to 'music server mass storage'.

I will agree that 'mass storage' of any kind can lead to the effect you mention above, but the fact that it's on a hard drive is irrelevant. Before I put my 1,200 CDs on a hard drive, I had them in their cases in racks that took up over half a wall. That is still mass storage!! The momemt my CD collection went from 1 CD to 2, to 4, to 8.......to 1,200 (as it really started to grow), there are CDs that get left on the rack that don't get played hardly at all. That's just a sidebar of expanding a music collection exponentially. So, I don't see the idea of mass hard drive storge any differnt than mass racked CD storgae.

The one thing I like about the hard drive is that with my Squeezebox Duet I can quickly scan my library (with album art) and easily pick out an album. Likely something I haven't listened to in a while. I can also sit at the computer for a few minutes and compile a playlist from scanning my library and that playlist will be my varied listening without having to change CDs (or make various CDs).

I see the music server as being a way to untap the potential in what used to be 'walls full of CDs', not a hinderance. Besides, if I ever want to read the liner notes, they are still around. but the music I like...I know well, so it's not required.

Keith

[rob80b]

Hi Keith,


It comes down to personal preferences, a days drive in the country or a hike through the forest.
Which one has a more fulfilling experience at the end of the day.
I do appreciate the access to alternative backups though, for the last year or so I started converting 20 years of my electronic music compositions from multitrack reel to reel to digital.
But as I mentioned earlier, in the end it's getting away from the computer.
Somewhere hidden away in boxes there lies data cassettes, floppies, syquest and zip drives who will probably never again see the light of day, meanwhile my shelves of books, LPs and CDs are “always something there to remind me”.

Robert

[Tolstoi]

It’s interesting for me going through this thread, just over three years ago I decided to distance my self from computers as much as possible, although every electronic device today is almost based on this technology. Don’t get me wrong I’m quite comfortable with the technology having started with punch cards in the sixties and doing programming though the seventies and eighties, I was fascinated with the technology and up until I turned my back on the advancements three years ago I was listed at one time in the top five in Apple knowledge in North America.
Ok I’m still using a laptop for communications and for business but I’ve grown weary of the “for your convenience” stance that the computer has taken, from ipods to cell phones etc.
In the early seventies I was storing music to a portable cassette and walked around with head phones ( I’m sure some Sony rep saw me and the rest was history).
What it comes down to is that technology is always changing, a proliferation in communications and mass storage. For me we are losing an intimacy with music and in some ways with youtube and facebook, ourselves.
People with cell phones seem to be always, well, on their phones.
We seem to want everything at our fingertips.
Which of course brings me back to mass storage of music, (musak for the masses?)
I’m sure there are many here who take their music seriously and do amass large quantities of recordings and want to, again conveniently, access their library, but in doing so I cannot but feel that we once again distancing ourselves a bit more (excuse the pun) from that tangible experience of going through a physical/mental understanding of what is involved in actually creating the music that we listen to.
In retrospect we could also consider the CD, LP and cassette as a mass storage device.
It’s the same for images (photos), we store thousands of pictures on our hard drives but we do not experience the same connection as when holding a single snapshot or photo album.
What I’m getting to is that as an audiophile and music lover there is something that I enjoy in physically choosing that cd or album I’m about to listen to; and playing it with the best dedicated device I can afford.
Maybe it’s just that I’m just old school (although I used to pride myself in being the first to have that latest technical toy), two of my other professions where as of a photographer and a composer/producer of electro-acoustic music for 25 years or more, but once again, as the computer was introduced I again experienced that sense of loss in the tactile.
Hopefully I’m not alone in my thoughts, the positive reception given to Bryton in producing the BCD-1 after what many consider a dead medium seems to show me that I’m not.
Technology can be a lot of fun, but a means to an end or an end to a means?
Just some thoughts.

Robert

For me there is two type of listening session. The first one is as you mentioned going through the pleasure of digging a cd in the pile and flipping to the booklet.  Most of the time this process starts in a store where I really enjoy the pleasure of browsing and to find out thing new to try.

At the same there is a need for something faster and more convenient and this is where the Music Server is welcomed.   In my opinion the Music Server will never replace the pleasure listening a cd. Meanwhile, I seriously believe that using a Music Server should not be done with equipment that would degrade the audio quality of the listening session.  And this is where the Bryston BDA-1 could be an interesting product.

[KeithA]

In my opinion the Music Server will never replace the pleasure listening a cd.

I must say, I am confused by this

How does listening to a cd differ from listening to the same tracks on a music server when both a being played on the same system (same superb D/A conversion, etc)?

Keith

[mcullinan]

If we could have went to the Hard Drive rather than the 8-track tape we would have. I dont think that convenience or ways of access affects your intimacy with the music. I can delve deeper into any playlist or just play the selections I want to hear, its all dependent on mood. Technology allows us more time to do the things we want to do, and be more productive. I want to listen to music, bam, this band, this song. I want to access the bands biography, lyrics, reviews of the albums, other bands that are similiar or that I might want to hear. All access, research, reading. Its as tangible as I want it to be.

