What format do you usually use?

[Guest Bill Barton]

Well, I'll be darned, in that case I have two BIG trunks full of K7s, mostly dubs of albums I no longer have on vinyl, full-length airchecks of radio shows from the dark ages (mainly 1980s) that also include a fair amount of music I no longer have in other formats, plus assorted interviews with musicians and airchecks of shows with special guests. Maybe 5% of my listening? Thanks for the clarification, Chas!

[michel devos]

one should always use the highest resolution available -

don't know; recordingin my living room with a Neumann 87 knockoff (a good one) I did go between 24/44 and 24/96 and played it back on high end speakers (my BSLs). Very close.

Maybe with a higher end mic pre-amp this might change.

but as I mentioned elsewhere 24 bits have changed my life.

24 bits recording is now standard practice and I agree one should always use the highest resolution available, since disk space is not a problem anymore. Things are not that evident regarding the bandwith and I personally cannot hear a significant difference between 44 or 96 kHz : I would tend to believe this trend could be compared to the craze of "Quadriphony or Quadrasonic sound" of the 70's, when more always meant better..!

But maybe the human ear will improve in the next decades or centuries, so if 96kHz makes the producer or engineer or marketing manager feel better, why not?

And hey, Allen, I hope you don't only use you U87's for living room recordings

For myself, I use MP3 to send samples or proof copies after editing thru the web. At home, I listen to Cd's or 24 bits from the PC, or, very seldom, LP's from my dusty Linn/Zeta/Koetsu red.

Edited October 5, 2010 by michel devos

[David Ayers]

How many people are ripping their CDs and selling them? I notice many more Mosaics now on ebay than ever (um, I only glanced - life is too shoprt to mess around with ebay....).

[David Ayers]

Oh and you didn't mention streaming, which for me is where I hear most new jazz that I don't already own. I don't much like managing an mp3 library, it seems like a waste of time, and in general I prefer to listen to ten titles once than one title ten times.

[mjzee]

Well, I'll be darned, in that case I have two BIG trunks full of K7s, mostly dubs of albums I no longer have on vinyl, full-length airchecks of radio shows from the dark ages (mainly 1980s) that also include a fair amount of music I no longer have in other formats, plus assorted interviews with musicians and airchecks of shows with special guests. Maybe 5% of my listening? Thanks for the clarification, Chas!

You should digitize the interviews, airchecks, and anything else that's rare. Cassettes break, and there may come a time in the (not so distant) future when you can't buy a machine to play them on.

[mikefok]

I am a monster. Still on CD. But since travelling a lot lately, it seems that the digital formet would be a more reasonable option for me.

[mellowT]

How many people are ripping their CDs and selling them? I notice many more Mosaics now on ebay than ever (um, I only glanced - life is too shoprt to mess around with ebay....).

Yah, some guy dumped his whole 25-set collection at once this week. Could be the bad economy is taking more prisoners.

With regard to the poll, I have a unique situation at work. If I want to do any listening at all, policy dictates I must bring in manufactured disks and play them on a standalone CD player--no home burnt CDs, no iPods, no iTunes or streaming on the company computer. Makes it hard on the wallet.

At home I'm content with playing iTunes at the old default CD import level (192 kbps) on my HK SoundSticks. I really can't tell any difference between that and higher bit rates. I used to have a pretty decent home stereo system from the mid-80's, but every component has crapped out with age, including my Infinity RS 5 speakers, and I haven't yet replaced it. I may not bother.

Thus an even split between CDs and converted CDs.

[Peter Friedman]

99.8% of my listening is on CD's. That includes both the house and the car. My house is filled with CDs in almost ever room. Also I have some form of CD player in almost every room at home. I have LP's but never listen to them. I listen on my iPod only during my morning walk and when away from home on vacations.

[John L]

MP3

I spend the majority of time away from my CD and LP collections. So I have no choice. MP3s have seriously increased the quality of my life, allowing me to have access to my collection wherever I am.

[mjzee]

MP3

I spend the majority of time away from my CD and LP collections. So I have no choice. MP3s have seriously increased the quality of my life, allowing me to have access to my collection wherever I am.

