Karajan on EMI: The Official Remastered Recordings

[td]

This appears on Warner's forthcoming releases.

The Karajan Official Remastered Edition comprises 13 box sets containing official remasterings of the finest recordings the Austrian conductor made for EMI between 1946 and 1984, and which are now a jewel of the Warner Classics catalogue.

For many, Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989) - hailed early in his career as 'Das Wunder Karajan' (The Karajan Miracle) and known in the early 1960s as 'the music director of Europe' - remains the ultimate embodiment of the maestro. The release of the Karajan Official Remastered Edition over the first half of 2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the conductor's death in July 1989 at the age of 81.

He was closely associated with EMI for the majority of his recording career (specifically from 1946 to 1960 and then again from 1969 to 1984). EMI's legendary producer Walter Legge sought him out in Vienna just after World War II and the long relationship that ensued embraced recordings with the Vienna Philharmonic, the Philharmonia (the orchestra founded by Legge), the Berlin Philharmonic (of which Karajan became 'conductor for life' in 1955), the forces of La Scala, Milan, and the Orchestre de Paris.

The Karajan Official Remastered Edition will feature primarily symphonic and choral music. The entire edition will comprise recordings remastered from the original sources in 24-bit/96kHz at Abbey Road Studios, the world's most renowned recording studio.





What does that make of the previous EMI boxes of Karajan, I wonder? Chopped liver?

TD

[David Fox]

Yawn. I have both big EMI Karajan boxes and I'm in no hurry to upgrade.
The sound on these recordings are about as good as they're going to
be. EMI has done a decent job from the outset of the CD era of
digitally remastering and transferring their tape-based recordings
(78rpm sources are another matter). Even if there are marginal
improvements, I'd rather save my money for first-time purchases. If
what I have is "chopped liver", then bring on the pumpernickel bread.

DF

[Willem Orange]

and raw onion!!!!

[tomono...@hotmail.com]

It contains some never-released recordings.

ex.

Beethoven 9th symphony from stereo master tape(1955).

[td]

Yeah. Chopped liver.

Time to dump those big EMI Karajan boxes and trade up.

Or not buy any of it and move to Dudamel?

TD

[William Sommerwerck]

"td" wrote in message
news:0bc60ce1-8546-4aac...@googlegroups.com...

> This appears on Warner's forthcoming releases.

>> "For many, Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989) ...

>> remains the ultimate embodiment of the maestro."

Many years ago, a friend and I wrote a radio ad for a Polynesian restaurant.
We praised the exotic food and drinks, the south seas atmosphere, etc. We
never said anything about the /quality/ of the food. (The restaurant liked the
ad, by the way.)

>> The Karajan Official Remastered Edition will feature primarily symphonic
>> and choral music. The entire edition will comprise recordings remastered
>> from the original sources in 24-bit/96kHz at Abbey Road Studios, the
>> world's
>> most renowned recording studio.

> What does that make of the previous EMI boxes of Karajan, I wonder?
> Chopped liver?

They were cheap, too. Haven't listened to too much of it. The "Mass in
b-minor" is appallingly dated, interpretively as well as sonically.

[td]

One of the first things EMI/Warners is reissuing is the set of symphonies HvK did with the Philharmonia Orchestra. That set has been reissued more times than Gould's Goldberg Variations. One would have thought that EMI had "got it right" already. But apparently not. Back to the mastertapes, which are now about 60 years old or more and have another go at them.

Thing is that the man in the street still wants Karajan's 1960s BPO version and for all his long association with EMI Karajan only ever did Beethoven's symphonies again with DG. Three times. I guess DG had something of a hold over Karajan's Beethoven after his flirtation with this music in the 1950s. Tchaikovsky is one thing. Bruckner even. But Beethoven belonged to DG.

Bill, if you're interested in that set, the version to get is the SACD transfer which provides about as high a quality as one will ever obtain from those classic interpretations. You being an SACD fan, you will appreciate this. Others will be happy with whatever is the cheapest. The next best, in terms of transfer quality, is the Beethoven Edition version, which DG did most specifically NOT use for any cheap versions of that analogue set which they issued after the BE.

In any event, I think we'll see the prices drop for used copies of those EMI boxes from a few years ago, as collectors will want the latest sonic versions of his classic recordings with the PO, the VPO and the BPO.

Now I guess DG will have to raise the ante a bit. Perhaps - could one hope for this - they will redo the Karajan legacy on DG in SACD sound? Now that would be a real event.

Decca should probably revisit that notion with respect to its Solti Ring cycle and give another kick at that can in the marketplace.

I recall that I proposed that ALL the Universal reissues be done in SACD sound and sold at a premium. Totally rejected as too expensive, of course. A great pity, as they would have captured a new audience for all those classic Philips, Decca and DG titles. Oh, well. C'est la vie!


TD

[wkasimer]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 8:26:08 AM UTC-5, td wrote:

>>> In any event, I think we'll see the prices drop for used copies of those EMI boxes from a few years ago, as collectors will want the latest sonic versions of his classic recordings with the PO, the VPO and the BPO. <<<

Very unlikely, since those two big boxes are more or less complete, and these new Warner sets aren't even close. More likely, the new sets will sell very poorly and be remaindered at Berkshire within a year or two.

Bill

[William Sommerwerck]

"td" wrote in message
news:235c15f5-9e6a-4120...@googlegroups.com...

> Thing is that the man in the street still wants Karajan's 1960s
> BPO version and for all his long association with EMI Karajan
> only ever did Beethoven's symphonies again with DG. Three
> times. I guess DG had something of a hold over Karajan's
> Beethoven after his flirtation with this music in the 1950s.
> Tchaikovsky is one thing. Bruckner even. But Beethoven belonged
> to DG.

> Bill, if you're interested in that set, the version to get is the SACD
> transfer which provides about as high a quality as one will ever
> obtain from those classic interpretations. You being an SACD fan,
> you will appreciate this. Others will be happy with whatever is the
> cheapest. The next best, in terms of transfer quality, is the Beethoven
> Edition version, which DG did most specifically NOT use for any cheap
> versions of that analogue set which they issued after the BE.

I have the EMI recordings (which I haven't heard) and the 1963 DG (which I
have heard; it's one of the better cycles). Unfortunately, the $100 price is
out of line, even for SACDs.

In comparing recent SACD recordings with their CD layers, my opinion has been
that SACD is only slightly superior to CD, not enough to justify buying
expensive replacements. These are original digital recordings, of course. A
50-year-old analog recording might not show any improvement at all.

> Now I guess DG will have to raise the ante a bit. Perhaps - could one
> hope for this - they will redo the Karajan legacy on DG in SACD sound?
> Now that would be a real event.

PentaTone is negotiating with DG to reissue some of its surround catalog on
SACD. I don't know if HvK was ever recorded in surround.

> Decca should probably revisit that notion with respect to its Solti Ring
> cycle and give another kick at that can in the marketplace.

All they need to do is release a single BD-Audio disk at a reasonable price.

> I recall that I proposed that ALL the Universal reissues be done in SACD
> sound and sold at a premium. Totally rejected as too expensive, of course.
> A great pity, as they would have captured a new audience for all those
> classic Philips, Decca and DG titles. Oh, well. C'est la vie!

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know that SACD is a big draw for "new audiences". If
you're going to charge full price, then you have to put two-LPs'-worth of
music on each disk.

[td]

Guesswork at best.

These boxes are 1) more affordable, in smaller chunks and more focused, 2) and (this is the chief attraction) thoroughly remastered from the master tapes. The old set will always be sonically "second best".

The completeness is not yet determined as we don't know the detailed contents of each of the THIRTEEN boxes Warner's is going to issue. They don't contain the operatic works, but that's fine with me and a lot of others too.

TD

[td]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:23:35 AM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "td" wrote in message
>
> news:235c15f5-9e6a-4120...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Thing is that the man in the street still wants Karajan's 1960s
>
> > BPO version and for all his long association with EMI Karajan
>
> > only ever did Beethoven's symphonies again with DG. Three
>
> > times. I guess DG had something of a hold over Karajan's
>
> > Beethoven after his flirtation with this music in the 1950s.
>
> > Tchaikovsky is one thing. Bruckner even. But Beethoven belonged
>
> > to DG.
>
>
>
> > Bill, if you're interested in that set, the version to get is the SACD
>
> > transfer which provides about as high a quality as one will ever
>
> > obtain from those classic interpretations. You being an SACD fan,
>
> > you will appreciate this. Others will be happy with whatever is the
>
> > cheapest. The next best, in terms of transfer quality, is the Beethoven
>
> > Edition version, which DG did most specifically NOT use for any cheap
>
> > versions of that analogue set which they issued after the BE.
>
>
>
> I have the EMI recordings (which I haven't heard) and the 1963 DG (which I
>
> have heard; it's one of the better cycles). Unfortunately, the $100 price is
>
> out of line, even for SACDs.
>
>
>
> In comparing recent SACD recordings with their CD layers, my opinion has been
>
> that SACD is only slightly superior to CD, not enough to justify buying
>
> expensive replacements. These are original digital recordings, of course. A
>
> 50-year-old analog recording might not show any improvement at all.

I have no doubt that the improvement is slight, Bill, but that little difference, that closeness to the sound of the mastertape, is what attracted me to the RCA Victor SACDs, not the surround sound.

Whether it is worth the repurchasing is another matter altogether.

> > Now I guess DG will have to raise the ante a bit. Perhaps - could one
>
> > hope for this - they will redo the Karajan legacy on DG in SACD sound?
>
> > Now that would be a real event.
>
>
>
> PentaTone is negotiating with DG to reissue some of its surround catalog on
>
> SACD. I don't know if HvK was ever recorded in surround.

