Cds trying to think of a reason.

With streaming you have to depend on the Internet, without the internet what do you have. With equipment, CD’s, LP’s and electric generation equipment or even solar panels life continues.

I have my LP’s (Primary) as you suggested. Since my streaming sounds as good or better than then my CD’s everytime, plus working with a listening space less the 50sqft the CD’s have to go (for the 2nd time). For someone in my situation that doesn’t want any physical media to save space, properly set up streaming is a no brainer IMHO.
:beerchug:
 
I have my LP’s (Primary) as you suggested. Since my streaming sounds as good or better than then my CD’s everytime, plus working with a listening space less the 50sqft the CD’s have to go (for the 2nd time). For someone in my situation that doesn’t want any physical media to save space, properly set up streaming is a no brainer IMHO.
:beerchug:
Well I guess I could take them off your hands for you.. :biggrin:
 
Well yeah, in that case I'm a streamer too!
In the bad old days, I needed to make duplicates of CDs for different systems. I'm down to one that requires physical media now - a 2001 Honda with a six disc changer in the trunk. Music servers allow for a central digital library that can be shared by multiple systems without having to make copies or sneakernet them about your manse.

Each system - Main/HT/Garage/Office/iPad in bedroom - can access my digital library. Simultaneously playing different music if desired. Or, for the two Roku players, video content.
 
I boxed all my CDs and provided them to the local library on "permanent loan". Useless to me.

I'd rather spend more time listening than disc shuffling. :)
I haven't sent my CD's to the library yet but that might be a good idea.
There are many things I like about the CD as a vehicle to get the files to my NAS drive, but otherwise never touch them again.

I have always liked a mixed or random play, even back in the LP days with reel to reel, and even an accutrack TT. Now I have my entire collection literally at my finger tips and the remote control is a wireless mouse that sits on the arm of my listening chair, and the flat screen TV with jriver on it.

This, while simple to use is very robust with features to play exactly what I want to hear at any time. Playing smartlists and I get a whim for something else I just select the track, album, playlist, artist or whatever and then add them to the currehtly playing now list with all sorts of options as to where to add the additional tracks, from next to randomized.

It's part of the fun of listening but playing randomized lists that have to be manually added like the typical streaming outfit is a chore to create and since there is no effective volume leveling features the volume has to be adjusted track to track which when random is always different. And while I know volume leveling carries a very slight hit in sq due to slight digital adjusting of the music output, I can't hear a difference and the music is always very close to each other output wise.

I don't think streaming has such capabilities but it might if it could be ran through a quality media player. I haven't tried all the streaming outfits but the ones that I did had the output level all over the place.

For me, streaming from one of the commercial outfits are fine for background listening or discovery, but to have my whole music collection tied to an online company likely will never happen with me.

40 million tracks is a draw until I think about how 95% of all music is crap (to me). That still leaves a lot I like but without the tools to find it, get it organized, and trust that all my music is safe from all sorts of company changes and bankruptcy, takeovers etc always being a concern, I'll be keeping all my music on a backed up NAS drive.
 
For me, streaming from one of the commercial outfits are fine for background listening or discovery, but to have my whole music collection tied to an online company likely will never happen with me.
Agree. I have a lot of analog and digital content at various resolutions unavailable by subscription.
 
I don't think streaming has such capabilities but it might if it could be ran through a quality media player. I haven't tried all the streaming outfits but the ones that I did had the output level all over the place.

Spotify has volume leveling. :) FWIW
 
Spotify has volume leveling. :) FWIW
Interesting, I didn't recall that when I was a subscriber.

I wonder how they pull it off, if it is just attenuating the highest passages or if it is like jriver where each track is scanned and a Dynamic Range (R128) is determined and when played in a list the highest output (whole track) is throttled back to equal the lowest output track, so no dynamic range is lost from track to track.

This volume leveling feature has been a godsend to me as I never have to hear my wife yell at me to turn it down.
 
I wonder how they pull it off

I'd imagine they are using a track gain setting, just like most media manager/players. That gain setting is then supplied to the playback app as part of the file metadata preamble in the stream, and used to scale all streamed samples, or set hardware gain, depending on the capabilities of the target renderer.

That's what I'd do...
 
I'd imagine they are using a track gain setting, just like most media manager/players. That gain setting is then supplied to the playback app as part of the file metadata preamble in the stream, and used to scale all streamed samples, or set hardware gain, depending on the capabilities of the target renderer.

That's what I'd do...
Me too. .
 
I do not use iTunes. I prefer a format that is readily useable with many hardware and software solutions. ALAC is too limited by only working within the Apple framework. I am playing the long game. FLAC will be here a long time. Apple's ALAC? Maybe, maybe not. Apple has totally abandoned users before when they introduce new systems, features, etc.

PS: My favored hardware is made by Apple. It works well and is powerful and reliable (and is amazingly inexpensive when buying used on CL). I use multiple operating systems, though. I have a Mac Pro I use as a virtual machine server and my VMs operate under a variety of OSs.
I know this is an old thread, but I have to jump in to correct a couple things for those who might read this thread later.

First, it was asserted that ALAC "is too limited by only working within the Apple framework" This is not true. Several music software programs can not only read and play ALAC files, but can also rip CD's to ALAC, (and if needed convert those to lossy formats for portable use) including MusicBee, WMP and many others. Many of these can also convert FLAC or WMAL to ALAC.

Secondly, the poster makes it sound as though ALAC is a closed Apple format. It is not. Years ago, Apple made the code for ALAC open source. Thus the ability of the previously mentioned music players to utilize it without cost.
 
Back
Top Bottom