And it's the context. I didn't really "get" Coltrane, thought him too serious, until I played his music in the car. It's great driving music!

[papsrus]

With regard to the poll, I have a unique situation at work. If I want to do any listening at all, policy dictates I must bring in manufactured disks and play them on a standalone CD player--no home burnt CDs, no iPods, no iTunes or streaming on the company computer. Makes it hard on the wallet.

I get the no streaming on company computers policy, but why would a company delineate between manufactured and home-spun CDs? Are they concerned about some kind of virus being planted from the disc? And if they're going to allow listening, why no iPods?

[mellowT]

I get the no streaming on company computers policy, but why would a company delineate between manufactured and home-spun CDs? Are they concerned about some kind of virus being planted from the disc? And if they're going to allow listening, why no iPods?

Who can fathom the collective mind of a fanatical IT department? The iPod policy I can sort of understand, since you can plug it into the USB port. CD-Rs... that one makes no sense. I've heard various explanations (they could contain malware, they can still be written to). More regulations come out every year and I gotta live with them. I finally got my PC refreshed and they whacked my iTunes library I had in place from 4 years ago (no updates allowed since then). Not an 'approved' piece of software. Too many ways for employees to goof off? I don't know...

[aparxa]

In front of the computer: FLAC

Living room & kitchen : CDs

At work: mp3 or streaming

Sunday morning: LPs

And awful Radio while commuting.

[mikeweil]

CDs 90% of the time - I always hear a diifference between the sound before and after transfer to MP3 or even Flac formats. I have an MP3 player to listen to stuff and will probably use it in the car when the hardware allows, but I rarely find the time to put it on, although I have plenty of MP3 files on hard disc to choose from.

I had hopes SACD would be the way to go, but with billions of young people listening only on Ipods, not even ghetto blasters .... audiophile listeners are a dying species.

10 % is vinyl ...

Edited October 8, 2010 by mikeweil

[king ubu]

I guess about 90% is CDs, rest is divided between LPs, MP3 while commuting, and finally MP3 or FLAC of ROIOs on the computer.

[porcy62]

Can you listen to music with an MP3? I though it was the protocol droid of Star Wars.

Edited October 13, 2010 by porcy62

[.:.impossible]

Majority CDs. Oddly enough, I find them to be more convenient than mp3 etc. Easier to browse.

I have a Squeezebox, and while it can be great, I tend to go for the CD shelves before looking through the server for something to listen to. Great for on the fly playlists though, and parties.

[sonnymax]

I voted for "mp3s and the like". For years I purchased an average of 8-20 CDs a month and have amassed a collection of over 4,000 [overwhelmingly jazz] discs. Oven the past 12 months, I've only bought a handful of discs, mostly from the artist at a live show. I now have over 750GB of music on hard disk, mostly m4a files and mp3VBR & mp3@320k. I have a wireless network to stream these music files throughout my condo, and I also enjoy listening to several Internet jazz radio stations. I stopped buying the latest CD re-re-reissues a few years ago, and I have a hard time believing people who say they can hear the difference between a CD and a lossless digital file. For me, the move to digital files provides me greater access to acquiring and listening to the music I love while reducing the cost and physical space associated with owning a sizable music collection.

[Claude]

I listen to CD, SACD (mostly classical), vinyl (originals and audiophile reissues), lossless files and MP3s (outdoors). Every format has it's advantages and drawbacks.

Although I am an audiophile, I can enjoy MP3s, just like I can enjoy Charlie Parker audience recordings.

But I think MP3s will be replaced by lossless files in the next years, as download speeds and storage capacities grow. There is no absolute need for lossy compression any longer. The main reason why download stores stick to MP3 (often at the highest bitrate 320kbs) is that it's currently the only universal music file format, that plays on all portable players and music servers. If more players supported FLAC, I'm sure the download offer in that format would increase.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Claude

[eric0531]

Maybe in the 90's they were an abomination, but with the improvements in LAME I would be willing to bet most people couldn't tell the difference in a blindfold test.