The ONLY HvK tapes Pentatone would be at all interested in would be those which existed in surround sound. Philips was doing this with selected recordings - and not always logically - so one can only imagine that their other half would have been doing something similar. They never did anything with these tapes, nor did PHilips, at the time. But now is an opportunity. DG seems completely uninterested in surround sound. Decca and Philips the same.

> > Decca should probably revisit that notion with respect to its Solti Ring
>
> > cycle and give another kick at that can in the marketplace.
>
>
>
> All they need to do is release a single BD-Audio disk at a reasonable price.

The reasonable price thing is a non-starter. The Solti Ring will ALWAYS sell at a premium price, Bill. It's almost the raison d'etre for the label at this point. There will be no selling it off at a cheap price, thus immediately undercutting its premium versions of the same thing.

Think profitability, not convenience for the consumer.

> > I recall that I proposed that ALL the Universal reissues be done in SACD sound and sold at a premium. Totally rejected as too expensive, of course.
>
> > A great pity, as they would have captured a new audience for all those
>
> > classic Philips, Decca and DG titles. Oh, well. C'est la vie!
>
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I don't know that SACD is a big draw for "new audiences". If you're going to charge full price, then you have to put two-LPs'-worth of music on each disk.

That's the Duo Series model. SACD would require a LOT of new remastering and extra manufacturing costs which would have to be passed on to the consumer.

More for less is not a viable slogan in such a case.

TD

[Willem Orange]

The single disc Blu Ray of the Solti Ring is schedule for release later this year.

[td]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 10:00:43 AM UTC-5, Willem Orange wrote:

> The single disc Blu Ray of the Solti Ring is schedule for release later this year.

And will not sell for $5.95.

TD

[Willem Orange]

Who said it would?????

[William Sommerwerck]

"td" wrote in message
news:0c04feed-6fed-4733...@googlegroups.com...

No, but $50 -- maybe even $75 -- would be reasonable.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Willem Orange" wrote in message
news:ce35d5fa-f0c2-467e...@googlegroups.com...

> Who said it would?????

Tom is being ironic. And he's poking fun at me (and others) who have a sharp
eye for a bargain.

[David Fox]

I still have an interactive CD-ROM of the Solti Ring lying around
somewhere. It has the complete score along with copious running commentary,
highlighted leitmotifs, etc, all accompanied by the Solti recordings albeit
compressed. It was originally offered at $99. I bought mine from Berkshire
for 99 cents.

DF

[Willem Orange]

Yes I have that also - very valuable

[Mort]

td wrote:
> Now I guess DG will have to raise the ante a bit. Perhaps - could one hope for this - they will redo the Karajan legacy on DG in SACD sound? Now that would be a real event.

Hi,

Some years ago, DG issued a 2-CD set of Kempff playing a few Schubert
Sonatas, in improved sound = "Original-Image Bit-Processing". That sound
was distinctly better than that in the complete Schubert Sonata box by
Kempff. I contacted DG then, about whether they would be re-mastering
all these sonatas for re-issue. They replied that they would not,as it
would be too expensive. Pity.

Mort Linder

[td]

Think $100., Bill.

They will NOT undercut their CD copies.

The BlueRay will be a very niche product which will sell to a niche audience, as you can see from some of the posters here. They will have to pay for their sonic hit.

At least that's my guess. Anything is possible, but I do know very well how the Solti Ring is regarded by those few Decca folks still around. And their accountant will want to recoup the costs of such a new version, unless a HighDefinition copy was made at the same time as the remastering of 10-15 years ago.


TD

[William Sommerwerck]

"td" wrote in message
news:a8ce3642-0543-4385...@googlegroups.com...

>> No, but $50 -- maybe even $75 -- would be reasonable.

> Think $100, Bill.

> They will NOT undercut their CD copies.

> The Blu-Ray will be a very niche product which will sell to

> a niche audience, as you can see from some of the posters
> here. They will have to pay for their sonic hit.

I don't know. Lotsa folks have BD players.

> At least that's my guess. Anything is possible, but I do know
> very well how the Solti Ring is regarded by those few Decca
> folks still around. And their accountant will want to recoup
> the costs of such a new version, unless a HighDefinition copy
> was made at the same time as the remastering of 10-15 years ago.

Tom? Tom? It already exists! The single-disk Blu-Ray was made for the Deluxe
set!

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=808172

[wade]

I dont think that he didnt know of the availability of the BD in the big set, but that it should be available as a standalone product.

[William Sommerwerck]

"wade" wrote in message
news:918a955a-09c4-4fef...@googlegroups.com...

> I don't think he didn't know of the availability of the BD in the

> big set, but that it should be available as a standalone product.

He said "...their accountant will want to recoup the costs of such a new

version, unless a HighDefinition copy was made at the same time as the
remastering of 10-15 years ago."

The BD is supposedly 24-bit at 96kHz. That would be considered a
high-definition transfer, and no "new version" would need to be made. Indeed,
all Decca would need to do would be to pull out the BD stampers.

[Willem Orange]

I have the big set and the sound is wonderful though I found it a bit on the bright side - I wonder if that may be the result of hearing the Cedar-ized versions which took a bit of that original sound out.

[td]

I stand corrected. I confess I had not noticed that added benefit of this version of the Ring. There have been so many and the product doesn't really interest me except marginally.

As a result I can't tell what the price level of that self-standing BluRay DVD version of the audio will be.

The Ring really needs to be remastered for surround sound, of course. I guess Bill would agree. Not sure if BluRay 24 bit is the equal of SACD from the standpoint of sound, however. Bill could tell us that, I suspect.

TD

[wkasimer]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:37:43 AM UTC-5, Mort wrote:

> Some years ago, DG issued a 2-CD set of Kempff playing a few Schubert Sonatas, in improved sound = "Original-Image Bit-Processing". That sound was distinctly better than that in the complete Schubert Sonata box by Kempff. <

DG did the same for the complete stereo Kempff Beethoven set.

Bill

[Willem Orange]

The Blu Ray was the main attraction of the latest issue - oh brother!!!!!

[td]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:32:37 PM UTC-5, Willem Orange wrote:

> The Blu Ray was the main attraction of the latest issue - oh brother!!!!!

Tell someone who cares. Maybe your own brother?

TD

[William Sommerwerck]

"td" wrote in message
news:fb76deea-0b8e-4e3f...@googlegroups.com...

> I stand corrected. I confess I had not noticed that added benefit
> of this version of the Ring. There have been so many and the
> product doesn't really interest me except marginally.

> As a result I can't tell what the price level of that self-standing
> BluRay DVD version of the audio will be.

> The Ring really needs to be remastered for surround sound, of

> course. I guess Bill would agree. Not sure if Blu-Ray 24-bit is the

> equal of SACD from the standpoint of sound, however. Bill could
> tell us that, I suspect.

I sincerely appreciate the compliment, but I don't know everything. I /can/
tell you that I don't hear much difference (if any) between BD-Audio and SACD.

I have the 2L "Divertimenti" set with BD and SACD disks. I could sync them up
and listen for differences. But it might be a while, because my tiny hands are
frozen. Ist sehr kalt!

There seems to be some confusion about what's on an SACD disk. Most have
two-channel and five-channel recordings of the same material on the SACD
layer. But that layer can be stereo-only or surround-only.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of surround -- ambient and immersive.
The former conveys hall ambience, while the latter drops the listener in the
midst of the performers. Some recordings combine both (eg, the Jacobs "Nozze"
and "Mass in b-minor").

You can convert a stereo recording to ambient surround by adding synthesized
ambience to the surround channels. But this is an approach that should really
be left up to the listener.

You can't convert a stereo recording to immersive surround without doing
musical damage to it. If the Solti Ring existed as (say) an 8-channel
multitrack master, there might be /some/ justification for remixing it in
immersive surround. But as far as I know, these are basically plain stereo
recordings. An attempt to wrap the sound around the listener is likely to be
considered obtrusive at best, tasteless at worst.

Ambisonic decoders do an excellent job of extracting ambience and even
wrapping a stereo original into a horseshoe. But, again, this is something for
the listener to decide.

[Willem Orange]

very interesting

[David Fox]

Those Kempff Schubert Sonatas were reissued in a slimline box in 2000 or
so. My copy was the original bulky multi-jewel-case box from 1990 with
a cardboard outer enclosure. Was the slimline box just a reissue of the
same remasters as the one I bought? I suspect yes. I just spent about
five minutes reading Amazon reviews of the 2000 reissue and I can't find
a single one that mentions anything about new remastering.

I had the same initial disappoint with the first release. While the
performances are wonderful, the sound is for lack of a better word
"glassy". When I finally put together a nicer system, I was surprised
to hear that these recordings sounded enormously better - "glassy" no
more. Ditto for his contemporaneously-recorded Beethoven Sonatas, and
ditto for Arrau's mid-60's Beethoven Sonata Cycle. I began to suspect
that the recordings/masterings weren't as bad as I originally thought,
but that they were perhaps engineered to a specific target that didn't
fit mid-level home systems very well. This could have had to do with
the choice of monitor speaker and playback system used to record/remaster.

So, while I would welcome a remaster of these recordings and suspect
that there's much that can be done to make them sound better in most
circumstances, I've changed my opinion significantly about the true
underlying quality of these recordings.

DF

[David Fox]

On 2/5/14, 9:42 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "td" wrote in message
> news:fb76deea-0b8e-4e3f...@googlegroups.com...
>
>

> Broadly speaking, there are two types of surround -- ambient and
> immersive. The former conveys hall ambience, while the latter drops the
> listener in the midst of the performers. Some recordings combine both
> (eg, the Jacobs "Nozze" and "Mass in b-minor").
>
> You can convert a stereo recording to ambient surround by adding
> synthesized ambience to the surround channels. But this is an approach
> that should really be left up to the listener.
>
> You can't convert a stereo recording to immersive surround without doing
> musical damage to it. If the Solti Ring existed as (say) an 8-channel
> multitrack master, there might be /some/ justification for remixing it
> in immersive surround. But as far as I know, these are basically plain
> stereo recordings. An attempt to wrap the sound around the listener is
> likely to be considered obtrusive at best, tasteless at worst.
>

Exactly. Turning a stereo recording into an immersive one plays havoc
with perspective. Your brain rebels and wants to shut down after a few
minutes. It's similar to staring at the famous Escher drawings with
multiple perspectives/vanishing points. Your brain just knows
something's not right and wants no more of it.

