CDs---Grampa's relics?

[Hugo9000]

I remember looking over the Hanover Band complete Beethoven Symphonies on Nimbus at Rasputin, Fresno. One of the best HIP Beethoven sets, but this copy had disc rot on all five discs, alas. I think the recordings on YouTube are remakes, but this recording of Consecration of the House turned up as an "EP" of sorts, a collection of overtures running less than the usual playing time. Fantastic performance of this overture, pity about the discs.

Yes, I wanted that Hanover Band Beethoven set, wonderful performances! But the 9th is a bit oddly recorded compared to the rest, if memory serves. So that and the issue of Nimbus' unreliability kept me from every buying it.

I just listen occasionally on youtube, but the set does make the rounds from my 'wishlist' into my 'cart' and back again from time to time haha.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_npn5G9ZQXFhk9m5WiQAEfTg0xNpZOIxCQ

 

[Robin L]

Yes, I wanted that Hanover Band Beethoven set, wonderful performances! But the 9th is a bit oddly recorded compared to the rest, if memory serves. So between that and the issue of Nimbus' unreliability kept me from every buying it.

I just listen occasionally on youtube, but the set does make the rounds from my 'wishlist' into my 'cart' and back again from time to time haha.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_npn5G9ZQXFhk9m5WiQAEfTg0xNpZOIxCQ

I know I'm derailing my own thread here, but did you listen to John Eliot Gardiner/Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique set? His seem the most "on-point" of all the Beethoven Symphony sets, HIP or otherwise. The live videos are even more intense:

 

[digitalfrost]

I think there will be a CD revival but it might take another 20 years. Personally, I grew up with a turntable and CDs, but as soon as MP3 hit, I never looked back. While I have all my music in FLAC nowadays, I ripped a lot of CDs in my time. But all of those are in a box behind the couch, because I really don't care.

I think in general, both vinyl and CDs don't take up much space at all, unless you got a ton of it. I'll keep my CDs in case I need them. But I don't take them in my hands. I buy them, I rip them, they go in the box. End of story.

 

[Chrispy]

Never like digipacks either. They are always a different size, shape and are a nasty overall experience. The original jewel case was perfect.

The original jewel box was crap in more ways, tho. Poor use of plastics for one, they often broke in transport/use. But they do have removeable literature which can be put in a binder side by side (or on top of) in a binder, so that's what happens to all jewel cases for me.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

The only physical media I still buy is books. Haven't bought a CD in...hell probably 15 years. I still have a box full somewhere, along with a crate of vinyl. And I agree vinyl is a current fad that will pass.

 

[DWPress]

I will add that I still produce a lot of CD packaging for musicians though now it's all brown and white chipboard cases foregoing the plastic bits. For a musician that isn't quite at the level of a big label but still tours a lot it is still a source of significant income. Yes, they have to come up with the initial investment to produce them but then it's all profit unlike the pittance they receive from the streaming platforms if just released digitally.

 

[ThatM1key]

The original jewel box was crap in more ways, tho. Poor use of plastics for one, they often broke in transport/use. But they do have removeable literature which can be put in a binder side by side (or on top of) in a binder, so that's what happens to all jewel cases for me.

For the most part, you can get a replacement jewel, you can't do that with digipacks.

 

[Chrispy]

For the most part, you can get a replacement jewel, you can't do that with digipacks.

I just don't want the eventual bulk/limited storage for such. That's why I got rid of them but digipacks I have a separate shelf for, but they're far more outnumbered by basic jewel cases.....I always keep a few spare jewel cases just in case of need. I still play all my cds as rips, keep the discs as backup....the optical discs I play are largely multich sacds/dvd/blurays...

 

[Prana Ferox]

There are other threads on here where, fundamentally, we express preference for owning data or renting it. I would feel differently about keeping CDs (and buying more) if I felt confident the music would be out in the Cloud when I wanted to hear it, especially 10 or 20 years from now.

 

[ThatM1key]

There are other threads on here where, fundamentally, we express preference for owning data or renting it. I would feel differently about keeping CDs (and buying more) if I felt confident the music would be out in the Cloud when I wanted to hear it, especially 10 or 20 years from now.

Its funny how in America, its wrong to rip your CDs and then sell it but in Japan you can rent CDs and copy.

 

[Chrispy]

Its funny how in America, its wrong to rip your CDs and then sell it but in Japan you can rent CDs and copy.

As far as copying discs, the legality of copying them doesn't generally seem to be a deterrent to the widespread practice of doing so....cd's are especially easy and can't think of any rental service of cds that ever happened here in the US in any case.

 

[Xulonn]

With a Windows/Mac/Linux app - 4KVideoDownloader - one can easily rip YouTube and many other videos at any resolution up to max for the content, and likewise extract audio, again with choice of bitrates up to max for the content (Edit: Which is only 128k for YouTube, but that's fine for me for casual/background listening.)

Since such content is available for free via the internet continuously, downloading is technically a just another variant of time-shifting - saving material for watching at another time rather than streaming live.

 

[ThatM1key]

With a Windows/Mac/Linux app - 4KVideoDownloader - one can easily rip YouTube and many other videos at any resolution up to max for the content, and likewise extract audio, again with choice of bitrates up to max for the content.

Since such content is available for free via the internet continuously, downloading is technically a just another variant of time-shifting - saving material for watching at another time rather than streaming live.

