Making the change to downloads from CDs

[Guest]

Being a bit of a Luddite, I was slow to move from vinyl to CDs (early 1990).

I have taken the plunge to move to downloads as my way of purchasing music.

I store music in my iTunes library and want to continue this with iTunes-Match. From now on, I plan to listen to music from my iPad linked to a small pair of active monitors.

I didn't really think it through though.

For example, I downloaded 2 Schnittke symphonies last night for £15.98 from Apple, then discovered that all 10 symphonies are available for just over £15 from ClassicsOnline. Their bitrate seems superior too (don't really understand all the techie stuff).



What do other people do regarding downloads?

What's best value, quality etc?

Any comments on any aspect of this would be welcome.

[Dave2002]

A few things.

1. Quality - mp3/aac in theory ought to be less good than CD or SACD. However, sometimes one can't tell the difference unless one has "golden" ears.
Sometimes, however, there are problems - though these may also be present on the CD. Recent posts about clipping (e.g Naxos Shostakovich) suggest that sometimes this problem is on several formats, but another post - wonders whether this is always the case - http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...-aacs-and-mp3s

2. There are sometimes great bargains in downloads - e.g this one - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Glazunov-The..._album_lnk_alt Glazunov - and the quality should be fine

and some others http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tchaikovsky-...93173&sr=301-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sibelius-Complete-Symphonies-Lemmink%C3%A4inen-Concerto/dp/B004Z4O440/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=dmusic&ie=UTF8&qid=1368693196&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=Sibelius+vamska

3. Bargains can be had on sites such as emusic, where each track is usually 42p. There might also be introductory offers. Some have said the quality isn't as good as on some other sites, but I've not really been able to confirm that. However, using the 42p/track rule means that some music/albums work out much more expensive than buying the equivalent CD. Try any Naxos CD with more than 20 tracks, for example.

4. Some pieces are difficult, or impossible to obtain in anything other than MP3. Some are worth having. For example, the Würzburg Percussion Ensemble has an album - Impulse - this can be had from sites such as emusic.

5. Often the prices on Amazon and iTunes are similar. The formats are different - and arguably the iTunes aac format is higher quality, though perhaps less convenient. There are tracks which are described as "Mastered for iTunes" - they are OK, but I'm not convinced that they are significantly better, nor better than CDs, though it is possible they sound different.

6. Again, using emusic as an example, there are some pieces which appear as only one or two tracks, and are therefore good value. Fine if you like to explore the symphonies of, say, Segerstam. Riley's "in C" is also often available as one track.

7. I rather dislike the move towards downloads, which means that sometimes one has to shop around or use foreign shopping sites in order to get CD copies. Sometimes companies withdraw the CDs and only the downloads are available, though the situation is fluid. One I recall is the Chandos set of Dvorak symphonies - with Järvi - though it may not even be available at all now.

8. Sometimes the tracks can get hopelessly out of order with downloads. The Bayreuth set of Wagner "Great Operas" was once very cheap, and I think runs to the equivalent of 32 CDs. At least one of those CDs wasn't tagged properly in the MP3 version, and when played the thing got hopelessly out of order.

9. Gapless playback IS or still can be, a BIG issue with some music. I gave up on some Boris Blacher variations which are each short, but run into each other, and bought the equivalent CD which overcame the problem immediately.

10. With the CDs - OK storage can be a pain, but with downloads it is easy to lose everything. This isn't such a problem for Amazon purchases anymore. Apple claim that with the iCloud and iTunes it is now possible to re-download previous purchases, but I've not got that to work yet.

11. If you're the sort of person who wants CDs anyway, then getting a download and burning to CD is more work. However, if you want MP3 CDs to play in the car - if you've got that kind of CD player, then downloads can be good.

12. You mention iTunes Match. This will give lower quality if you use it to match any CD you have ripped using a lossless format, though for many purposes may be good enough. Apple claim that it will improve quality, but I think they're thinking of kids who've ripped off a copy from a "mate", and then "acquired" a legal copy by using iTunes Match. The quality will be limited to 256kbps aac at present.

There are pros and cons for all these.