DF

[Dana John Hill]

On 2/5/2014 10:00 AM, Willem Orange wrote:
>
> The single disc Blu Ray of the Solti Ring is schedule for release later this year.
>

May, according to the schedule I have seen (Decca 478 6293). Along with
Chailly's Mahler 3, Monteux's Ravel disc (the one that was a Philips 50
recording, IIRC), Davis' Concertgebouw Symphonie fantastique, Haitink's
famous Debussy record, and Solti's LSO Bartok Concerto for Orchestra and
Dance Suite.

Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida

[Dana John Hill]

On 2/4/2014 10:26 PM, David Fox wrote:
> On 2/4/14, 6:18 PM, td wrote:
>> This appears on Warner's forthcoming releases.
>>
>> The Karajan Official Remastered Edition comprises 13 box sets
>> containing official remasterings of the finest recordings the Austrian
>> conductor made for EMI between 1946 and 1984, and which are now a
>> jewel of the Warner Classics catalogue.
>>
>> For many, Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989) - hailed early in his career
>> as 'Das Wunder Karajan' (The Karajan Miracle) and known in the early
>> 1960s as 'the music director of Europe' - remains the ultimate
>> embodiment of the maestro. The release of the Karajan Official
>> Remastered Edition over the first half of 2014 marks the 25th
>> anniversary of the conductor's death in July 1989 at the age of 81.
>>
>> He was closely associated with EMI for the majority of his recording
>> career (specifically from 1946 to 1960 and then again from 1969 to
>> 1984). EMI's legendary producer Walter Legge sought him out in Vienna
>> just after World War II and the long relationship that ensued embraced
>> recordings with the Vienna Philharmonic, the Philharmonia (the
>> orchestra founded by Legge), the Berlin Philharmonic (of which Karajan
>> became 'conductor for life' in 1955), the forces of La Scala, Milan,
>> and the Orchestre de Paris.
>>
>> The Karajan Official Remastered Edition will feature primarily
>> symphonic and choral music. The entire edition will comprise
>> recordings remastered from the original sources in 24-bit/96kHz at
>> Abbey Road Studios, the world's most renowned recording studio.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What does that make of the previous EMI boxes of Karajan, I wonder?
>> Chopped liver?
>>
>> TD
>>
>
> Yawn. I have both big EMI Karajan boxes and I'm in no hurry to upgrade.
> The sound on these recordings are about as good as they're going to
> be. EMI has done a decent job from the outset of the CD era of
> digitally remastering and transferring their tape-based recordings
> (78rpm sources are another matter). Even if there are marginal
> improvements, I'd rather save my money for first-time purchases. If
> what I have is "chopped liver", then bring on the pumpernickel bread.
>
> DF

Same here.

[td]

I generally discount talk about mastering quality from general listeners, as I suspect that your case is very typical. Judgment made from auditioning with inferior equipment.

I don't own SOTA equipment, but it is very good, indeed, and will reveal what is on the CD. I also use a very good CD player when making fine judgments about recording quality.

Most people do not enjoy such equipment. I don't hold that against them, or lord it over them. Just a fact.

When you start improving your equipment certain pieces in your chain will either block the sound or reveal their inadequacy in some way. Very hard to assemble a good, reliable, revealing listening system.

TD

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/5/14, 5:26 AM, td wrote:


> Thing is that the man in the street still wants Karajan's 1960s BPO version and for all his long association with EMI Karajan only ever did Beethoven's symphonies again with DG. Three times. I guess DG had something of a hold over Karajan's Beethoven after his flirtation with this music in the 1950s. Tchaikovsky is one thing. Bruckner even. But Beethoven belonged to DG.

I doubt DG had a "hold" on Karajan. They probably offered more
attractive marketing budgets, etc.

>
> Bill, if you're interested in that set, the version to get is the SACD transfer which provides about as high a quality as one will ever obtain from those classic interpretations. You being an SACD fan, you will appreciate this. Others will be happy with whatever is the cheapest. The next best, in terms of transfer quality, is the Beethoven Edition version, which DG did most specifically NOT use for any cheap versions of that analogue set which they issued after the BE.

Didn't think the SACDs were worth a premium over the Beethoven
Edition. For Symphonies 3 and 4 I recommend this remastering, which
is the newest (newer than the SACDs):
http://bit.ly/1ewTiee
This was part of about a 10CD series under the umbrella title of
"Karajan Master Recordings" which contained some nice remasters but I
don't think got much press.

>
> In any event, I think we'll see the prices drop for used copies of those EMI boxes from a few years ago, as collectors will want the latest sonic versions of his classic recordings with the PO, the VPO and the BPO.

And Orchestre de Paris, Lucerne Festival Orchestra, Bayreuth Festival
Orchestra, RIAS-Symphonie-Orchester Berlin, Staatskapelle Dresden, La
Scala and Vienna Symphony.

>
> Now I guess DG will have to raise the ante a bit. Perhaps - could one hope for this - they will redo the Karajan legacy on DG in SACD sound? Now that would be a real event.

Doubt it. Blu-Ray Audio is their new high-rez format of choice. About
25 titles out so far, with new ones out monthly. The Karajan 70s
Beethoven 9th and the Mahler 5th have come out already. I knew the 60s
Decca Vienna Philharmonic Tchaikovsky Suites is on an upcoming release.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/5/14, 8:52 AM, td wrote:

>> No, but $50 -- maybe even $75 -- would be reasonable.
>
> Think $100., Bill.
>
> They will NOT undercut their CD copies.
>
> The BlueRay will be a very niche product which will sell to a niche audience, as you can see from some of the posters here. They will have to pay for their sonic hit.
>
> At least that's my guess. Anything is possible, but I do know very well how the Solti Ring is regarded by those few Decca folks still around. And their accountant will want to recoup the costs of such a new version, unless a HighDefinition copy was made at the same time as the remastering of 10-15 years ago.
>
>
> TD
>

Universals new series of Blu-Ray Audio discs are going from $17-$21,
but there surely will be a surcharge for the entire ring.

Here is one:
http://bit.ly/1d1D1MM

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/5/14, 9:19 AM, td wrote:

> The Ring really needs to be remastered for surround sound, of course. I guess Bill would agree. Not sure if BluRay 24 bit is the equal of SACD from the standpoint of sound, however. Bill could tell us that, I suspect.
>
> TD
>

Blu-Ray Audio I believe has better potential specs than SACD. Plus a
huge market of Blu-Ray players out there.

The Ring I think was only remastered at 24bit/48kHz (not 96kHz).

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/5/14, 9:42 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> You can't convert a stereo recording to immersive surround without
> doing musical damage to it. If the Solti Ring existed as (say) an
> 8-channel multitrack master, there might be /some/ justification for
> remixing it in immersive surround.

It would depend what is on the multi-tracks. As the industry moved to
16 track recorders they might have afforded themselves the luxury of
recording a stereo pair from way out in the hall, which could be used
to get more of an "ambient" (as you call it) type of SACD/Blu-Ray Audio.

Steve

[William Sommerwerck]

"Steve de Mena" wrote in message
news:MpmdnVzo_LE9BWnP...@giganews.com...

> Blu-ray Audio is their new high-rez format of choice. About

> 25 titles out so far, with new ones out monthly. The Karajan
> 70s Beethoven 9th and the Mahler 5th have come out already.

Arkiv does not currently index Blu-ray Audio disks. I had to go to
DG/HvK/Beethoven to find it. Not surprisingly, DG wants $20. DG wouldn't dare
give the buyer some fill-up -- such as the rest of the symphonies, which could
probably be crammed onto one video-less, non-surround sound BD.

Though DG still has SACD titles in its catalog (the notorious "West Side
Story" is missing), there are obvious reasons for switching to BD-Audio. It
has far greater penetration than SACD, and it offers the potential of region
codes, a feature missing from CD and SACD.

[td]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 3:26:09 AM UTC-5, Steven de Mena wrote:
> On 2/5/14, 5:26 AM, td wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thing is that the man in the street still wants Karajan's 1960s BPO version and for all his long association with EMI Karajan only ever did Beethoven's symphonies again with DG. Three times. I guess DG had something of a hold over Karajan's Beethoven after his flirtation with this music in the 1950s. Tchaikovsky is one thing. Bruckner even. But Beethoven belonged to DG.
>
>
>
> I doubt DG had a "hold" on Karajan. They probably offered more
>
> attractive marketing budgets, etc.

You don't think like a German, Steve. This doesn't surprised me.

Your doubts are registered.

