Why do record labels mess with us?

[Gurn Blanston]

Fingers crossed!

They should be; this is "Brand new, direct from the studios"! 

Boy, for $34 it would be a coup.

[DavidW]

I just checked Amazon .fr; .ca; .de; .uk and they all have it listed as unavailable, but the French site has most of them available in the individual discs, which would cost a small fortune.

Well by fingers crossed I meant that Naive will reissue it in the future.  For now there is nothing, but the incompetence of moviemarz.

[bbrip]

When I'm ripping my CDs in iTunes, I use a 192 kbps transfer rate. This sounds really good and there isn't a whole lot of loss in the audio quality. I absolutely HATE horrible audio and for classical music, I think it's absolutely necessary to have good audio, which also includes headphones, stereo equipment, etc. These are absolutely essential in getting the most out of your music I think.

Well to be honest I would never go for anything less than lossless on my audio rips. There is a noticeable difference between FLAC files and 320 kbps mp3 files, let alone 192 kbps.  And a loss is a loss.  Even not "a whole lot of a loss" is a loss.  So why would I want to cut off quality from my digital audio archive?  Space is not an issue. Disk space is so cheap, it doesn't really matter whether a full copy takes up 10 times as much space as the respective mp3 file.

just my humble opinion.

bbrip

[snyprrr]

Off Topic,

but, I was going to order from a certain Spanish distributor,... 20EU shipping, alone!! aaack swoooon

[Scarpia]

Well to be honest I would never go for anything less than lossless on my audio rips. There is a noticeable difference between FLAC files and 320 kbps mp3 files, let alone 192 kbps.  And a loss is a loss.  Even not "a whole lot of a loss" is a loss.  So why would I want to cut off quality from my digital audio archive?  Space is not an issue. Disk space is so cheap, it doesn't really matter whether a full copy takes up 10 times as much space as the respective mp3 file.

I have the same view.  If I am going to spend the time to copy my collection, why save a little disc space and make inferior copies when it is just as easy to make lossless copies. Is it really significant that a CD takes up 2 cents worth of disc space rather than half a cent?   Just the uncertainty as to whether there is loss of quality is enough to tip the balances in favor of lossless.  I don't have any portable devices, but even if I do get one it is easy to convert from lossless to mp3.

[Mirror Image]

Well to be honest I would never go for anything less than lossless on my audio rips. There is a noticeable difference between FLAC files and 320 kbps mp3 files, let alone 192 kbps.  And a loss is a loss.  Even not "a whole lot of a loss" is a loss.  So why would I want to cut off quality from my digital audio archive?  Space is not an issue. Disk space is so cheap, it doesn't really matter whether a full copy takes up 10 times as much space as the respective mp3 file.

just my humble opinion.

bbrip

When I'm on the go, I listen to one of my iPods (I own around 12 of them). They are limited in disk space. I don't listen through my computer and I'm not really interested in that anyway, but I do listen to music when I surf the Internet, but through my iPod and headphone amplifier. Actually, 192 kbps is not that much of a cut, especially if you use a variable bit rate, which boasts it to about 198 or so. Nobody's ears can tell much difference between 192 kbps and 256. Your ears aren't that good, so this is good enough for me, but if I want to listen something of CD quality, I put on a CD and run it through a stereo system.

[eyeresist]

That's one gripe I don't have.  Having been collecting classical music for longer than I'd like to admit, my perception is that classical music has never been more widely available for less money.

This I agree with. I only have faint memories of the bad old days of being subject to the tastes of one's local storekeeper, and no matter how broad their tastes, shelf space (and the whims of distributors) limited the selection to a very narrow range. You could look through a catalog or the Penguin guide (you'd have to find them first) and order in something new (if the storekeep thought it worth his while), but it was always a lucky dip.

Now I can order practically anything from anywhere, and usually sample the product beforehand. And a huge amount of the back catalog is being sold off at bargain prices. A complete, new set of the Mahler symphonies for $30? You got it! So different from the old days...

[starrynight]

Businesses will try and make as much money as possible from people and consumers will try to spend as little as possible (unless they are rich).