[Ian]

Unlike the LP or CD a download is not a medium (with specific attributes and limitations) but a means of delivery. Any kind of digital audio file can be so delivered.

The best quality files are the sometimes-called ‘studio quality’ files - these are essentially audio files with the same resolution of the original recording. (usually 24 bit/96K samples per second) All other types of audio files are downgraded from this original.

The reason for these downgrades is to simply reduce the size of the file, for the purposes of quickness of delivery and economical storage.

Two types of ‘downgraded’ audio files are usually offered - the best one is usually called CD quality which means an audio file with a resolution of 16/44.1K. - This is the fixed resolution that traditional audio CDs use. Below that (and much smaller in size) is the mp3 which come in various bit rates - the best being 320 kbit/sec, the most common being 192 kbit/sec.

You have to hear and compare these various types to find out which level offers the best value for you.

The big advantage of using a computer type device to play audio files is that they can cope with any format of audio file. However, the method by which you get to hear these various files has to be considered. As someone who has a conventional hi-fi system I use an apple airport express device which is connected to the hi-fi. This means that, over the network, I can hear music stored on my computer or phone through my hi-fi system - perfect!

I still like, and buy, CDs - but I’ve certainly got used to the convenience of storing and playing back recordings from my laptop.

[Beef Oven]

Thank you very much indeed Dave2002, for such a helpful and detailed reply.

There's a lot in there for me to consider, and I shall.

For me it's really about space for CDs, having access to my entire collection wherever I am, and last but not least, becoming fed up of sitting down for hours ripping CDs, existing and new purchases. At least I will be able to avoid this for new purchases.

Btw, I have been collecting the symphonies of Leif Segerstam, and a per-track deal would really cut the cost down!

Edit: I got the Sibelius/Vanska off Amazon a while back when it was £5.99

[Beef Oven]

Unlike the LP or CD a download is not a medium (with specific attributes and limitations) but a means of delivery. Any kind of digital audio file can be so delivered.

The best quality files are the sometimes-called ‘studio quality’ files - these are essentially audio files with the same resolution of the original recording. (usually 24 bit/96K samples per second) All other types of audio files are downgraded from this original.

The reason for these downgrades is to simply reduce the size of the file, for the purposes of quickness of delivery and economical storage.

Two types of ‘downgraded’ audio files are usually offered - the best one is usually called CD quality which means an audio file with a resolution of 16/44.1K. - This is the fixed resolution that traditional audio CDs use. Below that (and much smaller in size) is the mp3 which come in various bit rates - the best being 320 kbit/sec, the most common being 192 kbit/sec.

You have to hear and compare these various types to find out which level offers the best value for you.

The big advantage of using a computer type device to play audio files is that they can cope with any format of audio file. However, the method by which you get to hear these various files has to be considered. As someone who has a conventional hi-fi system I use an apple airport express device which is connected to the hi-fi. This means that, over the network, I can hear music stored on my computer or phone through my hi-fi system - perfect!

I still like, and buy, CDs - but I’ve certainly got used to the convenience of storing and playing back recordings from my laptop.

Sadly, I do not have 'golden ears'. More like 'clay ears'

The airport/hifi set-up sounds interesting, maybe something to consider in the future. Right now laptop/iPad through active monitors hits the spot.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The problem of gapless playing seems to be sortable on iTunes, as there is the option of removing them. However there is sometimes a slight stutter even so.

[Thropplenoggin]

I'd like to piggyback on Beef Oven's OP and ask some more related questions, as I'm considering going down this road, too.

1) What streaming device would people use? I'm not interested in Apple's AirPlay system, as I don't use iTunes and don't have an Apple tablet or laptop. If I wanted to play studio masters direct via Qobuz streaming site through a hi-fi or speaker, what would I need? Presumably a Wifi enabled system, or one with an Ethernet port. I imagine I'd need a very fast (fibre optic) download connection.

2) Can anyone recommend a reasonably priced streaming device, like the Onkyo CR-N755 http://www.whathifi.com/review/onkyo-cr-n755#comments, although here the wifi isn't in-built but is optional with a dongle, hardly ideal. I believe NAD and Naim do high-end stuff, probably out of my price range.

