and
-stereo only.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
iTunes and classical
- Thread starter Vincent Kars
- Start date
-stereo only.
Do you have Annie Fischer's cycle released on Hungaroton? That is the finest performance I have ever heard for a complete cycle. That rare blend of passion and technical proficiency.
Regarding Roon and large classical collections, I'm going to have to agree with Keith_W; it is simply dreadful. Even the antiquated notepad-esque Foobar2000 interface makes more sense than Roon for this genre.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I didn't say it only had TOSLINK.
I say it's like a PC with TOSLINK. This accounts for the fact that it, and most PCs, have USB.
Old Listener
Senior Member
A few comments:
- That list of search returns is pitiful. Either Roon isn't finding all the Beethoven Sonata recordings or Tidal doesn't have much of a selection.
- A single level search is a primitive way to browse a large collection. It makes more sense to search or browse in several steps. First you might select Composer = "Beethoven". then work="Sonata, Piano No. 2 Op. 2 No. 2", then Artist="O'Conor, John".
- Some composers wrote a lot of works. To keep the list of works you search, you may want to use another field like sub_genre="Sonata, Piano".
- If the player s/w has a database of metadata of recordings that you own, it can display lists of tag values at each stage of the search. You just scroll through the list and click on your choice. Then the next tag list reflects your choice.
Here's a view that I use in JRiver to browse classical music. It uses a panes view with a list of values for a tag in each of several panes. The view shows me what's in my library in a compact form; I don't have to remember what I have or how names are spelled.
If you are using s/w like Roon, it may not be possible to display all those tag lists at once. Instead the player would query Tidal for of composers and display that list. When you choose a composer, it would send a new query with the composer specified to get a list of the new set of tag values.
It is possible to do a much better job for classical music than most s/w does. It requires that there be some economic justification for the development effort and that the developers actually understand the task at hand. Neither of those conditions is likely to be met. Using s/w like JRiver that provides low level tools to tag files the way you want them tagged and tools to let you create and use views that make full use of those tags.
I will but tell the 3beez guy to call me in the morning. We have had several conversations in the past and I told him that I would be interested if he supported high resolution digital output of multichannel files. He always blew off the whole idea so I have not bothered to keep up with his evolution.
Edit: Just checked and you are correct although I notice that he insists upon converting all DSD to FLAC without option.
Second edit: I just exchanged emails with Jeff Barish and confirmed that, although 3Beez will accept DSD64 (and by default convert it to FLAC) and play multichannel (FLAC?), it will not support DSD128/256 nor multichannel DSD. The latter is particularly strange since, afaik, the majority of classical multichannel is in DSD. There is also no support for any roomEQ nor for my DAC.
Last edited:
As I said previously (post #18 of this thread: http://bit.ly/2iliWbr) I am skeptical of software that promises to catalog my library perfectly and to “know” exactly which metadata are important to me, but many people (including some classical music lovers) rave about their results with Roon. For those who want complete control over their catalog and metadata there are better options. JRiver Media Center (JRMC) is very powerful software but it is difficult (for a technophobe and non-coder like me) to use. Navigation is unintuitive. The clutter and redundant text in the GUI are confounding to me. Your JRMC screenshot provides a few examples of the problems. Album and Work are redundant space-gobbling columns in your screenshot. What information is provided in your Artist column? There are several concerti in your library. Does the Artist column provide the name of the conductor, the soloist, or the orchestra? There might be examples of all three in your screenshot but there only about twelve characters visible so it’s hard to know. And how do I select and play just the second movement (Andante) of Baguer’s Sym. 12?
IMHO the best software for a classical library is 3beez’s Wax software. (3beez’s Jeff Barish is both a classical music lover and an engineer. That’s why his Wax software works so well for classical.) I was initially annoyed that Barish wouldn’t sell me just the Wax software, only his complete music management product, but now that I own his product (after getting the green light from SWMBO) I understand his rationale. The tight integration of hardware and software in Barish’s Wax Box Music System has advantages evident even to a technical ignoramus like me (e.g., automatic backups, idling the spinning drives, automatic updates, and more).