Bingo. I've used the double-blind testing mode in Foobar on my PC to compare FLAC and high quality MP3 (LAME V0) and I can't tell the difference - that's using HD595 headphones from a Total Bithead DAC/Amp. Having said that, disc space is cheap so when I'm in front of the PC I listen to lossless format, but for anywhere else in the house or elsewhere the iPod carries MP3 files.

[Shawn]

Maybe in the 90's they were an abomination, but with the improvements in LAME I would be willing to bet most people couldn't tell the difference in a blindfold test.

Bingo. I've used the double-blind testing mode in Foobar on my PC to compare FLAC and high quality MP3 (LAME V0) and I can't tell the difference - that's using HD595 headphones from a Total Bithead DAC/Amp. Having said that, disc space is cheap so when I'm in front of the PC I listen to lossless format, but for anywhere else in the house or elsewhere the iPod carries MP3 files.

I recently did some side by side comparisons of CDs & ALAC (Apple's version of FLAC) and the only difference I can tell was probably related more to the transport than the file type. In fact, the ALAC files playing from my computer actually sound better than my CD player at this point, so when I buy a new CD I rip it to the computer and the CD might not get touched again for months.

[Brute]

I enjoy my ipod for the convenience but 95% of the music on it is CD sourced from my collection. Also, I still enjoy listening to vinyl when I have the time but my collection is pretty thin.

[RogerF]

I enjoy my ipod for the convenience but 95% of the music on it is CD sourced from my collection. Also, I still enjoy listening to vinyl when I have the time but my collection is pretty thin.

I would pretty much echo this in terms of how I listen to music. Not my preference, but with a small house I can only otherwise listen to music properly in our tiny spare room (mainly on CD). So predominantly I listen on my iPod (Nano 8Gb) on the train or bus. But these are all sourced from commercially available CDs or from my LP collection. I am thinking of putting all my collection onto a large iPod 160Gb but wonder how many LPs I could get onto it? The n1000s tracks vaunted by Apple doesn't mean much in terms of albums unless you take 12 to be the average number for an album (which in jazz is not the case).

[rostasi]

I am thinking of putting all my collection onto a large iPod 160Gb but wonder how many LPs I could get onto it? The n1000s tracks vaunted by Apple doesn't mean much in terms of albums unless you take 12 to be the average number for an album (which in jazz is not the case).

Approximation: your results varying of course,

but assuming bit rate at 320kbps and tunes from 2 to 20 minutes in length

and 145GB capacity on a 160GB player (actually, it's almost 149GB, but I'm

allowing for artwork), you should get approximately 10,000 tunes covering about

35 days (840 hours) on your 160GB iPod. If you want to expand this further

by dividing by 40 minutes/LP, then that brings you to 1260 LPs, but,

of course, your results will vary.

[RogerF]

I am thinking of putting all my collection onto a large iPod 160Gb but wonder how many LPs I could get onto it? The n1000s tracks vaunted by Apple doesn't mean much in terms of albums unless you take 12 to be the average number for an album (which in jazz is not the case).

Approximation: your results varying of course,

but assuming bit rate at 320kbps and tunes from 2 to 20 minutes in length

and 145GB capacity on a 160GB player (actually, it's almost 149GB, but I'm

allowing for artwork), you should get approximately 10,000 tunes covering about

35 days (840 hours) on your 160GB iPod. If you want to expand this further

by dividing by 40 minutes/LP, then that brings you to 1260 LPs, but,

of course, your results will vary.

Rostasi thanks, I did a different approximation, by taking the number of albums on my nano 8gb (around 70) and multiplying by 20 giving me around 1400 albums. But I think you estimation is probably more accurate. However, even if I were to do this (put all my collection onto a 160gb ipod) I would need to buy a new pc first with a half a terabyte hard disk. Course the ideal solution is to move to a house big enough to have a 'music room' which could comfortably accomodate CD player, turntable, cassette player, large amp and even larger speakers oh and all the CDs, cassettes and LPs on shelving. So I guess I'll start playing the lottery again.