Lossless downloads @ Deutsche Grammophon

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniks7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As an aside on the d/l of high res music.. Linn (of Sondek fame) do it. It was actually cheaper at one point to buy the physical SACD because the cost of hosting or bandwidth or whatever was so high that the download cost about a quid more. Although given they are Linn (of Sondek fame) I can't see why they don't do stuff on vinyl..

I see that for example Scottish Chamber Orchestra (SCO) Mozart Colloredo Serenade K.203 and Divertimento K.251 is priced at 28 Euro

(high resolution multichannel FLAC file)

Linn Records - Mozart Colloredo Serenade K.203 and Divertimento K.251

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniks7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As an aside on the d/l of high res music.. Linn (of Sondek fame) do it. It was actually cheaper at one point to buy the physical SACD because the cost of hosting or bandwidth or whatever was so high that the download cost about a quid more. Although given they are Linn (of Sondek fame) I can't see why they don't do stuff on vinyl..

Actually, that's the one thing I can understand! I know all about the romance of vinyl, but unless you are a dj who plays with the vinyl to enhance dance experience, it's unnecessary. And please don't start telling me that vinyl sounds so much better! I know how vinyl sounds and I also know that the "warm" vinyl sound that everyone loves is actually a result of engineering: purposeful distortion used to minimize the artifacts such as tape hiss and other deficits of vinyl playback.

Recordings aren't made on vinyl, they are all made digitally nowadays. Digital files on optical media give the purest and most distortion free source for playback. Why use vinyl for a playback medium when you know the result will be a distortion of the actual performance? Why use a medium which degrades everytime you play it? If you only want to warm up your digital files during playback, just get a really good tube amp; and if you are really desperate for that "warmed up" sound, an equalizer. The only limitation is your playback system. Better components will enable you to tweak everything to suit your personal tastes rather than to suit the constraints of the playback medium.

This is the reason I have stopped buying new vinyl and only have kept albums which I haven't been able to find well remastered digitally. Give me SACD, DVD-A, DSD, HDCD, or any other top quality digital format any day rather than vinyl, which to me is only valuable for the out of print performances of particular works.

 

[Rlynn]

Looks to me that buying from the UK retailers MDT and Linn, those in Europe and the US are benefiting from the weak pound. I know MDT charges in pounds and the conversion is made at the time of billing and looks like Linn does the same, though have not bought from them. Of course, this situation could change and MDT and Linn will go back to being very dear.

DG, on the other hand, has separate pricing for each country. The website lists 12.99 for both dollars and euros, definitely not a direct conversion. I would expect pricing in this model to be more stable. It is interesting that all album downloads are priced the same. The list and street price of the physical CD varies with the series, so downloads for new issues are reasonable, reissues are expensive. Is this part of the business strategy?

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, that's the one thing I can understand! I know all about the romance of vinyl, but unless you are a dj who plays with the vinyl to enhance dance experience, it's unnecessary. And please don't start telling me that vinyl sounds so much better! I know how vinyl sounds and I also know that the "warm" vinyl sound that everyone loves is actually a result of engineering: purposeful distortion used to minimize the artifacts such as tape hiss and other deficits of vinyl playback. Recordings aren't made on vinyl, they are all made digitally nowadays. Digital files on optical media give the purest and most distortion free source for playback. Why use vinyl for a playback medium when you know the result will be a distortion of the actual performance? Why use a medium which degrades everytime you play it? If you only want to warm up your digital files during playback, just get a really good tube amp; and if you are really desperate for that "warmed up" sound, an equalizer. The only limitation is your playback system. Better components will enable you to tweak everything to suit your personal tastes rather than to suit the constraints of the playback medium. This is the reason I have stopped buying new vinyl and only have kept albums which I haven't been able to find well remastered digitally. Give me SACD, DVD-A, DSD, HDCD, or any other top quality digital format any day rather than vinyl, which to me is only valuable for the out of print performances of particular works.

Perhaps you should consider putting this in your signature so everyone can have the pleasure of this little comedy every time you post, regardless of the subject.

You're beyond silly.

What possible harm can there be in choice?

--Jerome

 

[sniks7]

sorry, should have put an irony symbol after the vinyl reference! It was a tad tongue in cheek.

The whole digital v vinyl debate is delicious - a bit like chewing a rubber band: in some ways very satisfying but you can't swallow - but probably off post here.

However, one small point, you say recordings aren't made on vinyl, which is largely true, but not the whole story - check out the best vinyl records available post (somebody please stick the url in for me!) where you'll find there's the odd exception.

Best in-production vinyl

That's the thread I was talking about. Can't sort out the interweb link thing with it though.

Do you know what? Sometimes I just want to give up with this whole computer thing. It makes me feel old.