I’m delighted with my Wax Box 4SE. The hardware is easy to set up, the sound quality is fantastic, and the software allows me to organize my collection in the way the makes the most sense to me. I can store any metadata that are important to me without learning a new coding language and without posting a message to a forum. The GUI is simple, uncluttered, and packed with “just the right information”. Old Listener, you’ll appreciate these features of the software: 1) You can create genres and sub-genres for better organization and faster searching; 2) You can define metadata fields that are appropriate for the genre; 3) You can perform complex (Boolean “AND”) searches (without using a programming language) to find tracks/works. This facilitates searching for tracks/works if you’re having a “senior moment” and you’ve forgotten which genre or sub-genre you used to store the track/work; 4) Your metadata are yours to own (unlike Roon’s subscription metadata which you rent) and future-proof. All of your metadata are exportable to Excel for import to other media players; and 5) The GUI for operating the software looks the same across all displays (desktop, tablet, and smartphone).
Taking screenshots of my Wax library is beyond my technical skills so I cannot share personal examples as you did. The best I can do to illustrate the power of Wax is grab a few links from the 3beez website. These links show some features that distinguish Wax from other similar software: 1) genres with custom metadata (http://bit.ly/2kjQwBf); 2) track groups for better organization and readability (http://bit.ly/2kjMzMA); 3) the ability to store documents (liner notes, etc.) and images (front and back cover of CD case) with a recording (http://bit.ly/2kkpyt0) and 4) free access to “a nearly limitless trove of related information” (http://bit.ly/2kjLZyx).
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
This seems possible where the music being played is something on my local NAS, but how do I control the metadata for Internet streaming sources?
OP
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2016
- Messages
- 790
- Likes
- 1,582
- Thread Starter
- #29
If its about tagging classical, the MusiCHI tagger is my favorite.
Its database at the present has 29961 composers.
Al the works of major composers are in the database as well.
This is a great help because of the many duplicates we often have in classical
Having the same compositions spelled the same really helps.
Its Cleaner saves a lot of time:
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/CHI/CHI_Cleaner.htm
Its database at the present has 29961 composers.
Al the works of major composers are in the database as well.
This is a great help because of the many duplicates we often have in classical
Having the same compositions spelled the same really helps.
Its Cleaner saves a lot of time:
http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/CHI/CHI_Cleaner.htm
Old Listener
Senior Member
You found 3beez's Wax software and you are in love with it. That's fine. Your comments about JRiver just reflect your ignorance about that software.
Any capable software requires some investment in understanding what you want to do and how to accomplish those things.
"Album and Work are redundant space-gobbling columns in your screenshot. "
Think so? Just right-click on the title bar above the file list with column names and unchecked "Album".
"What information is provided in your Artist column? There are several concerti in your library. Does the Artist column provide the name of the conductor, the soloist, or the orchestra? "
The Artist field contains what I chose to put in it. Some examples:
Solo work: Brendel
Orchestral work: Szell_Cleveland Orchestra
Concerto: Fleisher_Szell_Cleveland Orchestra
"There might be examples of all three in your screenshot but there only about twelve characters visible so it’s hard to know. "
You select the Artist in the pane labeled Artist in the upper part of the window. You'll note that the Artist Pane has room for more characters than the Artist field in the file list below. You use the panes to select music; the file list shows you the fields that meet your selection criteria.
When I control JRiver from a laptop with a 13" or 14" screen, I can click on a small arrow to remove the tree structure of views on the left so that the panes and file list take up the full width of the window.
"And how do I select and play just the second movement (Andante) of Baguer’s Sym. 12?"
Click on Baguer in the Composer pane, then click on "Symphony No. 12" in the Work pane. Since there is only one Artist listed in that pane, I don't have to select the artist. Right click on the line in the file list with Name="4 - Finale.