Perhaps I need something like this, Cambridge Audio Stream Magic 6: http://www.whathifi.com/review/cambr...stream-magic-6 which can stream 24-bit/192Khz files? (It seems many standalone wifi speaker/streamers can't

3) Maybe I should just by a DAC and use that to go from laptop to hi-fi (Denon M37) and buy a new pair of speakers (Q Acoustic 2010is are now £125 a pair)

This has had good write-ups: http://www.audioquest.com/usb_digita.../dragonfly-dac such as in Gramophone: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/editoria...uter-and-hi-fi

As has the Median Explorer http://www.whathifi.com/review/meridian-explorer-dac (and it's made in the UK, donchaknow!)

4) Has anyone used either the Sonos Play 3 or Play 5?

[jayne lee wilson]

The only problem with computer-sourced music replay is too much choice!

A few observations from my own experience - the better the system (and the sharper the ears) the more obvious the leap in quality from even 320kbps/mp3 to lossless 16/44.1 becomes. I never buy Mp3s because I listen to files closely on a highly-resolving system, but I'm (usually) happy with 320kbpsAAC streamed from R3, although I do notice the gains returning to CD. Below 320 kbps I find a hardening or coarsening in the sound which pushes me away. (Shame that Berlin Phil's DCH is stuck at 256 AAC - larger ensembles & massed classical strings suffer the most. Lutoslawski OK, Schumann not).

Gapless playback should never be a problem with lossless upwards - should now be avoidable with MP3s, but iTunes - and some streaming devices - seem a bit backward here.

From lossless quality upwards to 24/48/96, you'll get better results using optical/coax/usb to send the signal to the Dac (computer analogue outputs are not very hifidelity) rather than wireless. With hi-res (24-bit), wireless playback may not be stable, entirely dependent on quality of routers/network, distance between send/receive etc. Some audiophiles feel there are quality losses via wireless, but I've only ever listened on a wired connection. (A mac mini feeding a dac is a popular setup option). Keep it as simple as you can for the best SQ. If you must do wireless, then an NAS attached to your router, streamed to a laptop or pickup at the hifi is the obvious choice, but you still need a musicplayer on the computer/NAS to organise the files. A benefit of more sophisticated players like XBMC, Jriver, Puremusic etc. is that they usually allow effortless reorganisation of your music, including re-ordering of mixed-up tracks. (I don't find the latter ever a problem with Eclassical, DaCapo or TCS though...)

Lastly - there's no need for an either/or argument here - I still buy CDs and downloads, but I must say I do enjoy using the Macbook screen to browse, choose and play, look at notes or art, check sampling rates etc (the tiny screens on streamers can't be as easy to use...) and I do notice SQ differences between lossless files or CDs of the same recordings, i.e. between HDD and optical playback! But that's another story...

[Thropplenoggin]

The only problem with computer-sourced music replay is too much choice!

A few observations from my own experience - the better the system (and the sharper the ears) the more obvious the leap in quality from even 320kbps/mp3 to lossless 16/44.1 becomes. I never buy Mp3s because I listen to files closely on a highly-resolving system, but I'm (usually) happy with 320kbpsAAC streamed from R3, although I do notice the gains returning to CD. Below 320 kbps I find a hardening or coarsening in the sound which pushes me away. (Shame that Berlin Phil's DCH is stuck at 256 AAC - larger ensembles & massed classical strings suffer the most. Lutoslawski OK, Schumann not).

Gapless playback should never be a problem with lossless upwards - should now be avoidable with MP3s, but iTunes - and some streaming devices - seem a bit backward here.

From lossless quality upwards to 24/48/96, you'll get better results using optical/coax/usb to send the signal to the Dac (computer analogue outputs are not very hifidelity) rather than wireless. With hi-res (24-bit), wireless playback may not be stable, entirely dependent on quality of routers/network, distance between send/receive etc. Some audiophiles feel there are quality losses via wireless, but I've only ever listened on a wired connection. (A mac mini feeding a dac is a popular setup option). Keep it as simple as you can for the best SQ. If you must do wireless, then an NAS attached to your router, streamed to a laptop or pickup at the hifi is the obvious choice, but you still need a musicplayer on the computer/NAS to organise the files. A benefit of more sophisticated players like XBMC, Jriver, Puremusic etc. is that they usually allow effortless reorganisation of your music, including re-ordering of mixed-up tracks. (I don't find the latter ever a problem with Eclassical, DaCapo or TCS though...)