 

[sniks7]

Best in-production vinyl

That's the thread I was talking about. Can't sort out the interweb link thing with it though

 

[Bunnyears]

I still don't see why anyone would need vinyl for a recording made digitally! The distortion of the vinyl sound is like lipstick on a woman: why use it if your lips are naturally red?

 

[jsaliga]

Well, perhaps I have misunderstood you all along. However, this is the first time I can recall you qualifying your comments about vinyl and digital sourced recordings.

I agree with you in that respect, and in general I too prefer digital media for recordings that were digitally recorded and mastered.

However, I also prefer analog media (and an all-analog signal chain) in cases where the source recordings were put down on analog tape. Since digital recording has only been with us since the early to mid 1980s, this means that most of the important jazz recordings that I prize were recorded with analog equipment. With few exceptions such as Verve's Master Edition series, digital mastering and production has not been very kind to much of this cherished music. There are audiophile labels such as Analogue Productions that are remastering and reissuing a lot of great Blue Note titles from the 1950s and 1960s. Acoustech Mastering gurus Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman are working on these projects, and to the delight of audiophiles on either side of the digital/analog question AP is offering a choice of Hybrid SACD or two 45 RPM 180g vinyl LPs. This gives everyone a chance to enjoy this music on the media they prefer. Everybody wins.

What I like about high resolution digital downloads is choice. So I support companies such as HD Tracks and High Definition Tape Transfers. I can play the files back on a PC if I wish, or using software such as Disc Welder Bronze I can author a DVD-A and burn it to a DVD-R disc for playback on my universal player.

I would really like to see DG and other labels offer up some/more high resolution digital downloads. But I think this is going to be very slow to evolve for several reasons -- not the least of which are the mp3 generation and the reluctance to change by a stubborn recording industry. It's all going to take some time.

--Jerome

 

[Tyson]

Change will come slowly because of "Tyson's Axiom #1", which states:

People are Stupid.

 

[jsaliga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson /img/forum/go_quote.gif People are Stupid.

And there's that.

--Jerome

 

[sniks7]

I have just listened to Janacek's Sinfonietta on Decca LP with Mackerras, 1981. It says

the digital master tape recorder gives) a significant quality improvement compared with conventional analog master tapes."

It shredded my ear-drums: it was appallingly bright. The Rattle version was much nicer.. The trouble is that with unwanted records they don't make very good table mats, unlike a bad CD. I shall see if I can turn it into a kite..

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sniks7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have just listened to Janacek's Sinfonietta on Decca LP with Mackerras, 1981. It says the digital master tape recorder gives) a significant quality improvement compared with conventional analog master tapes." It shredded my ear-drums: it was appallingly bright. The Rattle version was much nicer.. The trouble is that with unwanted records they don't make very good table mats, unlike a bad CD. I shall see if I can turn it into a kite..

As I said before: the only vinyl I have retained is of out of print music that hasn't been converted well to digital format. Sadly, not every engineer makes a good sounding recording, which was as true in the analog days as it is now. While I don't buy rock or pop anymore (sound quality is awful) I haven't found a new top quality classical recording that hasn't been made using digital technology. Older analog recordings that have been remastered in Direct Stream Digital (SACD), or other high bit rate technology are to my ears cleaner and better sounding than my old, worn down LPs. Those are the LPs that I have replaced. Unfortunately, many conversions to digital in the early age of the technology were not good. In fact they sounded so badly that I refused to upgrade to digital equipment for more than 5 years. However, the technology has improved tremendously and now I find the digital sound is much better than my old lps so I have made the move as completely as possible. The only way I can explain why is by telling this story:

Soon after I upgraded my system, I put on an old lp of Beethoven piano sonatas. After that I put on a new cd (probably HDCD format) of Beethoven sonatas. Suddenly my daughter and her best friend (a Juilliard piano student) raced into the room asking "Who's playing the piano?" They had thought that someone had come in, I had been playing a record (true), and then that the guest had sat down at our piano to play for me. That made a very profound impression on me. Clearly, the digital recording sounded more true to life than the treasured LP which to my ears sounded so much richer. That's when I realized that there was a good deal of cosmetic "enrichment" to vinyl. I became a convert that day.

PS. First, 1981 was in the earliest days of digital technology. That's when I refused to upgrade because the transfers as well as original recordings sounded so bright and edgy. That has changed; you won't find such a problem with late 1980s recordings.

Second, being very familiar with Rattle's work both on disc and in concert, there are very, very, very few things that Rattle has done as well as MacKerras! Hard to believe that there's a record out there where Rattle sounds better than Mac.

 

[sniks7]

Mackerras seems to get the penguin vote too: they rather like the shrillness (and it probably suits the music better too) but I'm probably too cloth-eared to tell the difference in performances in any case. Rattle's Mahler 2 is nice though..

As to the digital I like saying vinyl is far better than CD largely because the conceit amuses me: for one reason or another I've never actually listened to anything on a cd player.