"Old Listener, you’ll appreciate these features of the software:"
Of course, I've got those things with JRiver. All straightforward to do.
Nothing that I did to adapt JRiver required programming on my part or any advanced skills. As I illustrated above, individual steps to fit JRiver to my needs were usually quite simple.
JRiver was written for the Windows OS originally and uses a number of common Windows user interface elements. If you know how to use a few other Windows programs, you can apply that knowledge. Then you can define what you want to do in functional terms and search for the way to accomplish it with JRiver. Learning to use a new piece of software is an essential skill for using any computer. Asking questions is another skill. Phrasing your questions in terms of what you want to do and providing adequate detail greatly improves the odds that you'll get effective answers. Complaining, whining and ranting greatly reduce your odds.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
That's a deal-breaker for me.
I'm not going to pay $4900 for hardware that duplicates functionality I already have just to get access to the software.
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 633
Agreed. I think there are some good ideas in Waxbox, but I would not bet it will succeed at the price. We do not need to pay excessive prices for underperforming, excessively marked up hardware with limiting restrictions just to get the software capabilities. Barish at 3Bees is not the only one to not yet get that message.
Agree also with Vincent about MusiChi. It is amazing with classical. But, it does not handle my beloved Mch.
Agreed also, JRiver has quirks and is difficult to learn to understand. It is not as classically oriented as the above. But, it is more flexible and customizable and has a far broader range than anything else. I am over most of its learning hurdles by now. And, I have a beautiful library that I know how to use that works quite well. Plus, it is the central control center for my entire A/V system, replacing and eliminating many other costly components in my system quite effectively. And, it cost me, what, $50.00 several years ago for my initial license? You can knock it, but you cannot beat it as the best bargain ever in audio.
The point is, especially with classical music, there are needs considerably beyond what Roon, sexy as it is, can supply in its current state. Its essential promise of comprehensive automatic tagging is really quite empty and totally unfulfilled when it comes to classical music. Classical music lovers all over the globe would live to see this succeed. But, it is a tough problem we just have to solve ourselves. Other tools are better at that than Roon is.
I humbly suggested that both of those conditions have been met. Did you even bother to investigate further, or was your true purpose to promote JRMC as the ne plus ultra? You are quick to hurl brickbats at someone you believe did not give your preferred solution sufficient consideration, but how much consideration did you give mine?
No doubt I am ignorant about JRMC and no doubt I could eventually learn to use it by asking questions. I didn’t ask for your help using JRMC because my hope was to find a product that didn’t require the effort and skills that you cited – and I did. With Wax, I was able to figure out how to play a selection in about 10 seconds. Learning to rip a CD took no more than 5 or 10 minutes. I didn’t have to learn about what to right-click on or which pane I need to use. I didn’t have to learn how to customize the user interface. I am able to store as much metadata as I want without stuffing multiple values into one tag. There was no need to take my remarks personally. If you are satisfied with JRMC, that’s your choice. I just thought that you and other readers might be interested to know about another choice. Evidently I was wrong.
You may not be old enough to understand the allusion, but you are starting to sound like a broken record.
You might not be willing to spend anything to duplicate functionality that you already have, but most of us are. I bought a new power amplifier several decades ago that duplicated the functionality of my Heathkit power amplifier because it improved the sound quality of my system. I bought loudspeakers that duplicated the functionality of my Acoustic Research AR-11 loudspeakers because they sounded better. I have made innumerable other purchases like these over the decades that duplicated the functionality of other audio components in my quest to improve sound quality. The Wax Box might duplicate the functionality of a component in your system, but the implication that digital music systems are fungible is a novel one at a forum dedicated to the pursuit of sound quality.
The Wax Box contains custom hardware to improve sound quality. I am not in a position to assess the claims that 3beez makes for the hardware, but I can tell you that what I hear is the best sound quality I have ever heard from a system that I can afford to own. The Wax Box doesn't account by itself for that assessment, but it improved the sound quality significantly compared to the Naim server that it replaced, and its price is less than half the price of the Naim.
