Your preferred formats?

[Todd]

My point was that it isn't necessary to get really expensive equipment to something comparible to a good hi-fi set up.

I completely disagree with this.  Of course, it could depend on what is meant by "good" hi-fi, and what is meant by "really expensive."

[Mozart]

ever heard of a Cue Splitter?

http://www.medieval.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=70

Thanks man! I really need this.

[andy]

On the computer as source issue... the problem with even a high-end sound card is that their DACs are cruddy. I have my computer sending its digital source to my Quad 99 CDP/2, and using its DAC makes a HUGE difference in sound quality as compared to using my computer's line out directory into my integrated amp.

Granted, using my CDP's transport directly does sound better than lossless flacs through the same DAC, but it's only noticeable if I'm trying to notice... and the convenience of having 13,000 tracks on my computer is hard to beat.

And second, why would you prefer lossless downloads to owning the CD? It's easy rip the CD on to your computer in a lossless format (and you get to choose), and you get a physical copy plus artwork. I don't see how lossless downloads are more convenient unless you can't wait the week for shipping.

[orbital]

And second, why would you prefer lossless downloads to owning the CD? It's easy rip the CD on to your computer in a lossless format (and you get to choose), and you get a physical copy plus artwork. I don't see how lossless downloads are more convenient unless you can't wait the week for shipping.

It's not only about that. After a while if and when you start to listen to music form your computer (and your mp3 player) more than you do form your CD player, buying and accumulating CD's start to become kind of a hassle. If I keep on getting CD's ripping them losless and listening to the digital file version what's the point of keeping all those CD's and dedicating space for their storage (storage is a very hot commodity in NYC  )

[Dancing Divertimentian]

It's not only about that. After a while if and when you start to listen to music form your computer (and your mp3 player) more than you do form your CD player, buying and accumulating CD's start to become kind of a hassle.

That's a big "if", there... (no pun)

For my money I see just as many advantages staying put (home stereo) as delving into the latest and greatest.

Nothing to me seems "better" unless I feel like travelling extensively with a loaded iPod attached to my collar.

Which I don't.

Or I'm in dire need of storage space.

Which I'm not.

Besides, if I ever did go 'computer', the first time my hard drive crashes and I lose my entire setup I'd be right back to buying "crashless" CD's again.

[andy]

It's not only about that. After a while if and when you start to listen to music form your computer (and your mp3 player) more than you do form your CD player, buying and accumulating CD's start to become kind of a hassle. If I keep on getting CD's ripping them losless and listening to the digital file version what's the point of keeping all those CD's and dedicating space for their storage (storage is a very hot commodity in NYC  )

Point taken. Living in Colorado, I have plenty of space... of course, it's all going the way of urban sprawl...

But really, it's not an issue for me yet, because I don't have nearly that many cds yet!

[Steve]

I completely disagree with this.  Of course, it could depend on what is meant by "good" hi-fi, and what is meant by "really expensive."

Then how could you be in complete disagreement? 

[Todd]

Then how could you be in complete disagreement?

The word could is critical.  Ideas of good and expensive vary.  Based on how I approach it, I completely disagree.  But if someone is happy with, say, Bose, then such a person may very well think a computer based system sounds good.

[Steve]

No, no, my intention was only to point out the sematic problems with your last remark. 

You say 'I completely disagree with this'

Then, " Of course, it could depend on"

It struck me as an amusing error. 

[Todd]

No, no, my intention was only to point out the sematic problems with your last remark.

It wasn't an error; see my last post.

[Steve]

It wasn't an error; see my last post.

It appeared to be a contradiction at first.

[Iago]

The format that is to be preferred depends entirely on the equipment used fof playback.
I have all McIntosh pre-amplifying and amplifying equipment feeding two large corner standing Klippschorns,
I had a SONY 9500ES DVD,cd, SACD player. I had that for almost 6 years. And WAS quite happy with the way it sounded on all those formats. But then I got interested in the Denon 3930CI, which handles what the SONY did +DVD-Audio.
And boy.....am I happy I bought this new player. It makes the SONY that it replaced seem like a childs toy. Denon always has had a reputation for making fine cd players. But this model seems extraordinarily good. Solo piano, AT LAST sounds like a grand piano in a fine concert space. And solo violins sound just as beautiful. But the true worth of such a machine is in large scale orchestral and choral music. As an example two great performance of Rimskys "Scheherezade" are by Fritz Reiner and the CSO and Sir Thomas Beecham and the Royal Philharmonic.
Reiners is very dramatic, forward sounding, and intense all the way. Although it is beautifully performed, Reiner did not have a romantic bone in his body. Yet in its SACD version it is MIGHTLY impressive.
Beechams version was originally released in the mid 80s, digitally remastered in the GROTC series by EMI, and re-released in 1997. It's only cd. not SACD. Yet listening to that recording on the Denon revealed the "inner workings" of Beechams orchestra with a detail I had never before heard from that disc. The third movement (Young Prince and Young Princess) in particular has a romantic sweetness and allure that the Reiner simply could not capture. Sir Thomas had that music in his soul. I never was able to tell that before. But this new machine enlightened me.
DVDs are upconverted to 720p and look absolutely immaculate and sparkling on my HDTV.