[DavidW]

I have the same view.  If I am going to spend the time to copy my collection, why save a little disc space and make inferior copies when it is just as easy to make lossless copies. Is it really significant that a CD takes up 2 cents worth of disc space rather than half a cent?   Just the uncertainty as to whether there is loss of quality is enough to tip the balances in favor of lossless.  I don't have any portable devices, but even if I do get one it is easy to convert from lossless to mp3.

I've been in the process of reripping my cds into flac.  I have more than memory for it.  I transcode those to mp3 for my ipod, but I still buy mp3s if they're priced at half what the cd costs.  There are some bargains out there and high bitrate mp3s sound excellent.  What is unfortunate is that while pop music frequently includes liner notes as a pdf, classical music downloads usually omit them.

[DavidW]

True Leon, but I have to admit plugging my laptop into my hifi by optical cable and finding a recording by simply typing something like "beethoven harnoncourt" and selecting the album I want is AWESOME!  No more looking through and organizing cd racks.

[Scarpia]

Well, I copied my entire collection before I had a luxury of disc space or had even heard of FLAC, and I am surely not going to go through that process again.  Especially since I admit to not being able to tell much (if any) difference in sound quality - but I have not done an A/B test, the sound on my iPod is good enough for the kind of listening I do when not at home.

But, if I do want to listen to something in lossless format I have the CD and nothing is stopping me from plopping it in the player.

I don't have an iPod, so my audio files are strictly for streaming to the DAC connected to the stereo.  I am looking forward to having a disc drive or two, rather than shelves and shelves of CDs, in my listening room.

[DavidW]

I grant you that is the main reason why most of my listening is done via my iTunes library.  The main difference is that I simply can no longer really appreciate the difference in sound quality between mp3 and lossless formats.

Well I agree with you, I don't believe bbrip.  High bitrate mp3s sound great. 

[Daverz]

The second instance, Chandos' Weinberg edition.  I have every disc in the series, but the latest installment only has one 30 minute symphony on it, and a 17 minute filler, the forth suite from some ballet I've never heard of.  Again, how long to they plan to string me along?  I've gone from anxiously awaiting the next installment to having no interest.

I'm hoping that Naxos does a Weinberg cycle with Antoni Wit.  I'll probably buy this Chandos disc, though.

You can find the first 3 suites from The Golden Key here.

[Scarpia]

I'm hoping that Naxos does a Weinberg cycle with Antoni Wit.

That's what I'm waiting for.

[The new erato]

  No more looking through and organizing cd racks.

That's the whole fun - and charm - of it though. Instant access to anything - how infinitely boring.

[DavidW]

That's the whole fun - and charm - of it though. Instant access to anything - how infinitely boring.

You know I was just missing what I used to do to rent a movie: walk down to the video store, browse the collection, pick something, rent it and walk back.  Now I just turn on my tv, bd player, hit the netflix button, click on a movie and go.  Not as fun.

[CRCulver]

That's the whole fun - and charm - of it though. Instant access to anything - how infinitely boring.

The other day I was dusting my CD shelves and had a look at several CD cases for the first time in months or years. I think it's a pity that now that my collection is entirely ripped to my computer, I no longer look at the cases. Some of the artwork is beautiful, and the liner notes often contain important remarks that are not easy to find on the internet. I like being able to instantly hear music at the press of a button, but the neglect of the physical artifact isn't an entirely positive development.

[Scarpia]

The other day I was dusting my CD shelves and had a look at several CD cases for the first time in months or years. I think it's a pity that now that my collection is entirely ripped to my computer, I no longer look at the cases. Some of the artwork is beautiful, and the liner notes often contain important remarks that are not easy to find on the internet. I like being able to instantly hear music at the press of a button, but the neglect of the physical artifact isn't an entirely positive development.

This is a big issue for me, and the reason I noticed that I just don't listen to the CDs I have in computer format.  Tags and cue sheets will never have all the required information, like details of the production, all of the performers, recording date and location, etc.

So I got a very quick flat-bed scanner and now as I rip the CD, I also do a scan of the booklet into a pdf file that gets put in the same folder as the flac and cue files.  CDs that have extensive booklets which would be too much of a bother to scan will be kept in an accessible place, but for the typical booklet there is only a few pages of scanning involved to get the cover art, track list with production details and whatever little essay they have included.  For some labels like Hyperion and Chandos this is unnecessary since the booklet can be downloaded from the web site as a pdf file.