It is impressive that you have already posted 1,482 times at this forum even though you joined just 2 months ago. I joined 3 weeks after you, but I have posted only 4 times. It would be even more impressive if you would put a little thought into your postings. Impress me now with a thoughtful scientific explanation why custom hardware is automatically irrelevant to sound quality.
Old Listener
Senior Member
MoeB, you are the person relentlessly promoting a product in post after post on this forum. You react to other people's posts as a threat to your promoting the Wax software.
You seemed to need to tear down JRiver to make your favorite product look better. You got things wrong and I corrected you.
It is peculiar that my two posts describing my favorable impressions of Wax represent "post after post" of "relentless promotion" while your two posts describing your favorable impressions of JRMC -- including a giant screenshot -- are ok. I obviously mistook the closing remark in the first of your two posts about the challenges presented by classical music as an invitation to have a civil discussion on a complex topic. Instead, you felt it necessary to publish a critique of my observation that JRMC is difficult to learn, an observation made also by Fitzcaraldo215 and by pretty much everyone on the planet, yet I am the one supposedly threatened in my relentless promotion of my favored solution.
I hope that there are members of Audio Science Review who are still passionate about the challenges of high fidelity reproduction, who are still curious about different approaches to solving problems, and who are not threatened by new ideas. No solution is perfect. The products from JRMC, MusiCHI, and 3beez all have advantages and disadvantages. It would be interesting, someday, to have a discussion about them.
The solution I have adopted to this dilemma is to go back to LPs and CDs 
I listen mainly in one room, where my records and CDs reside. I experimented with tagging a CD so it showed up the way I wanted. It took me about 25 minutes. I can walk to and pick a CD or LP in about 15 secs (mostly...) and start playing it another 15 seconds later. I reasoned that I would have to listen to a CD around 50 times before tagging it would have been worthwhile and stopped right there. I don't mind the clutter.
I do have quite a big iTunes library which I added to over 10 years when I was on an aeroplane every week, so I can listen to that but I don't add classical to it any more.
I listen mainly in one room, where my records and CDs reside. I experimented with tagging a CD so it showed up the way I wanted. It took me about 25 minutes. I can walk to and pick a CD or LP in about 15 secs (mostly...) and start playing it another 15 seconds later. I reasoned that I would have to listen to a CD around 50 times before tagging it would have been worthwhile and stopped right there. I don't mind the clutter.
I do have quite a big iTunes library which I added to over 10 years when I was on an aeroplane every week, so I can listen to that but I don't add classical to it any more.
You are both valuable members of the forum so don't want to take sides here
. Just noting that seeing how little is known about Wax system and the fact that MoeB is not from the company, his posts are good and informative. Old listeners corrections on what JRMC does was also useful. In general we all defend what we use, sometimes rationally sometimes irrationally. Let's not call each other on that unless it becomes a huge problem in which case the management steps in for correction.
Keep the posts coming as I am finally starting to understand the needs and issues in cataloging classical music.
But, also, rationally, because some of us choose to use something after experience with the competition.
Sounds like a great idea.
OP
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2016
- Messages
- 790
- Likes
- 1,582
- Thread Starter
- #40
Make me wonder what you don’t understand.
In general you are quick to grasp the problem.
The essence is that you want composers and compositions.
Composers I don’t think an issue anymore as the composer tag is supported today by media players. If not, find another one.
Compositions still is a problem.
There is no standard tag for it but maybe this will change as iTunes will support Work and Movement. At least MusicBee is going to support it.
Another problem is how to populate this tag.
That is where tools like the MusiCHI tagger comes in.
Suppose you have this tag populate, hoe is it handled by the media player?
You want a Composition to be treated as an Album.
This is the part where a lot of media players struggle.
You can’t configure them to treat the tracks that makes the composition as a unity.