[Steve]

The format that is to be preferred depends entirely on the equipment used fof playback.
I have all McIntosh pre-amplifying and amplifying equipment feeding two large corner standing Klippschorns,
I had a SONY 9500ES DVD,cd, SACD player. I had that for almost 6 years. And WAS quite happy with the way it sounded on all those formats. But then I got interested in the Denon 3930CI, which handles what the SONY did +DVD-Audio.
And boy.....am I happy I bought this new player. It makes the SONY that it replaced seem like a childs toy. Denon always has had a reputation for making fine cd players. But this model seems extraordinarily good. Solo piano, AT LAST sounds like a grand piano in a fine concert space. And solo violins sound just as beautiful. But the true worth of such a machine is in large scale orchestral and choral music. As an example two great performance of Rimskys "Scheherezade" are by Fritz Reiner and the CSO and Sir Thomas Beecham and the Royal Philharmonic.
Reiners is very dramatic, forward sounding, and intense all the way. Although it is beautifully performed, Reiner did not have a romantic bone in his body. Yet in its SACD version it is MIGHTLY impressive.
Beechams version was originally released in the mid 80s, digitally remastered in the GROTC series by EMI, and re-released in 1997. It's only cd. not SACD. Yet listening to that recording on the Denon revealed the "inner workings" of Beechams orchestra with a detail I had never before heard from that disc. The third movement (Young Prince and Young Princess) in particular has a romantic sweetness and allure that the Reiner simply could not capture. Sir Thomas had that music in his soul. I never was able to tell that before. But this new machine enlightened me.
DVDs are upconverted to 720p and look absolutely immaculate and sparkling on my HDTV.

My, what poor formatting skills you have. 

[Iago]

My, what poor formatting skills you have. 

I don't know what that remark is supposed to mean.
Please enlighten me.
  Thank You.

[anasazi]

I only voted for two (LP and CD) because the other format I use (mini disc) wasn't included in the poll.

[Steve]

Can anyone describe the experience of listening to a beloved work on SACD as opposed to CD? I've long been wondering wether or not my next investment should be an SACD player... 

[Mark]

Can anyone describe the experience of listening to a beloved work on SACD as opposed to CD? I've long been wondering wether or not my next investment should be an SACD player... 

Speaking for myself, I'd say the difference is like this: with CD, you're sat in the audience, while with SACD, you're sat where the conductor stands.

[Al Moritz]

Like Todd and Iago I have high-end equipment for playback, and computer downloads are not even remotely an option for me.

[Iago]

Speaking for myself, I'd say the difference is like this: with CD, you're sat in the audience, while with SACD, you're sat where the conductor stands.

Not entirely true. It does however depend to a great extent as to who the audio engineer is, his goals, and the ways in which he attempts to reach them.  I have listened to marvelous SACDs (especially from RCA and Telarc) and some disastrous ones (a few from DG, and practically all from SONY-Columbia). A great orchestra and conductor benefit far more from SACD recordings than a mediocre orchestra and conductor would.
In the Munch/BSO/RCA, Saint-Saens, Sym #3, the orchestra was placed on the floor of Symphony Hall during the recording (with seats having been removed). The ambience of the hall is captured beautifully and it sounds as if you are seated in the center of the hall, midway from the front and rear. I know, because I have been seated there on many occasions.  On the other hand several discs from Columbia (SONY) featuring Bruno Walter and George Szell are absolutely atrocious. And although the original cds were quite good, the SACD attempts are hilarious failures.

[Steve]

Speaking for myself, I'd say the difference is like this: with CD, you're sat in the audience, while with SACD, you're sat where the conductor stands.

Excellent analogy, Mark!

I'm glad to see such enthusaism for this recording medium. Could you recommend an SACD player?