There are a thousand ways to do one thing. Some are better ways of doing that one thing, based on efficiency. There are thousand of ways that have not been created yet. Evolution, my friend. Its not sinister, though change is scary.

Now people I know love records... they are more natural being analog. I think this is possibly true, there is that little something. Id still prefer the access over that little something. Thats not saying that I would accept a quality that is far inferior, just a bit different.
Mike

[Tolstoi]

In my opinion the Music Server will never replace the pleasure listening a cd.

I must say, I am confused by this

How does listening to a cd differ from listening to the same tracks on a music server when both a being played on the same system (same superb D/A conversion, etc)?

Keith

The best comparison would be the ritual of drinking a good wine.  You grab the bottle opener, take the time to cut the plastic of metal film, than screw the opener and than uncork the bottle to finish by smelling the cork.  The same wine would probably taste exactly the same if it was closed with one of the new twist cap but the ritual of uncorking the bottle add to the wine testing experience.

It’s all about the ritual.

[Tolstoi]

Thats not saying that I would accept a quality that is far inferior, just a bit different.
Mike

This is an important statement.  A lot of peoples are accepting audio quality degradation for something that is more convenient.  DAC like the Logitech Transporter also add to this with the illusion of high rez music. Up to now I never managed to get a good playback of a high-rez track that is equal or superior to my current CD player/DAC. 

A just want to clarify that I am not making that statement because I am against new technology. In fact it is the total opposite.  I bought a HD_DVD player as soon they came out.  Six months later I bought the second generation HD-DVD player.  I also jump on the first Pioneer Blu-Ray player.  I already have significant library of HDVD/Blu-Ray titles.

If I could get a DAC that support high-rez format and provide an audio improvement over my current setup, I would jump on it. Hopefully the Bryston BDA-1 will achieve that. 

[rob80b]

Maybe it's just getting older, or having gone through a lot of changes in technology over the last 30-40 years , but it's the "need for something faster and more convenient" which I guess I have a problem with.
Advances in the quality of music reproduction are greatly appreciated and it is a bit ironic that the technology used in originally getting the CD off the test bench is still in use.
The industry is pushing towards more mass storage and faster processors but in general the public has no desire (or interest) to improve upon “the perfect sound forever”, in fact the trend is in the opposite direction. Audio playback equipment and storage continues to improve but the medium has stood still after 25 years, CD’s sampling rate may have been a bit premature as there was newer and faster technology just around the corner and so we’re still trying to wring the last ounce of information off the disc.
When the CD medium first came out I looked at it more as a convenience medium, much as I did with the eight track as I was aware of better technology in existence but it never came to fruition. Playback improved and so I eventually adopted the medium as one had no other choice but I was conservative in my CD purchases.
The bottom line comes down to the industry; as an audiophile we’re a tiny minority out there when it comes to recreating the original recorded event as much as possible.
Bryston’s still there, helping us along the way but when I’m confronted with “ the future belongs to the hard disk drive!” for your convenience,  I just have to say thanks but no thanks.

Regards

[KeithA]

Maybe it's just getting older, or having gone through a lot of changes in technology over the last 30-40 years , but it's the "need for something faster and more convenient" which I guess I have a problem with.
Advances in the quality of music reproduction are greatly appreciated and it is a bit ironic that the technology used in originally getting the CD off the test bench is still in use.
The industry is pushing towards more mass storage and faster processors but in general the public has no desire (or interest) to improve upon “the perfect sound forever”, in fact the trend is in the opposite direction. Audio playback equipment and storage continues to improve but the medium has stood still after 25 years, CD’s sampling rate may have been a bit premature as there was newer and faster technology just around the corner and so we’re still trying to wring the last ounce of information off the disc.
When the CD medium first came out I looked at it more as a convenience medium, much as I did with the eight track as I was aware of better technology in existence but it never came to fruition. Playback improved and so I eventually adopted the medium as one had no other choice but I was conservative in my CD purchases.
The bottom line comes down to the industry; as an audiophile we’re a tiny minority out there when it comes to recreating the original recorded event as much as possible.
Bryston’s still there, helping us along the way but when I’m confronted with “ the future belongs to the hard disk drive!” for your convenience,  I just have to say thanks but no thanks.

Regards

Convenience is the only variable? I have a full issue of Absolute Sound here from early 2008 that is centred around the future and the music server and in that issue Robert Harley goes on record with his view that the hard disk as a storgae medium actually sounds better than the optical disc. Again, that's all opinion, etc, but my point is that the whole movement to the hard disk is not about 'convenience at the expense of quality'. There are foundations out there that the audio quality with a hard disk is better than the CD, especially in native form. Personally, on my system with a CD player and a Squeezebox being fed to the Bryston DAC I cannot tell the difference. So, even though I gain convenience of the mass storage, if I'm losing qulaity, I can't hear it.

Keith

[mr_bill]

Keith,
Is that the new BDA1 outboard dac that you have?
Is so, please share comments!

[KeithA]

Keith,
Is that the new BDA1 outboard dac that you have?
Is so, please share comments!