> > Bill, if you're interested in that set, the version to get is the SACD transfer which provides about as high a quality as one will ever obtain from those classic interpretations. You being an SACD fan, you will appreciate this. Others will be happy with whatever is the cheapest. The next best, in terms of transfer quality, is the Beethoven Edition version, which DG did most specifically NOT use for any cheap versions of that analogue set which they issued after the BE.
>
>
>
> Didn't think the SACDs were worth a premium over the Beethoven
>
> Edition. For Symphonies 3 and 4 I recommend this remastering, which
>
> is the newest (newer than the SACDs):
>
> http://bit.ly/1ewTiee
>
> This was part of about a 10CD series under the umbrella title of
>
> "Karajan Master Recordings" which contained some nice remasters but I
>
> don't think got much press.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > In any event, I think we'll see the prices drop for used copies of those EMI boxes from a few years ago, as collectors will want the latest sonic versions of his classic recordings with the PO, the VPO and the BPO.
>
>
>
> And Orchestre de Paris, Lucerne Festival Orchestra, Bayreuth Festival
>
> Orchestra, RIAS-Symphonie-Orchester Berlin, Staatskapelle Dresden, La
>
> Scala and Vienna Symphony.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Now I guess DG will have to raise the ante a bit. Perhaps - could one hope for this - they will redo the Karajan legacy on DG in SACD sound? Now that would be a real event.
>
>
>
> Doubt it. Blu-Ray Audio is their new high-rez format of choice. About
>
> 25 titles out so far, with new ones out monthly. The Karajan 70s
>
> Beethoven 9th and the Mahler 5th have come out already. I knew the 60s
>
> Decca Vienna Philharmonic Tchaikovsky Suites is on an upcoming release.

The high resolution format is irrelevant. The point is that DG will have to raise the bar somehow. EMI's new series, or should I say, Warner's new series, has forced their hand.

TD

[td]

What a frightening notion, Bill. That's the LAST thing the world needs. Region-coded BluRay DVDs of classical music.

TD

[William Sommerwerck]

"td" wrote in message
news:14e700d3-62b8-4801...@googlegroups.com...

>> Though DG still has SACD titles in its catalog (the notorious "West Side
>> Story" is missing), there are obvious reasons for switching to BD-Audio.
>> It has far greater penetration than SACD, and it offers the potential of
>> region codes, a feature missing from CD and SACD.

> What a frightening notion, Bill. That's the LAST thing the world needs.

> Region-coded Blu-rays of classical music.

Agreed. But DG might eventually decide that the problems of multiple inventory
are less important than protecting the profits of importers. (Some recordings
can be bought for much less from Great Britain or Germany than the US.)

[td]

I don't believe that this concerns them as much as you imagine.

The only country that worries about such things is Japan. The word "parallel imports" is almost scarey for them.

TD

[Herman]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:44:15 AM UTC+1, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>
> Agreed. But DG might eventually decide that the problems of multiple inventory
>
> are less important than protecting the profits of importers. (Some recordings
>
> can be bought for much less from Great Britain or Germany than the US.)

Most 'classical' DVDs on my shelf (95% ballet) have o region encoding. The market isn't big enough.

[Randy Lane]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:18:40 PM UTC-7, td wrote:
> This appears on Warner's forthcoming releases. The Karajan Official Remastered Edition comprises 13 box sets containing official remasterings of the finest recordings the Austrian conductor made for EMI between 1946 and 1984, and which are now a jewel of the Warner Classics catalogue. For many, Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989) - hailed early in his career as 'Das Wunder Karajan' (The Karajan Miracle) and known in the early 1960s as 'the music director of Europe' - remains the ultimate embodiment of the maestro. The release of the Karajan Official Remastered Edition over the first half of 2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the conductor's death in July 1989 at the age of 81. He was closely associated with EMI for the majority of his recording career (specifically from 1946 to 1960 and then again from 1969 to 1984). EMI's legendary producer Walter Legge sought him out in Vienna just after World War II and the long relationship that ensued embraced recordings with the Vienna Philharmonic, the Philharmonia (the orchestra founded by Legge), the Berlin Philharmonic (of which Karajan became 'conductor for life' in 1955), the forces of La Scala, Milan, and the Orchestre de Paris. The Karajan Official Remastered Edition will feature primarily symphonic and choral music. The entire edition will comprise recordings remastered from the original sources in 24-bit/96kHz at Abbey Road Studios, the world's most renowned recording studio. What does that make of the previous EMI boxes of Karajan, I wonder? Chopped liver? TD

I have not read all of the posts for this thread.
I don't know if this has been mentioned, so I'll say my peice.
I think a good part of this, especially given the verbiage of the title, is to counteract any sales loss from the Membran box published last year containing pre-1960 recordings from both EMI and DG, being those are now in the public domain in much of Europe. Warner probably wants to emphasizie that it has access to the original source tapes and can produce media far superior to anything Membran or others can produce.

[David Fox]

Actually, I think downloads, whether they be high-bit-rate FLACs
(96/24, 192/24) or DSD, are the Hi-Rez media with the most future
potential. HDTracks and a few other outfits now offer a great deal of
what had been put out on SACD, DVD-Audio, etc as well as many releases
that were never issued in hi-rez physical formats. The world is
inexorably moving away from shiny discs, whether they be silver, blue,
green, or whatever next comes down the pike.

Blu-Ray audio is nothing but a new physical format to package
high-bit-rate PCM. The equivalent bit rate FLAC download is 100%
identical. Of course it can be far more convenient to buy a single
Blu-Ray of something like the Solti Ring rather than to download
individual groups of files even if one were to immediately rip it to a
server as I almost always do these days.

DF

[wade]

but SACD/DVD-A/Blu-ray allow for surround sound format not available as a hi-res download.

[David Fox]

Not true. Multichannel DSD is available for download as is multichannel
FLAC. If you have one of the fancy new Oppo players you can feed in a
multichannel DSD or PCM stream and it will sound identical to the
equivalent SACD or Blu-Ray.

DF

[William Sommerwerck]

"David Fox" wrote in message
news:Ss6dnfOy7dI0hWjP...@giganews.com...

> Actually, I think downloads, whether they be high-bit-rate FLACs
> (96/24, 192/24) or DSD, are the Hi-Rez media with the most future
> potential. HDTracks and a few other outfits now offer a great deal
> of what had been put out on SACD, DVD-Audio, etc as well as many
> releases that were never issued in hi-rez physical formats. The world
> is inexorably moving away from shiny discs, whether they be silver,
> blue, green, or whatever next comes down the pike.

The gradual adoption of high-capacity home audio "servers" will only encourage
this. Why have jewel boxes lying around when a 2TB drive can old over 2000
CDs, plus notes and metadata?


> Blu-ray audio is nothing but a new physical format
> to package high-bit-rate PCM.

It's actually single-bit delta modulation. "Data" would be the general term.

[td]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:48:15 PM UTC-5, David Fox wrote:

>If you have one of the fancy new Oppo players you can feed in a
> multichannel DSD or PCM stream and it will sound identical to the
> equivalent SACD or Blu-Ray.

The operative word there is "if".

TD

[td]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:51:29 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "David Fox" wrote in message
>
> news:Ss6dnfOy7dI0hWjP...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > Actually, I think downloads, whether they be high-bit-rate FLACs
>
> > (96/24, 192/24) or DSD, are the Hi-Rez media with the most future
>
> > potential. HDTracks and a few other outfits now offer a great deal
>
> > of what had been put out on SACD, DVD-Audio, etc as well as many
>
> > releases that were never issued in hi-rez physical formats. The world
>
> > is inexorably moving away from shiny discs, whether they be silver,
>
> > blue, green, or whatever next comes down the pike.
>
>
>
> The gradual adoption of high-capacity home audio "servers" will only encourage
>
> this. Why have jewel boxes lying around when a 2TB drive can old over 2000
>
> CDs, plus notes and metadata?

And another one as "backup'?

TD

[David Fox]

Or maybe buy two or three. They only run about $80 these days, and the
price per TB seems to halve every year. $80 is less the average
music-buying haul discussed in this newsgroup. Incidentally 2TB covers
about 6500 of the 10,000 total CD's on my server. Mono recordings take
up half the space and I have plenty of those. Also, compare the $80 cost
of a backup drive with the cost of shelving of the equivalent number of
CD's.

DF

[td]

So, the total cost of 25,000 CDs? And where do the CDs go?

This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

TD

[David Fox]

By my calculations if your stereo/mono mix is anything like mine your
collection would require about 8TB of disc space. That would be about
$320 and add in another $320 for backup. Call it $700. That's nothing
to sneeze at, but by your own admission it's less than your average
monthly CD budget.

> And where do the CDs go?

That's completely up to you. You could box them up and move them into
storage. You could also keep them right where they are. I enjoy being
free of the burden and clutter of so many physical objects. Other
people can't bear the thought. It's a very personal choice.
25K CD's take up a lot of space. What could you do with that space?
If the answer is nothing, you could also consider downsizing and
reducing your housing costs by far more than the $700 one-time spend on
hard drives.

>
> This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
>

In your case it probably is. I left out the hardest part - ripping and
tagging. For a collection of your size that could easily be a 5 to 10
year project. There are some clever ways you could accelerate the time
line: find kindred spirits with large collections and swap common rips.
There's nothing at all illegal or even immoral about this if you both
already own common physical copies that you'd both be ripping anyway.
I've been both the benefactor and beneficiary of these arrangements and
they are incredible time-savers. This is not dissimliar to what Amazon,
Apple and Google do with their Cloud services. They only need to keep
one rip of Gould's 1955 Goldbergs in the Cloud, and everybody whose
already bought it from them are free to listen to that single copy at
any time. It saves tons of effort, storage, etc, and every single buyer
doesn't need to re-rip the same recording and upload it to their Cloud
account. Finally, there are even ripping and tagging services out there
offered by some of the high-end server companies. They tend to be
expensive, especially if you have lots of titles they haven't already
ripped and tagged for other customers.

My guess is that with a collection of your size and at your current
stage of life these solutions hold near-zero appeal to you. The major
benefit of this transition is convenience and utility. Transitioning to
a server setup allows you to enjoy your collection in a richer and
deeper way that you can't fully understand unless you've lived through
it. It's somewhat analgous to the transformation a DVR provides a
television watcher. When I first read about the TiVo in the Wall Street
Journal, I laughed and said, "Why would anybody with a VCR want this?"
After about a month of using one I could never imagine going back to
pre-DVR TV consumption. Like the TiVo, a music server changes the
nature of how you consume in very positive and unexpected ways.

