Continuing with CDs?

I bought a crappy Ariston turntable with my first pay check from writing 17 years ago and it is still going strong. I need a new CD player though, as the drawer on my old one needs to be opened and closed manually.

ed B: I don't know what Ikea shelves you prefer, but I have at least two spare blue/white "Robin" shelves that I would part with for the cost of shipping.

I'd have four if my wife agreed to the binder plan (insert "binders of women" joke here)

but i genuinely have bought cds/boxsets off amazon with their glorious autorip extra, where it is cheaper to get the cd/free digital version than it is getting the digital only option.

this always amuses me. amazon is like, we will pay you to take this CD out of our warehouse.

I did the binder thing a couple weeks ago as well as majorly weeding my collection. The only ones I've kept intact are signed/cherished special edition/PJ Harvey. I thought I would be a lot more melancholy about it than I was but it felt... really, really good.

No new record presses have been manufactured in the last decade or two; the tooling is prohibitively expensive and/or non-existent, and the people who knew how to make them are either dead or retired.

I believe this was true until very recently, but it looks like this plant in the Czech Republic has internally developed and is building new presses to keep up with demand:

http://thequietus.com/articles/17670-gz-vinyl-pressing-plant-record-store-day

I have several hundred movies in binders and i struggle to find films i know i have -- with LPs and other "cased" items it's very efficient to be able to scan the spines.

Phrases i never thought i'd utter; "Do you have the Czech Import?" -- i always thought that Russian turntables required found pieces of talus slag for their cartridge styli.

Alphabetize

For movies I sort by genre, or director - and then by year of release; or, at least many other factors before alphabet. My music hard drive is sorted by genre, alphabet (band name), and then release date, and it's no fun to browse. Maybe "your" generation can mentally parse things this way, but it more revelatory to view my catalog in a larger macro sense.

idgi, you're sorting your stuff by genre and director and release date, isn't that more micro than just using the alphabet?

With somewhere between 10 and 15-thousand individual titles (20+ if you include the hard drive material) I would never find use in simply taking every piece of music i have a placing it in alphabetical order.

The alphabet is a cold, detailed, and finely-tipped brush -- blending those details into more generalized hues is what connects music from different artists -- and it's in a way that the alphabet cannot.

My mp3 player sorts alphabetically and I can never remember what's on it -- instead -- i'll throw in couple of preformed playlists for general listening and then a big chunk of something like "Complete 1950's Stan Getz" in a separate folder as something i need to slowly digest.

Let me use another example -- i have the entire Pink Floyd catalog thru "The Final Cut" -- how do i reconcile the fact that i only need one of those albums on vinyl, 2-3 of them on disc, and the rest is fine for high-bit mp3 -- and how do i sort them? Broad brush strokes; in my main vinyl stack (of maybe 400 LPs), Floyd's "Meddle" sets alongside "Yerself is Steam" and that makes more sense to me than the alphabet ever could.

I understand that to some extent we are all somewhat reliant on the alphabet -- the point i'm trying to make is that there is nothing fun about scanning through such an un-nuanced list -- and that one day that somebody devises a way for me to organically peruse my own catalog that's as enjoyable as the way i organically stack my records. Yes; the main stacks have to be in order; but when i get a fresh pile of CDs or LPs they set out front, unbound from the confines of their inevitable alphabetical slot. They set out front in an organic order that may include such factors as "completely random", "genre", "artist", "preciousness", "rarity", "condition", "level of interest", or whatever. Organic listening of music somewhat requires an organic order of titles, and i would be much more apt to committing to digital stacks if they made them more fun to look through.

Shuffle is the new browse

PINK FLOYD RULES

If the "shuffle" button was smarter and randomly included factors such as "mood" or "bpm" or "key" or whatever other details it can glean, we might be talking.

I started getting Cds in the late 80s in high school and later got into having vinyl and LPs a couple years later in college. I had a Sony turntable and LPs were cool as there were records were not on CD and you could sometimes get stuff crazy cheap. I know I got all of Tangerine Dream's Virgin LPs at a buck each. Sometime in 1999 that turntable conked out and I have literally thought about getting a turntable and nice stereo setup for 15 years and it just never has happened. There are definitely some newer vinyl records put out in the hip comeback that look really, really cool.

Never really stopped buying CDs and by now have over 3000. I mostly listen on a couple of PCs that I have studio monitors setup for playback. I had ripped a ton to mp3s and just always thought the quality sucked as it seems to me to clip the low end and I could hear clicks and other artifacts in playback. In early 2012 I installed a 2 TB second hard drive on my main PC and got the DB Poweramp software to rip and started over on my digital music collection ripping them as uncompressed wave files. I have them just sorted by artist name folders. No central database other than a spreadsheet and a word document that I have been using since Oct. 96 to track what I listen to and what's in the collection. I've probably now got maybe 60-67% of my collection ripped at this point.

I slowed down for a few years on getting CDs but the whole 'original album series' and other budget box sets of the like are music fan crack. It is kind of crazy that you can get those type of Cd collections often on import via Amazon for less than actually downloading the MP3s.