Actually, no, it's being fed into my SP1.7 as a DAC.

Although, I was one of the 'pre-orders' for the new DAC. However, a couple of weeks ago I cancelled the preorder to pursue another route. If that route does not pan out, I will buy the new BDA-1.

Keith

[brucek]

My PC hard drive collection is certainly a mix of various formats and compression schemes that I have built up over the years. Mostly lossy formats, since storage space used to be a bigger concern than now.

I often feel I would like to re-rip all my CD's and subsequent CD's into a standard lossless format that would be recognizable by as many devices as possible.

So, what lossless formats are you "hard drive" guys using and why? Presumably they all sound exactly the same. I suppose it's a trade off between storage space, ripping convenience, tagging/cataloguing abilities, etc.

I have been using WMA-Lossless quite a bit lately since I use Windows Media player on my PC. Its codec uses standard 44.1KHz, 2 Channel, 16 bit, 1 pass format to result in variable lossless bit rates between ~800-1000 kbps. I suppose that saves disk space compared against full WAV rate of 1411 kbps, but it's not as compact as FLAC that can be around 50% savings (I'm told).

Anyway, what are most people using? FLAC/EAC, WAV, WMA-LOSSLESS, AIFF, ALAC, etc............... I would hate to make a bit commitment to one format and find down the road that I made the wrong choice.

brucek

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Brucek - I rip to aiff uncompressed on my Mac. I don't worry about any compression schemes. There will always be debate about which one is better even if all of them are lossless. By ripping to uncompressed aiff I remove any chance of reripping.

[KeithA]

All of my files are 1411kbps, 16 bit, 44khz PCM stereo. No compression at all. I have almost 1,200 CDs stored on a 1 terrabyte drive which currently uses 580 gigs on that drive.

That's the only way I would go down the hard-drive road. If the files had to be super-compressed, etc, I would just stick with CD.

But the advent of economical mass storage ($300 for a good '1 terrabyte external drive') is what now makes the hard drive full of raw PCM (CD qulaity) music a no brainer for me

If I were you with a mix of compression regimes, etc, I would get a new 'super hard drive' and re-rip in raw PCM.

Keith

[brucek]

All of my files are 1411kbps, 16 bit, 44khz PCM stereo. No compression at all.

The trouble I find with WAV is that they can't be tagged like the other lossless formats. The tagging makes them very convenient I find.

If the files had to be super-compressed, etc, I would just stick with CD.

But the formats I mentioned are all lossless (FLAC/EAC, WAV, WMA-LOSSLESS, AIFF, ALAC), even though they're compressed (except WAV and AIFF aren't compressed). The reconstituted information is identical to the original CD. Nothing is thrown away.

By ripping to uncompressed aiff I remove any chance of reripping.

I guess I was concerned that down the road a format (such as AIFF) may not be used any more and I would have a disk full, with a format that computers have left behind.

brucek

[The Computer Audiophile]

By ripping to uncompressed aiff I remove any chance of reripping.

I guess I was concerned that down the road a format (such as AIFF) may not be used any more and I would have a disk full, with a format that computers have left behind.

brucek

You run this risk with everything. For example a closet full of 8 tracks that can't be played on anything. AIFF has been around a long time and "should" continue to hang around. If AIFF ever leaves us you can always convert from aiff to something else easily. Whereas, if you use FLAC and that goes out of style do you really want to convert from one compression scheme to another or convert back to uncompressed before converting to the new compression scheme. There will be debate about whether or not there is anything wrong with converting from one lossless compression to another. But, I chose to steer clear of it by selecting uncompressed. This way i know what I am getting and won't be disappointed in a few years when a computer scientist discover a flaw in a compression scheme.

[James Tanner]

By ripping to uncompressed aiff I remove any chance of reripping.

I guess I was concerned that down the road a format (such as AIFF) may not be used any more and I would have a disk full, with a format that computers have left behind.

brucek

You run this risk with everything. For example a closet full of 8 tracks that can't be played on anything. AIFF has been around a long time and "should" continue to hang around. If AIFF ever leaves us you can always convert from aiff to something else easily. Whereas, if you use FLAC and that goes out of style do you really want to convert from one compression scheme to another or convert back to uncompressed before converting to the new compression scheme. There will be debate about whether or not there is anything wrong with converting from one lossless compression to another. But, I chose to steer clear of it by selecting uncompressed. This way i know what I am getting and won't be disappointed in a few years when a computer scientist discover a flaw in a compression scheme.

Hi Chris,

This is really interesting.

Could you give a short description of each scheme and the plus minuses of each?

james

[Phil A]

Here's a couple of articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis


To date, I've only used WMA lossless (mainly for my Zune for the car) and MP3 at 320bps (also for the car on a compact flash card as my car has a slot for a computer card).  I'll probably get the new 80G PS3 when it becomes more available for the secondary basement system and may try it with an old outboard DAC and get some more exposure to whatever that offers.  A friend of mine who is very computer savvy complained about problems with conversion he tried with Apple lossless a while back.  Don't know if that is still an issue.