DF

[wade]

I havent seen anything from HDTracks identified as multi-channel

[wade]

When the cloud-based music services decide for you that a particular piece of music isnt accessed enough to warrent them keeping it available, it will be gone, regardless of whether or not you want to have it kept available in perpetuity.

[wade]

my 2TB external hard drive is now full, had to switch to a 4TB drive. Still loading CDs to it.

[Dana John Hill]

On 2/7/2014 2:09 PM, David Fox wrote:
>
> My guess is that with a collection of your size and at your current
> stage of life these solutions hold near-zero appeal to you. The major
> benefit of this transition is convenience and utility. Transitioning to
> a server setup allows you to enjoy your collection in a richer and
> deeper way that you can't fully understand unless you've lived through
> it. It's somewhat analgous to the transformation a DVR provides a
> television watcher. When I first read about the TiVo in the Wall Street
> Journal, I laughed and said, "Why would anybody with a VCR want this?"
> After about a month of using one I could never imagine going back to
> pre-DVR TV consumption. Like the TiVo, a music server changes the
> nature of how you consume in very positive and unexpected ways.
>
> DF
>

I can see that instant access to music using a mobile device that
connects with my home stereo would be a great luxury. That may be
something I pursue after I finish my CD database. But I do not
anticipate moving to a disc-free lifestyle any time in the near future,
if ever. Even if I took the time to rip all the music to ever-cheaper
hard drives, digitizing all the art work and notes would be too
burdensome to imagine. The music, of course, is the most important
thing, but liner notes and libretti are too valuable to me to ever
jettison in a server-based system.

As for backups, I would only feel safe with a triple- or quadruple
backup. A few years back I began ripping all the music I programmed for
my daily show, and after nine months I had amassed an enormous digital
stockpile. That hard drive had an automatic backup. Both failed (though
I did manage to save a goodly portion of their contents).

[David Fox]

I keep none of my music in the cloud nor do I subscribe to any cloud
music services.

DF

[David Fox]

On 2/7/14, 11:39 AM, Dana John Hill wrote:
> On 2/7/2014 2:09 PM, David Fox wrote:
>>
>> My guess is that with a collection of your size and at your current
>> stage of life these solutions hold near-zero appeal to you. The major
>> benefit of this transition is convenience and utility. Transitioning to
>> a server setup allows you to enjoy your collection in a richer and
>> deeper way that you can't fully understand unless you've lived through
>> it. It's somewhat analgous to the transformation a DVR provides a
>> television watcher. When I first read about the TiVo in the Wall Street
>> Journal, I laughed and said, "Why would anybody with a VCR want this?"
>> After about a month of using one I could never imagine going back to
>> pre-DVR TV consumption. Like the TiVo, a music server changes the
>> nature of how you consume in very positive and unexpected ways.
>>
>> DF
>>
>
> I can see that instant access to music using a mobile device that
> connects with my home stereo would be a great luxury. That may be
> something I pursue after I finish my CD database. But I do not
> anticipate moving to a disc-free lifestyle any time in the near future,
> if ever. Even if I took the time to rip all the music to ever-cheaper
> hard drives, digitizing all the art work and notes would be too
> burdensome to imagine. The music, of course, is the most important
> thing, but liner notes and libretti are too valuable to me to ever
> jettison in a server-based system.

My setup serves as both music collection and database. Why spend all
the time/effort on one without the other? The database part is much
harder to build, maintain, and populate. Wouldn't it be nicer if it
played your music too? Also, it's unlikely that you will be able to
migrate all of your hard DB work to a server setup. If you're an
experienced DB programmer, perhaps. Otherwise it will mean much
duplication of effort.

As for liner notes, I'm generally not a fan. 85-90% of them are
worthless IMHO. Another 5% are useful/informative, and the remaining 5%
are unintentionally hilarious. I've scanned some of them, but the rest
I've left behind and have never missed. But I recognize everyone is
different. In the limit you could still keep your physical collection
around just for the liner notes if you enjoy them and read them or refer
to them frequently.

>
> As for backups, I would only feel safe with a triple- or quadruple
> backup. A few years back I began ripping all the music I programmed for
> my daily show, and after nine months I had amassed an enormous digital
> stockpile. That hard drive had an automatic backup. Both failed (though
> I did manage to save a goodly portion of their contents).

I have multiple backups in multiple locations. I have never lost a
single second of music since I went digital. OTOH I have lost hundreds
of CD's and LP's over the years between movers with sticky fingers,
unreturned loaners, ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, CD's left behind in rental
cars and in the seat pockets of planes, broken CD's, scratched, warped,
and broken LP's, water damage, etc. If you have a large physical CD
collection, I guarantee you my collection is safer than yours. That's
not a boastful comment, that's just the objective result of conditional
joint probabilities. Few people think of "safety of collection" as a
reason to go digital, but it's a largely unintended positive consequence.

DF

[td]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 2:09:20 PM UTC-5, David Fox wrote:

> I left out the hardest part - ripping and tagging. For a collection of your
> size that could easily be a 5 to 10 year project.

A deal killer, David.

TD

[David Fox]

I thought so, but it could also be an interesting project if you're
looking for one. Sort of like gardening - hard, engaging work that's
never finished. It has to be more rewarding than sparring with Ari and
Willem all day.

DF

[Herman]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 6:51:29 PM UTC+1, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>
>
> The gradual adoption of high-capacity home audio "servers" will only encourage
>
> this. Why have jewel boxes lying around when a 2TB drive can old over 2000
>
> CDs, plus notes and metadata?
>
>

Because I have time nor appetite for all that "ripping" activity some of you guys seem to spend your days with.

[Herman]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:26:43 PM UTC+1, td wrote:

>
> > I left out the hardest part - ripping and tagging. For a collection of your
>
> > size that could easily be a 5 to 10 year project.
>

It's yet another reminder that with the advent and spread of automation and computer technology people have been doing more menial work than ever before.

My dad had never touched a typewriter at his work. He had an assistant for that.

Now you buy a cd and that's when the work starts.

[David Fox]

My ripping is done save for new purchases. Ripping and tagging a new CD
takes about 5 to 10 minutes, much of which doesn't involve my attention.
Most of the time I'm in pure "listen" mode Besides, I spend less time
looking for CD's, pulling them from the shelves, placing them in the CD
player, returning them to the case, and returning them to the shelves
than you do. Plus, no more periodic
re-spacing/reorganizing/constructing new shelves when a portion of my
collection grows out of its allotted space. I spent many, many hours of
my life dealing with those issues.

DF

[David Fox]

Organizing a collection of 25,000 components of anything is serious
work. It wouldn't be a 5 to 10 year project for most members of this
group, because most don't have collections quite that large. My
collection took around two years in total to migrate, but it wasn't like
I was locked in a tiny room doing nothing but tagging for all of that
time. I was listening to a lot of that music all through that period -
initially most of it on CD, and eventually more and more of it off of
the server. I still have a very nice CD/SACD player hooked up to my
system, but now I only find myself turning it on only once a month or so.

It's really not accurate to say "work" starts once I buy a CD. Often
I pop a new CD right into my CD player, whether at home or in the car.
Whenever I remember - usually either while watching TV at night or while
eating breakfast in the morning - I pop the CD into the server
drive. When it pops out I place the next one in. It's no harder than
making toast for my daughter. Whenever I'm next in front of my computer
and have the time, I edit the tags so that they conform with my
scheme. Often 80% of the metadata has been automatically fetched and is
reasonably correct, and the cover art has been automatically retrieved too.

Sometimes I'll listen to a new purchase on the CD player and while that
is playing I will rip 4 or 5 other new purchases on the server. If I
have a big box set, I sometimes wait until there's football/basketball
game on TV and I mindlessly feed discs through the server (located
behind the TV) whenever the next disc pops out. Once you figure out a
workflow it's all relatively easy and automatic.

DF

[td]

Ari is fun. Pure comic relief. Dickey - sorry, but this troll has had more names than Prince Charles - is a pretentious, ignorant opera queen who needs to be stamped out. That's a cause worth fighting for, David.

TD

[td]

When I listen to a new CD I invariably spend five minutes correcting the garbage some turkey has loaded onto Gracenote. Ever seen a score marked Allegro Con Brio? How about Valses Nobles Et Sentimentales? Ever seen an adjective in French capitalized? There's a box for composer, so no need to put the composer's name in the track listing. Etc.

TD

[O]

In article <6846cac5-e9e3-44e8...@googlegroups.com>,

It will take you longer to play a CD than to rip it.

If you plan on playing a CD, you may as well rip it. If you don't plan
on playing the CD, then why did you buy it?

-Owen

[td]

Why "rip" it when you just want to hear it?