Lastly - there's no need for an either/or argument here - I still buy CDs and downloads, but I must say I do enjoy using the Macbook screen to browse, choose and play, look at notes or art, check sampling rates etc (the tiny screens on streamers can't be as easy to use...) and I do notice SQ differences between lossless files or CDs of the same recordings, i.e. between HDD and optical playback! But that's another story...

Hi JLW

Thanks for that fascinating read.

I'm become a devotee of Qobuz, and feel sure you'd approve of their quality streaming: http://www.qobuz.com/abonnement-streaming

I would want this streamed through my system, and am toying with the Meridian Explorer USB DAC (which can cope with hi-res audio) linked into my Denon M37, for which I will buy new speakers (Dali Zensor 1s).

I could also the Meridian as a headphone amp, too.

How, then, to connect the Meridian Explorer to my Denon? The specs mention two outputs:

3.5mm combination analogue/digital jack with mini Toslink digital optical <96 kHz output and 2-ch analogue line out, fixed 2v RMS.
3.5mm jack with variable-level headphone output, 130mW into 16Ω.

Am I right to conclude that a cable like this (http://www.hificables.co.uk/12147/Qe...dio-Cable.html)
would serve as a competent connector 'twixt DAC and hi-fi? I don't think the Denon does optical inputs. (Do I sound like I know what I'm talking about yet.)

[Ian]

From lossless quality upwards to 24/48/96, you'll get better results using optical/coax/usb to send the signal to the Dac (computer analogue outputs are not very hifidelity) rather than wireless. With hi-res (24-bit), wireless playback may not be stable, entirely dependent on quality of routers/network, distance between send/receive etc. Some audiophiles feel there are quality losses via wireless, but I've only ever listened on a wired connection.

The wireless option will either work or it won't. It will be obvious if it doesn't work - no sound or sound with gaps. How the digital information gets to the buffers is irrelevant as long as it gets there.

[jayne lee wilson]

Hi JLW

Thanks for that fascinating read.

I'm become a devotee of Qobuz, and feel sure you'd approve of their quality streaming: http://www.qobuz.com/abonnement-streaming

I would want this streamed through my system, and am toying with the Meridian Explorer USB DAC (which can cope with hi-res audio) linked into my Denon M37, for which I will buy new speakers (Dali Zensor 1s).

I could also the Meridian as a headphone amp, too.

How, then, to connect the Meridian Explorer to my Denon? The specs mention two outputs:

3.5mm combination analogue/digital jack with mini Toslink digital optical <96 kHz output and 2-ch analogue line out, fixed 2v RMS.
3.5mm jack with variable-level headphone output, 130mW into 16Ω.

Am I right to conclude that a cable like this (http://www.hificables.co.uk/12147/Qe...dio-Cable.html)
would serve as a competent connector 'twixt DAC and hi-fi? I don't think the Denon does optical inputs. (Do I sound like I know what I'm talking about yet.)

Yes, that is the correct cable type... but do check that your computer is compatible with the Explorer's usb asynch mode (i.e Mac 10.6.4 or later, see Meridian specs for details). Most asynchronous usb dacs do require proprietary driver software to be installed on your computer - just make sure you check.

[Thropplenoggin]

Yes, that is the correct cable type... but do check that your computer is compatible with the Explorer's usb asynch mode (i.e Mac 10.6.4 or later, see Meridian specs for details).

Aha. I have a shiny new ASUS, so should be fine (Windows 8, which I actually quite like, but shhh!), but thanks for pointing out something I may well have overlooked.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The OP is somewhat loaded - "making the change" - as though this is an inevitability. Statements like this can become self-fulfilling prophecies.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Building a 'download' system that will stand usage over any period inevitably means you'll end up with a lot of music files. Just looking at my system, I have 20,799 tracks, 4,367 albums, 1,415 artists (there'll actually be many more than this; a failing of my index system is I can only add one artist per track to the index), and 160 genres. So this means that building a system involves three aspects that need some thought:

1. The method of file storage (size, connection speed, backup, power consumption, etc),
2. The method of indexing and finding the music you want, and
3. The playback system.