Tartube is better

 

[JSmith]

one can easily rip YouTube and many other videos at any resolution up to max for the content, and likewise extract audio, again with choice of bitrates up to max for the content.

You don't need to rip the video first, can just grab the audio only with sites like this or similar;

https://ytmp3.cc/ (block ad's and redirects)


JSmith

 

[ThatM1key]

You don't need to rip the video first, can just grab the audio only with sites like this or similar;

https://ytmp3.cc/ (block ad's and redirects)


JSmith

I hate those tools & websites, they don't actually strip the audio out. Those tools download the video on there server and then convert to MP3.

It's better to download the video using Tartube and then strip the audio using MKVToolNix, which the end file is MKA.

Directly striped audio from directly downloaded video:

Converted to MP3 from directly downloaded video using VLC conversation.

ytmp3.cc:

Essentially those MP3 sites, are doing a lossy to lossy conversion (MP3 128kbps to 192kbps), there not simply grabbing the audio. You could argue that a good chunk of songs on YouTube have a straight cut at 16khz but the problem is that your dealing with lossy to lossy conversion, which results in more lost data. Also the fact the MKA file is smaller.

 

[JSmith]

(MP3 128kbps to 192kbps)

Some will do 320kbps;

YouTube to MP3 - Best youtube to mp3 music converter.

YouTube to MP3 is a fast free online tool to download and convert youtube videos to 320kbps mp3 music.

yt2mp3.info

I wouldn't expect a high level of quality from the embedded audio to start with though.

your dealing with lossy to lossy conversion

Those tools download the video on there server and then convert to MP3.

True... I just find these handy for a quick MP3 grab when needed.


JSmith

 

[Robin L]

I wouldn't expect a high level of quality from the embedded audio to start with though.

I'm surprised at how many YouTube streams sound just fine. Don't get me wrong, it's full of atrocious needledrops of stuff that was sonically awful to begin with. On the other hand, the streams provided by rights holders on YouTube tend to be just fine.

 

[ThatM1key]

Some will do 320kbps

That's not true. YouTube Music can do 256kbps max but the regular videos are 192kbps or less. Usually encoded with AAC for old videos and OPUS for new videos.

True... I just find these handy for a quick MP3 grab when needed.

That's the only good thing about them.

I wouldn't expect a high level of quality from the embedded audio to start with though.

I don't either but I don't want to rip out even more bits.

 

[Hugo9000]

I know I'm derailing my own thread here, but did you listen to John Eliot Gardiner/Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique set? His seem the most "on-point" of all the Beethoven Symphony sets, HIP or otherwise. The live videos are even more intense:

I have a few complete cycles, including Gardiner, Hogwood, Brüggen, Szell, Leinsdorf, 3 sets by Karajan (I like the films the best out of his sets, because if I get bored there is always the visual to add some interest haha!), and some other sets I can't recall at the moment, plus assorted singles of the 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 9th. When I first got the Gardiner set, I very much liked it and thought it was better than the Hogwood, but I later changed my mind on some of my favorite symphonies, where I prefer some things that Hogwood did.

My favorite cycle is probably mostly unknown, the set Lan Shui did with the Copenhagen Phil. Pity it wasn't recorded by BIS, or perhaps in a bit warmer acoustic, but the interpretations feel completely right to me. He's one of a tiny group of conductors whose work I always love.

I'm waiting for François-Xavier Roth to complete his cycle with Les Siècles, since I love his 3rd and 5th that have been issued already.

I'd love to have the Emmanuel Krivine set, but it's out of print, like most music from the Naive label. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't really be looking to increase my already large collection haha! Oh, it seems the Hanover Band set can be had as a lossless download for only $12 from Presto lol, so maybe that's the way to go on that one, and then burn it to CDs instead of risking faulty Nimbus discs haha.

To bring this back to your original topic, I don't have children, let alone grandchildren, so my CDs aren't Grandpa's relics, but perhaps Crazy Uncle's relics? It does feel strange to me that something that has such value to me is considered worthless to most. I used to have a ton of DVDs as well, but I gave away most of them the last time I moved. I held onto all of my music, however. I suppose one day I might have to pare the collection down, but I don't want to, since most of it's out of print and a lot is not on any streaming service and may never be.

 

[JSmith]

That's not true.

I was referring to the online converters rather than the limits of basic YT audio, which is why most of them default to 192kbps or lower for MP3 conversion.

regular videos are 192kbps or less

Yes... but, what you mentioned about the audio not being separate isn't the case it seems any more;

YouTube streams video and audio separately and the web player/app combines them on the fly. Due to this, the audio bitrate is not directly affected by video quality like in the past. Rather, YouTube can stream the video and audio it deems appropriate for a given device and connection. It can also adjust one during playback without affecting the other.

The audio you hear during a YouTube video will usually be 126 kbps AAC in an MP4 container or anywhere from 50-165 kbps Opus in a WebM container. Changing video resolution (360p, 720p, etc) in the video settings will probably not impact the audio stream, but it is likely that your connection performance will.

YouTube Audio Quality Bitrate Used For 360p, 480p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 2160p - H3XED

YouTube didn't always have separate audio streams. In 2013 and earlier, YouTube would play a specific audio bitrate depending on the video resolution selected. For example: 240p would get 64 kbps MP3, 360p would get 128 kbps AAC, and 720p would get 192 kbps AAC.

JSmith