TD

[richard...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 2:39:48 PM UTC-5, Dana John Hill wrote:

>
> I can see that instant access to music using a mobile device that
>
> connects with my home stereo would be a great luxury. That may be
>
> something I pursue after I finish my CD database. But I do not
>
> anticipate moving to a disc-free lifestyle any time in the near future,
>
> if ever. Even if I took the time to rip all the music to ever-cheaper
>
> hard drives, digitizing all the art work and notes would be too
>
> burdensome to imagine. The music, of course, is the most important
>
> thing, but liner notes and libretti are too valuable to me to ever
>
> jettison in a server-based system.
>
>
>
> As for backups, I would only feel safe with a triple- or quadruple
>
> backup. A few years back I began ripping all the music I programmed for
>
> my daily show, and after nine months I had amassed an enormous digital
>
> stockpile. That hard drive had an automatic backup. Both failed (though
>
> I did manage to save a goodly portion of their contents).
>
>
>
> Dana John Hill
>
> Gainesville, Florida

I have had a similar experience. Most of my digital music is downloaded radio broadcasts, but I have also purchased downloads from emusic, amazon, cduniverse etc. I have a large (by non-group standards, anyway) CD and LP collection and began digitizing it to save space before a move. Initially I used external hard drives with USB. As these grew in available size I settled on 3TB drives.
The problem is they fail quite often. The drives themselves are usually mechanically sound, but Windows manages to lose file locations and then pronounces the drive unreadable and i need of formatting. AFAIK this is because of the 'sleep' features built in to both PCs and drives. If either one goes to sleep before the drive has fully updated its records, goodbye. Windows indicates copying is complete, when it actually is not- it's cached somewhere. Sleep seems to empty the cache.
This has happened to me regardless of the drive manufacturer or its software 'safety' features.
So, after a period of duplicate 3TB drives, which is to say the least highly inconvenient, I went to RAID. First a commercial 6 drive server with a software-based RAID. Disaster! It's way too loud, too demanding (A/C), even more sensitive to power hiccups . . .. Suffice it to say 8TB irrecoverable data.
I still had most of it on 3TB drives so not a total loss. Try again. This time a network (1GBbps) and a network server. Still noise, still A/c, but it can be somewhere else. It has its own LINUX OS, which is easy enough to deal with, snd is connected to a surge protector and battery backup power.

However, I am trying more domestic versions. Mediasonic (and identical but higher-priced versions under other brands) make 4 disc external drive cases. I load them with 3TB drives, and as RAID 5, get 8TB of supposedly secure storage. Using an external backed up power supply, all should be well. Windows, though, has the same problem it did with 3TB drives. It loses track of files and declares that the array needs reformatting.
If anyone has a solution to this I'd be happy to hear it. (Don't say Mac please, without good supporting reasons.) The LINUX server can usually find data that Windows has lost, but I'm not confident that this will always be complete or correct. It wasn't witht he 3TB drives.

So, the long and short of it seems to be that short of commercial class machines, whose WAF is somewhere past -zero on a 1-10 scale, these solutions are rather less safe and secure than their proponents suggest. I buy discs, and keep them after ripping. Notes sometimes are useful, often not, but if turned into files at least all the notes on compositions can be unified. This doesn't help much with operas where no two performances seem to use the same versions of the sung text, but it's something at least.

[O]

In article <71322c23-a607-4ca1...@googlegroups.com>, td

Because you might want to hear it again? And have it stored in a place
where it is backed up and easier to find.

-Owen

[td]

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 9:52:24 AM UTC-5, O wrote:
> In article <71322c23-a607-4ca1...@googlegroups.com>, td

> > Why "rip" it when you just want to hear it?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Because you might want to hear it again? And have it stored in a place
>
> where it is backed up and easier to find.

So, in so doing you eliminate the needed exercise of getting up off your backside and taking the CD off the shelf, where you have placed it carefully in its proper place. Right?

Laziness does not seem a sufficient justification for "ripping" CDs and wasting time "tagging" them when you should be listening and paying attention to what is on the CD itself, surely the reason you bought it in the first instance.

TD

[Herman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:35:34 PM UTC+1, td wrote:
>
> Laziness does not seem a sufficient justification for "ripping" CDs and wasting time "tagging" them when you should be listening and paying attention to what is on the CD itself, surely the reason you bought it in the first instance.
>

I all fairness, I'm too lazy to do the ripping & tagging. And yes, I often cannot find a cd I want to hear.

And I'm not too much into tech. I think we spend way too much time behind screen and keyboard. Or I do.

[David Fox]

Interesting argument, but since going post-CD I do far more listening. I
also get much deeper into my collection than I used to and do far more
comparative listening as it much easier to summon comparisons, not only
physically but mnemonically. When pulling up recordings of a given piece,
my server always seems to remember a few recordings that I had completely
forgotten I owned. Some are buried deep in box sets or compilations. Some
just slip my mind (it happens).

Also, the ability to switch between devices or regions of the house on the
fly only makes listening that much easier. For example, right now I'm
cooking breakfast while my 13-yr old son is asleep on the couch in the next
room (he never quite made it upstairs last night). Rather than waking him
up, I'm listening to Richter's WTC II from the "Richter in Hungary" box on
my iPhone through earbuds via the iPeng app. Once he wakes up I can
transfer the playing mid-note to the family room stereo. Having my CDs
ripped onto a server makes all of this possible.

If you prefer to get your exercise fetching and reshelving CD's rather than
using a treadmill or elliptical machine, whatever works for you :)

DF

[David Fox]

There are some vendors that offer multichannel DSD. Here's one:

http://www.channelclassics.com/native-dsd-multichannel.html

I think the lack of offerings is more supply/demand based. It's no more
difficult to offer the multichannel data stream than it is to offer
the stereo channel stream. The files are larger so they'd have to
charge more for bandwidth. My guess is that current consumer demand
does not warrant the offering. Write to HDTracks and they'll tell you
for sure. I wouldn't be surprised if they address this in their FAQ.

DF

[Randy Lane]

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 9:05:15 AM UTC-7, David Fox wrote:
> td <tomde...@mac.com> wrote: > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 9:52:24 AM UTC-5, O wrote: >> In article <71322c23-a607-4ca1...@googlegroups.com>, td > >>> Why "rip" it when you just want to hear it? >> >>> >> >> >> >> Because you might want to hear it again? And have it stored in a place >> >> where it is backed up and easier to find. > > So, in so doing you eliminate the needed exercise of getting up off your > backside and taking the CD off the shelf, where you have placed it > carefully in its proper place. Right? > > Laziness does not seem a sufficient justification for "ripping" CDs and > wasting time "tagging" them when you should be listening and paying > attention to what is on the CD itself, surely the reason you bought it in > the first instance. > > TD Interesting argument, but since going post-CD I do far more listening. I also get much deeper into my collection than I used to and do far more comparative listening as it much easier to summon comparisons, not only physically but mnemonically. When pulling up recordings of a given piece, my server always seems to remember a few recordings that I had completely forgotten I owned. Some are buried deep in box sets or compilations. Some just slip my mind (it happens). Also, the ability to switch between devices or regions of the house on the fly only makes listening that much easier. For example, right now I'm cooking breakfast while my 13-yr old son is asleep on the couch in the next room (he never quite made it upstairs last night). Rather than waking him up, I'm listening to Richter's WTC II from the "Richter in Hungary" box on my iPhone through earbuds via the iPeng app. Once he wakes up I can transfer the playing mid-note to the family room stereo. Having my CDs ripped onto a server makes all of this possible. If you prefer to get your exercise fetching and reshelving CD's rather than using a treadmill or elliptical machine, whatever works for you :) DF

Like you David my listening has increased as I've digitized my collection, an evolving process that I don't know will ever reach a state of relative "completion". I can either crank up the lossless FLAC files to be piped via ethernet to the DAC on the "entertainment room" system (where I cannot tell any difference between the FLAC and the original source disk) or I can listen anywhere (in the house, on the road, in the office) with high quality earbuds (or the automobile Aux jack) using a variety of devices. And I can share my music with more people this way too - they don't have to come to my house.

I get more use out of the music I own with the digitized collection because it is far easier to find some things, or even know if I have it. Wanted the Frank D minor a few days ago. Select Composer, select the genre from a list (Orchestral), select sub-genre from a list (Symphony), select the composition and there are all of the Franck D minor recordings, including many that I would not find by going to my CD library and browsing the CDs that are arranged alphabetically by composer because they are buried in boxes of different varieties and sizes - in fact 6 out of 12 recordings ripped to the digital library are in such boxes (Bernstein, Toscanini, Silvestri, Stokowski, Klemperer, Karajan). And I'm not sure but I believe several of the other 6 would still have to be hunted down because the Franck is not the first or primary work on the CD so it is filed under a different composer (Golschmann, Maazel, and Lehmann). I would only have likely found 3 out the 12 by going to the Franck CD library (Beecham, Monteux, and Furtwängler - though the Furtwängler could be filed under Schumann, but I'm not there to check). Direct access by composition regardless of collection, box, etc. is my biggest reason for loving digitized audio collections. Doing so with works that come in infiite varieties of compilations like J.S. Bach Cantatas and Organ Works and the advantages become even more acute.

On top of that the digitized library permits me to quickly check to see if I already own something, whether I'm shopping online or in a brick and mortar store (rare as those are these days). Unwanted duplications have dropped dramatically since I started the digitization process.

Admittedly building the digital library so it work this way takes work - I can convert about 6-10 CDs in an hour, depending on the content, because I have a large quantity of custom tags and take great care to normalize all of the tag data (Randy the DBA speaking here) so artists, composrs, and compositions are all spelled exactly the same and sort into distinct buckets in the DLNA database.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message news:1b55cd49-2334-4cca...@googlegroups.com...

> The problem is the drives fail quite often. The drives themselves are

> usually
> mechanically sound, but Windows manages to lose file locations and then
> pronounces the drive unreadable and i need of formatting. AFAIK this is
> because
> of the 'sleep' features built in to both PCs and drives. If either one goes
> to sleep
> before the drive has fully updated its records, goodbye. Windows indicates
> copying
> is complete, when it actually is not- it's cached somewhere. Sleep seems to
> empty the cache.

If this is true, then why not just shut off automatic sleep mode? My desktop
machine cannot enter sleep mode (or even shut itself off), unless I command it
to. (The principal purpose of automatic sleep mode is to conserve a notebook's
battery. It has little use on a desktop computer.)