Just for information, my storage method is a Netgear Pro NAS, which is capable of also running Logitech Media Centre (pka SqueezeCenter). My principal playback system is network connection (wireless/hard wired, it makes no difference) to various Squeezeboxes connected (optically or hard wired, it makes no difference) to DACs. I have no problems whatsoever with gapless playback. The vast majority of my files are flac format; the only time I use mp3 format is on speech - usually R4 broadcasts such as plays or In Our Time.

Your method of indexing and finding music needs to be thought through because if you make mistakes, you might have to spend an age correcting file structures and the like. I went through a lot of wasted effort attempting an SQL analysis and cam to the conclusion this wouldn't come close for classical music - too many different structures/types. So you've two things that will help you: your file indexing method, and the tag information that you can add to all types of audio files. You should be aware that most (if not all) proprietary systems for accessing music files are based on delivering pop music; all of them will almost certainly be very poor for accessing classical music, so this is very much DIY. Think through how you're going to structure your file system, and how you're going to use the tag system. Then construct a small, experimental system and test it for a couple of months. If you have more than one playback system (I have Squeezeboxes, one DLNA capable Denon AV amplifier, and various computers) check how they interact with your experimental file and tag structure. (The Denon is crap, but then newer ones might be better).

Bet you wish you'd never started now!

But actually, if you get this right, you get a system which is very enjoyable to use. A 'trick' I like playing is to select various performance of the same work (e.g. those of the last movement of Beethoven's Tempest Sonata) and compare performances.

[Thropplenoggin]

Building a 'download' system that will stand usage over any period inevitably means you'll end up with a lot of music files. Just looking at my system, I have 20,799 tracks, 4,367 albums, 1,415 artists (there'll actually be many more than this; a failing of my index system is I can only add one artist per track to the index), and 160 genres. So this means that building a system involves three aspects that need some thought:

1. The method of file storage (size, connection speed, backup, power consumption, etc),
2. The method of indexing and finding the music you want, and
3. The playback system.

Just for information, my storage method is a Netgear Pro NAS, which is capable of also running Logitech Media Centre (pka SqueezeCenter). My principal playback system is network connection (wireless/hard wired, it makes no difference) to various Squeezeboxes connected (optically or hard wired, it makes no difference) to DACs. I have no problems whatsoever with gapless playback. The vast majority of my files are flac format; the only time I use mp3 format is on speech - usually R4 broadcasts such as plays or In Our Time.

Your method of indexing and finding music needs to be thought through because if you make mistakes, you might have to spend an age correcting file structures and the like. I went through a lot of wasted effort attempting an SQL analysis and cam to the conclusion this wouldn't come close for classical music - too many different structures/types. So you've two things that will help you: your file indexing method, and the tag information that you can add to all types of audio files. You should be aware that most (if not all) proprietary systems for accessing music files are based on delivering pop music; all of them will almost certainly be very poor for accessing classical music, so this is very much DIY. Think through how you're going to structure your file system, and how you're going to use the tag system. Then construct a small, experimental system and test it for a couple of months. If you have more than one playback system (I have Squeezeboxes, one DLNA capable Denon AV amplifier, and various computers) check how they interact with your experimental file and tag structure. (The Denon is crap, but then newer ones might be better).

Bet you wish you'd never started now!

But actually, if you get this right, you get a system which is very enjoyable to use. A 'trick' I like playing is to select various performance of the same work (e.g. those of the last movement of Beethoven's Tempest Sonata) and compare performances.

AIC: wouldn't a subscription to a high-quality download service such as Qobuz preclude all the potential headaches of cataloguing, tags, and storage that seem to plague heavy downloaders? Qobuz can be downloaded to your desktop and tracks downloaded either permanently (i.e. bought) or streamed and stored short-term on one's HDD to provide gapless playback. 1