One thing about CDs that has always been cool since the home burners is making CDR comps for the car and on the go. Years on and MP3 players, I still like this part of CDs quite a bit.

There's no wrong way to listen to music.

Buy CDs, records, tapes, MP3s and Spotify subscriptions.

^^^^^^

I threw out all my jewel cases, and replaced them with gatefold plastic sleeves that display the spine. This roughly halved my storage space. I got the sleeves from Jazz Loft in theUS - couldn't find a UK supplier - and now there's this dedicated URL: http://www.spacesavingsleeves.com/

A few years ago I ripped all my CD singles/EPs to my computer, put the discs and inserts in plastic sleeves into a couple of those metal DJ box things. Chucked the jewel cases, saved a lot of space, the discs have been under my bed ever since. Have considered doing the same with albums - I've ripped them all already, would just be a case of letting go of the cases.

Those space-saving sleeves look a good solution, if a little expensive compared to doing nothing.

Reading through this thread nobody has seemed to mention the biggest benefit of physical copy (though not really vinyl) over digi - browsing, keeping track of what you've got. Having 500-1000 CDs shelved with their spines (damn those new cardboard cases) makes it easy to know what you've got and not get lost in a maze of folders on your computer or hdd.

Like with a lot of digital storage it's out of sight out of mind. You're easily likely to go a year without playing a record you like b/c you forgot about it. With CD@s theyre always there staring you in the face, not hidden down endless scrolling.

It's the same basic reason why visiting an actual book store is infintely better for book discovery than Amazon. Even with it's recommendations ( you don't always want recommendations, you want to browse something new)

I buy records and can never keep track of what Ive got, Ive grown to prefer it that way, I crate digger even in my own cabin

Like I said, records don't help, because they have no spine. CDs and tapes have. A 14inch computer screen can never replace this.

Uh, records do have spines! Granted more than half of mine are worn to shit from past lives in other storage/display situations but nearly all are basically legible, if not always from across the room.

RUSSIAN records don't have spines, ime. Also a copy of Ellington Uptown on Phillips from the early 50s. HMMMMMMMM

ehhh slap on some masking tape and grab a fine-point sharpie, whattyawantfromme

what about singles did you think of that

singles are for storing face-out and flipping through!

I ws suggesting Auk ws from the 50s and/or Russia actually, sry

flipping through is a v different experience to browsing spines & more wearisome imo

The records i buy dont have anything written on the spine

What about that Shriekback record?

Most of my heroes don't appear on no spines.

what about all your fat impulse records?

best spines...

The Spineless Ones are a humanoid race living in the alien dimension known as the Mojoverse. They have a yellow skin, no hair, only three fingers on each hand (plus thumb) and most importantly: no spine. Because they have no spine, their legs are mostly atrophied and they are very obese. The Spineless Ones are larger than humans (about twice their size). Somehow they could mentally receive television programs that were sent from Earth. These transmissions caused madness within the Spineless Ones and the creatures in these transmissions (humans) have become demons in the myths of the Spineless Ones.

needless to say, if you don't buy records, you never get to see photos like these.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10998010_10153878390682137_8721982341794000337_n.jpg?oh=fd9ad241ad10ee2461c37a381c5c169f&oe=559B28FE&__gda__=1440152961_3edbb351daf4b768dca884032cf7d272

https://scontent-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10987344_10153878390482137_1935241303877396662_n.jpg?oh=ca4022215759b93ab09ac5448df5ce96&oe=55DEBB1A

/thread

what about all your fat impulse records?

― scott seward, Saturday, April 25, 2015 11:00 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've only ever owned one original Impulse, Roswell Rudd's Everywhere, that I sold in the early 00s. Only other Impulse vinyl I have is a reissue of the Elvin Jones/Jimmy Garrison Sextet's Illumination.

one of my fave elvin impulses...

http://www.birkajazz.com/graphics2/jonesHeavySounds.jpg

i have a nice copy of Everywhere. sounds so good.

60's impulse vinyl....mmmmmmm.....oh MP3 peoples i wish i could play you some records...........

I do remember my copy of Everywhere sounded great, and all the Impulse records I've seen are super heavy.

Reading through this thread nobody has seemed to mention the biggest benefit of physical copy (though not really vinyl) over digi - browsing, keeping track of what you've got

― Arctic Noon Auk

Read again - this concept is central to my argument against hard drive stacks and mention it at least 4 times. Never new they made records without spine labels; too bad.

i challenge any1 2 read a record spine from more than 50 cm a way

When you know your LP collection the spine only has to remind you of the album it is, not tell you specifically. Colour, tatters, etc.

When you know your LP collection the spine only has to remind you of the album it is, not tell you specifically. Colour, tatters, etc.

a well worn battered spine = classic album.

One actual risk is that a good but kinda beat spine gets overlooked when you're just kinda browsing your collection deciding what to throw on. Especially if it's alphabetically next to a big chunk of one artist - the eye can kinda whisk past the "Beatles section" etc. But then when you do stumble on this record you've forgotten about for ages, it's a treat.

One of the most beaten spines in my collection is the white-label promo of Kick Out The Jams. I wince every time I see the spine, because I always forget how beaten it is (I've had it for 30 years).