[Dana John Hill]

On 2/7/2014 6:04 PM, David Fox wrote:
>
> Sometimes I'll listen to a new purchase on the CD player and while that
> is playing I will rip 4 or 5 other new purchases on the server. If I
> have a big box set, I sometimes wait until there's football/basketball
> game on TV and I mindlessly feed discs through the server (located
> behind the TV) whenever the next disc pops out. Once you figure out a
> workflow it's all relatively easy and automatic.
>

This is how I do most of my CD data-entry. I'll sit on the couch while
watching TV with my wife and I'll almost mindlessly type into my
spreadsheet. Only doing about a half-hour at a time, I managed to input
my recently purchased MLP Vol. 1 in two evenings.

(One incidental benefit to creating a database is that I pay closer
attention to what is on a disc, and thus, better know what's what.)

[David Fox]

Great minds think alike. I ripped/tagged the MLP II box during last
year's NBA playoffs.

DF

[O]

In article <fb1264b6-b1e8-4a26...@googlegroups.com>, td

Indeed it isn't. In fact, it's anything but lazy to undertake the
mundane task of ripping thousands of CDs. But you tell of your CD
collection numbering in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. Given
that you can easily find the CD after you play it (not that everyone
else can), how do you remember whether you've bought a CD already or
not? But perhaps the best reason for ripping is the cost of storing
all those CDs. In the 1980's, someone estimated that the cost per year
of storing something was $14 per square foot. It's probably about four
times as high now. You pay to heat, protect from weather, and for the
intrusion into your personal space. You pay property tax or rent on
the structure that houses those CDs.

You have effectively one copy of each of those CDs. A strategic
catastrophe would wipe out your entire collection. Your insurance
company would probably balk at the replacement cost, particularly if
you haven't notified them ahead of time of the liability they were
carrying.

Once you've ripped the CD, you can, with little effort, create backup
copies of all that music which you can duplicate into safe, or even
safer storage, which cost pennies compared to the cost you're paying to
house jewel box after jewel box after jewel box.

You're not the only one - I bet we're all inflicted with CD hoarding to
some extent or the other. I'm trying to find some time to transfer
everything into some hard drive system where I can easily make backup
copies.

-Owen

[O]

In article <ld5pbb$q0d$2...@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck

Sleep mode is supposed to send a signal to the disk drivers to them to
put their disks into a safe place prior to sleep. Most of the time
this works (most Windows laptops don't have a problem re-awakening
after you re-open the lid). I suspect poorly written disk drivers, or
interactions from Windows which cause your problem. It might also be a
hardware problem on your PC. New PCs are fairly cheap these days, even
Apple Macintosh ones.

-Owen

[David Fox]

Wow - there's a lot here. Let me cover a few of your topics.

"Sleeping" and external drives. This can be a problem on either Windows
or Mac if your sleep settings are not configured correctly -
specifically, "do not go to sleep when an external drive is attached",
or alternatively "do not go to sleep ever." A friend of mine kept
corrupting external drives on his Mac because of his machine going to
sleep. I helped him fix his sleep settings and he's been
corruption-free for quite a while now. I agree with a previous poster -
modern OS's should be able to handle this better even when machines
go to sleep. The sad fact is they don't.

Connecting through NAS: if you are still having the corruption problem
because of sleeping and the above answer doesn't work, just configure
the NAS partiion(s) to mount "read/only" by default. Your Windows
machine can't corrupt your NAS if it can't write to it. My music server
automatically exports two separate shares of my music directories: one
read/write, the other read/only. There's no reason to mount read/write
unless you need to add music or edit metadata. Listening should be
read/only. Dismount/disconnect the read/write
share whenever you're not using it. FWIW I've never had an export share
corrupted by a client whether it be read/write or read/only,
whether the client machine went to sleep, crashed, or exhibited any
other such antisocial behavior.

RAID / Big Ugly/Loud boxes: While RAID is an excellent solution to
certain classes of problems, I don't think it's really ideal for home
music server applications. RAID is great if any downtime is
unacceptable, and/or you have such a large array of discs that
maintaining a 1/1 backup ratio becomes prohibitively expensive. The
downside is that RAID has too many common points of failure. Power
surges, viruses, user error, software upgrade snafus, faulty
controllers, and even near-simultaneous failure rates of hard drives
sourced from the same batch often take out the RAID drive in addition to
the main data drive(s). In terms of probability theory, the whole
reason you backup is to reduce the chance of data loss. By having
additional copies, you utilize the power joint probabilities: one or
more improbable events have to occur simultaneously for you to suffer a
loss. However, joint probabilities become less powerful when
independence is removed. RAID just adds too much dependence to be a
reliable backup scheme for most home applications. These days most of
the "I thought I was backed up my but I lost my data anyway" stories I
hear involve RAID. One such incident happened recently to a member of
this newsgroup, but he was fortunate enough to have additional redundancy.

So to maximize the power of joint probabilities - backup to external
drives that are only connected to the target machine when backups are
refreshed. Otherwise they are kept unconnected and unplugged. Bonus
points if they are kept at another address. Double bonus points if that
address is in another geographic region. Of course at that point you
have far less of a chance of surviving a major cataclysmic event than
your collection does, but until we can backup or clone ourselves that's
what we have to settle for.

The RAID issue ties directly into the "Big ugly box" issue. Once you
don't need onboard RAID, you can settle for a much smaller/quieter/less
ugly box. When building servers for friends that want
small/quiet/unobtrusive, I've been using this enclosure quite a bit lately:

http://amzn.to/1d6nP0N

It can comfortably hold two 3.5" drives - enough for 8TB of internal
space which would even handle TD's collection (warning - it's specs lead
you to believe it may be able to hold three full-size drives, or even
two 3.5" and an optical drive, but unfortunately this isn't true - the
optical drive would have to be external).

Operating System: I'm a big believer in using a full-blown Linux music
server installation rather than a barebones NAS installation. It's far
more robust and far more feature-rich. If you have only a NAS, you
still need an "always up" machine to access/serve the files on the NAS.
While you can try to run the music server program on the NAS, I really
wouldn't recommend it if your collection is as big as the average RMCR
participant's. I run the VoretxBox suite which is basically Fedora
Linux with Squeezebox Server, a few other packages, and some customized
GUI's and extensions. I'm a huge believer in Linux over
either Windows or Mac OS for music servers. When Linux boxes are up and
running, they stay running longer and more reliably with less user
knowledge or input than any other machines I know. I like to joke that
Linux machines should be rebooted once every 6 months to a year whether
they need to or not. WHEN they require upgrade or maintenance, some
expert knowledge may be required. It's good to have a resource
available for those infrequent occurrences. I provide this role for my
non-technical friends who have servers. They leave me alone for months
at a time (at least when it comes to their servers :)

So now you have sleep-robust music shares, reliable backups, a small
quiet and robust server - anything else?

DF

[Dana John Hill]

On 2/8/2014 11:05 AM, David Fox wrote:
>
> Interesting argument, but since going post-CD I do far more listening. I
> also get much deeper into my collection than I used to and do far more
> comparative listening as it much easier to summon comparisons, not only
> physically but mnemonically. When pulling up recordings of a given piece,
> my server always seems to remember a few recordings that I had completely
> forgotten I owned. Some are buried deep in box sets or compilations. Some
> just slip my mind (it happens).

I used to program my show by a variety of means. For a while I was
thinking about what I wanted to hear, and I'd just play that. But this
didn't produce as much variety as was probably necessary—and didn't
generate playlists with very many short pieces, since I seldom think to
listen to, say, one short sonata by Telemann—and so I decided to add to
the pre-selected stuff a few random shelf-grabs (within reason). I'd
pick a piece off that disc, and often it would be something that I'd
seldom heard. But sometimes it helped to just let the computer randomly
select something. The database has every recording entered by composer,
title, performer, label, and running time. Frequently I'd just type in a
duration, say 21:15, and the database would show me all the pieces close
to that time. Then I'd just grab something interesting. That's always
been how I've timed-out the end of my show. Perhaps not surprisingly, my
work habits have changed my home listening habits.

>
> Also, the ability to switch between devices or regions of the house on the
> fly only makes listening that much easier. For example, right now I'm
> cooking breakfast while my 13-yr old son is asleep on the couch in the next
> room (he never quite made it upstairs last night). Rather than waking him
> up, I'm listening to Richter's WTC II from the "Richter in Hungary" box on
> my iPhone through earbuds via the iPeng app. Once he wakes up I can
> transfer the playing mid-note to the family room stereo. Having my CDs
> ripped onto a server makes all of this possible.
>

That sounds like some sort of magic - especially the part about being
able to just walk from one room to the next and continue hearing your
music. My low-tech solution has simply been to turn up the stereo, which
isn't ideal.

[Herman]

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:35:45 PM UTC+1, O wrote:

> In the 1980's, someone estimated that the cost per year
>
> of storing something was $14 per square foot. It's probably about four
>
> times as high now. You pay to heat, protect from weather, and for the
>
> intrusion into your personal space. You pay property tax or rent on
>
> the structure that houses those CDs.
>

Tom lives in Ontario. The calculus is different there.
I believe the gvt pays people who are crazy or desperate enough to want to live there.

[Oscar]

Obviously, you have never been to Toronto, herman. It's like New York if it were run by the Swiss.

[David Fox]

On 2/8/14, 11:38 AM, Dana John Hill wrote:
> On 2/8/2014 11:05 AM, David Fox wrote:
>>
>> Interesting argument, but since going post-CD I do far more listening. I
>> also get much deeper into my collection than I used to and do far more
>> comparative listening as it much easier to summon comparisons, not only
>> physically but mnemonically. When pulling up recordings of a given piece,
>> my server always seems to remember a few recordings that I had completely
>> forgotten I owned. Some are buried deep in box sets or compilations. Some
>> just slip my mind (it happens).
>
> I used to program my show by a variety of means. For a while I was
> thinking about what I wanted to hear, and I'd just play that. But this
> didn't produce as much variety as was probably necessary—and didn't
> generate playlists with very many short pieces, since I seldom think to
> listen to, say, one short sonata by Telemann—and so I decided to add to
> the pre-selected stuff a few random shelf-grabs (within reason). I'd
> pick a piece off that disc, and often it would be something that I'd
> seldom heard. But sometimes it helped to just let the computer randomly
> select something. The database has every recording entered by composer,
> title, performer, label, and running time. Frequently I'd just type in a
> duration, say 21:15, and the database would show me all the pieces close
> to that time. Then I'd just grab something interesting. That's always
> been how I've timed-out the end of my show. Perhaps not surprisingly, my
> work habits have changed my home listening habits.

The "random" function is a favorite of mine too. It's a great way to
rediscover (or sometimes embarrassingly discover for the first time)
recordings that had fallen off of my radar. My server has the ability
to bound randomness by genre. So, when I'm looking for a random
classical recording I won't suddenly hear Albert King, and when I want
some blues or jazz I won't get Bach Sonatas and Partitas. I've tried
the "blind grab" approach back in my CD days, but it was a pseudo-random
process at best. I knew the various physical quadrants of my collection
and what I chose was often I function of where I was pulling which took
much of the true surprise (and fun) away.

>
>
>>
>> Also, the ability to switch between devices or regions of the house on
>> the
>> fly only makes listening that much easier. For example, right now I'm
>> cooking breakfast while my 13-yr old son is asleep on the couch in the
>> next
>> room (he never quite made it upstairs last night). Rather than waking him
>> up, I'm listening to Richter's WTC II from the "Richter in Hungary"
>> box on
>> my iPhone through earbuds via the iPeng app. Once he wakes up I can
>> transfer the playing mid-note to the family room stereo. Having my CDs
>> ripped onto a server makes all of this possible.
>>
>
> That sounds like some sort of magic - especially the part about being
> able to just walk from one room to the next and continue hearing your
> music. My low-tech solution has simply been to turn up the stereo, which
> isn't ideal.

It's not magic at all. It's a very straight-forward byproduct of how
music streaming works. The streaming part is very simple at its core:
packets of music are sent over the network to a given IP address.
Change the IP address, instantly change the location where your music is
being streamed. In fact, it can just as easily multicast the IP address
so the music can plays simultaneously at a number of different
locations. Good things happen once your music is ripped :)

DF

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/7/14, 9:53 AM, td wrote:
> On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:51:29 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "David Fox" wrote in message
>>
>> news:Ss6dnfOy7dI0hWjP...@giganews.com...

>>
>>
>>
>>> Actually, I think downloads, whether they be high-bit-rate FLACs
>>
>>> (96/24, 192/24) or DSD, are the Hi-Rez media with the most future
>>
>>> potential. HDTracks and a few other outfits now offer a great deal
>>
>>> of what had been put out on SACD, DVD-Audio, etc as well as many
>>
>>> releases that were never issued in hi-rez physical formats. The world
>>
>>> is inexorably moving away from shiny discs, whether they be silver,
>>
>>> blue, green, or whatever next comes down the pike.
>>
>>
>>

>> The gradual adoption of high-capacity home audio "servers" will only encourage
>>
>> this. Why have jewel boxes lying around when a 2TB drive can old over 2000
>>
>> CDs, plus notes and metadata?
>

> And another one as "backup'?
>
> TD
>


Any computer data needs to be backed up. It's not unique to music and
doesn't need to be mentioned.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/8/14, 6:45 AM, richard...@gmail.com wrote:

> As these grew in available size I settled on 3TB drives.
> The problem is they fail quite often. The drives themselves are usually mechanically sound, but Windows manages to lose file locations and then pronounces the drive unreadable and i need of formatting. AFAIK this is because of the 'sleep' features built in to both PCs and drives. If either one goes to sleep before the drive has fully updated its records, goodbye. Windows indicates copying is complete, when it actually is not- it's cached somewhere. Sleep seems to empty the cache.
> This has happened to me regardless of the drive manufacturer or its software 'safety' features.
> So, after a period of duplicate 3TB drives, which is to say the least highly inconvenient,

Don't buy any of these explanations for your data failures. Sounds
like incorrect setup or incompatible hardware.

I have four complete local copies - two on Drobos (5D and 5N) and two
on Synology NAS (DS1512+ and DS1511+) The 5D is a master connected to
a late 2013 Mac Pro via Thunderbolt.

Rarely scan booklets. It's great to be able to pull up every
performance of work "x" in seconds and compare them.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/8/14, 11:14 AM, David Fox wrote:

> RAID / Big Ugly/Loud boxes: While RAID is an excellent solution to
> certain classes of problems, I don't think it's really ideal for home
> music server applications. RAID is great if any downtime is
> unacceptable, and/or you have such a large array of discs that
> maintaining a 1/1 backup ratio becomes prohibitively expensive. The
> downside is that RAID has too many common points of failure. Power
> surges, viruses, user error, software upgrade snafus, faulty
> controllers, and even near-simultaneous failure rates of hard drives
> sourced from the same batch often take out the RAID drive in addition
> to the main data drive(s). In terms of probability theory, the whole
> reason you backup is to reduce the chance of data loss. By having
> additional copies, you utilize the power joint probabilities: one or
> more improbable events have to occur simultaneously for you to suffer
> a loss. However, joint probabilities become less powerful when
> independence is removed. RAID just adds too much dependence to be a
> reliable backup scheme for most home applications. These days most of
> the "I thought I was backed up my but I lost my data anyway" stories I
> hear involve RAID. One such incident happened recently to a member of
> this newsgroup, but he was fortunate enough to have additional
> redundancy.

I have never heard anyone recommending RAID as a backup methodology
any anyone who operates under that principle should be prepared to
lose everything.

Any important data should be in 3 places, one of which is offsite.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

I think I was binge watching some TV series. Perhaps "Hannibal", or
something on Netflix. Actually did MLP I and MLP II around the same
time.

Finished Toscanini watching "MI-5". Still have the big Rubinstein box.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/8/14, 7:35 AM, td wrote:
> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 9:52:24 AM UTC-5, O wrote:
>> In article <71322c23-a607-4ca1...@googlegroups.com>, td
>
>>> Why "rip" it when you just want to hear it?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Because you might want to hear it again? And have it stored in a place
>>
>> where it is backed up and easier to find.
>
> So, in so doing you eliminate the needed exercise of getting up off your backside and taking the CD off the shelf, where you have placed it carefully in its proper place. Right?

Where would be the "proper place" in your collection to find every
performance you own of Mascagni's Inermezzo from Cavalelleria
Rusticana? Or every Schubert 8th?

Bet I could find all of mine faster than you could.

Steve

[David Fox]

I agree completely with your last statement. Unfortunately there are
plenty of people out there who rely on RAID as their sole backup
mechanism. Their computers or NAS boxes come with RAID features so they
assume that it's the best way to go. They think that it's akin to
Apple's Time Machine / Time Capsule - an automatic, near-fool-proof
backup scheme that operates silently in the background. I wish I had a
nickel for very sad story I've heard by someone who mistakenly thought
that RAID was an acronym for backup.

DF

[William Sommerwerck]

> This has happened to me regardless of the drive manufacturer
> or its software 'safety' features.

"Doc, it hurts when I do this."
"Then don't do it!"

If you don't want this to happen, then don't let the computer automatically
enter sleep mode!
-- The Lady from Philadelphia

[Randy Lane]

RAID was (past tense emphasized) as great tool to build a large single-volume data storage entity when hard disks were considerably smaller than they are today. I used RAID for years with custom motherboards. But I always maintained a backup elsewhere, usually on multiple devices as the RAID was bigger than affordable backup devices/disks/etc. The RAIDs were sometimes a problem, but more often than not I was thankful when one of the 4-6 drives would crash with no loss of data. That said, RAIDs have a downside. Performance often sucks with them. I could not even use some photo scanning software with RAID volumes because of the slow write speeds. And I've done enough evaluation of RIAD degradation (as a DBA/database programmer) to know first hand how significant the performance drop off is.

Sad thing I've run into are the business device/system vendors who market RAID equipped devices/systems with advertisements claiming the devices/systems contain a "backup" mechanism and backup storage - no need to do your own backups! Dig deep enough and you find out the RAID is the sole basis for making the "backup" claim.

[wade...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 6:18:40 PM UTC-8, td wrote:
> This appears on Warner's forthcoming releases.
>
> The Karajan Official Remastered Edition comprises 13 box sets containing official remasterings of the finest recordings the Austrian conductor made for EMI between 1946 and 1984, and which are now a jewel of the Warner Classics catalogue.
>
> For many, Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989) - hailed early in his career as 'Das Wunder Karajan' (The Karajan Miracle) and known in the early 1960s as 'the music director of Europe' - remains the ultimate embodiment of the maestro. The release of the Karajan Official Remastered Edition over the first half of 2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the conductor's death in July 1989 at the age of 81.
>
> He was closely associated with EMI for the majority of his recording career (specifically from 1946 to 1960 and then again from 1969 to 1984). EMI's legendary producer Walter Legge sought him out in Vienna just after World War II and the long relationship that ensued embraced recordings with the Vienna Philharmonic, the Philharmonia (the orchestra founded by Legge), the Berlin Philharmonic (of which Karajan became 'conductor for life' in 1955), the forces of La Scala, Milan, and the Orchestre de Paris.
>
> The Karajan Official Remastered Edition will feature primarily symphonic and choral music. The entire edition will comprise recordings remastered from the original sources in 24-bit/96kHz at Abbey Road Studios, the world's most renowned recording studio.
>
>
>
>
>
> What does that make of the previous EMI boxes of Karajan, I wonder? Chopped liver?
>
> TD

Irritated that the digital downloads of the Beethoven Symphony set does NOT contain a digital booklet equivalent to the booklet in the CD set. Just has a jpg of the cover. NOT a good policy.