# What's your favorite format?



## wgmontgomery

This may seem to be a simple question (or not), but if you *had* to have all of your music on *one* format, what would it be?? Analog (vinyl, reel-to-reel tape etc.), Red Book CD, SA-CD, XR-CD HD-CD, DVD-A...you get the picture. So, what is your favorite format and why??


----------



## Jon Liu

Good question! I would choose SACD as my one format. I just like the fidelity on CDs and while Vinyl might be better sounding overall, the drawbacks of analog sound, pops and such, are much more distracting to me.


----------



## wgmontgomery

Jon Liu said:


> Good question! I would choose SACD as my one format. I just like the fidelity on CDs and while Vinyl might be better sounding overall, the drawbacks of analog sound, pops and such, are much more distracting to me.


I lean toward SA-CD as well; I *love* analog, but it does have its drawbacks. Its cons can outweigh its pros, but a quality album or reel-to-reel tape on a quality T-table is amazing! I haven't heard much HD-CD or XR-CD though. Blu Ray AUDIO sounds (sorry for the pun) quite promising though.


----------



## tesseract

I enjoy SACD and DVD-A sound equally, but wish I didn't have to navigate DVD-A menus through my TV to chose stereo instead of the default, multi channel.


----------



## wgmontgomery

tesseract said:


> I enjoy SACD and DVD-A sound equally, but wish I didn't have to navigate DVD-A menus through my TV to chose stereo instead of the default, multi channel.


I agree; it IS a pain. I found a small LCD screen for $15 that I'm considering connecting just for this reason. My player has a screen saver, but I have a plasma set and am very wary of static images.

Does anyone have an opinion on XR-CD? I noticed that Elusive Disc states that it (XRCD) is their favorite format. :scratch:


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Jon Liu said:


> Good question! I would choose SACD as my one format.


Same here but, to be realistic, the only physical formats likely to survive for a while are CD and BluRay.



wgmontgomery said:


> Blu Ray AUDIO sounds (sorry for the pun) quite promising though.


It is more than promising, add video (if one cares about that!) and has a very large installed base. The latter adds to its survivability.


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
While a huge fan of SACD, Reel to Reel of even Vinyl is a safer long term storage format. Plastic degrades and as time goes by there is going to be the very real issue of any Disc becoming useless. This is most commonly referred to as Disc Rot. Here is an Article about it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

As I own well over 1000 CD's, this really is distressing. While I can always put them all on an External Hard Drive, that would be some mighty boring work... I am glad that DVD/BD's are not as endangered by this.
As for preference, I really tend to agree with most of Neil Young's musings about CD's, but I still think some sound excellent. 

Sadly, as we discuss this, more and more folks listen almost solely to MP3's. Best Buy is even phasing out CD's for sale at their Stores. While there is always the Online option, it takes away the instant gratification. Lucky are those that have a solid Independent Record Store in their locale. Hopefully, due to the Big Box Stores abandoning CD's, there will now be an added niche. Much like when these Stores carried Vinyl when CD's ruled the day.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## wgmontgomery

Jungle Jack said:


> Sadly, as we discuss this, more and more folks listen almost solely to MP3's. Best Buy is even phasing out CD's for sale at their Stores. While there is always the Online option, it takes away the instant gratification. Lucky are those that have a solid Independent Record Store in their locale. Hopefully, due to the Big Box Stores abandoning CD's, there will now be an added niche. Much like when these Stores carried Vinyl when CD's ruled the day.
> Cheers,
> JJ


That's a bit scary! I noticed that even Walmart has reduced its CD inventory.


----------



## tonyvdb

I really like my iPod touch so digital format. I have been very happy with the reliability of it and as long as I use an lossless format it sounds very good. CD has been my favorite format I have been buying them since there release in 1983 and so far even those have not seen any issues with "disc rot".


----------



## wgmontgomery

I've had a few CDs (not MFSL) that started to skip for no apparent reason...disc rot? Has anyone heard that gold discs are not supposed to be (as?) susceptible to "disc rot?" That was one of the advantages touted by MFSL.


----------



## bambino

I Haven't listened to Vinyl since i was a kid (over 25+ years ago:whistling but have often tossed a thought or 2 around about buying a turntable but the only ones i want are expensive and i can't justify the price over the use it would see. 
My choice is CD allthough the degradation of them that JJ mentiond is a reality but i still have some of the discs i had when i was young and they work just fine others however are shot and it's even visible just by looking at the disc. My other favorite these days is Digital (for conveniance).:T


----------



## OZZIERP

SACD


----------



## wgmontgomery

So far, SA-CD is crushing ALL other formats by ~6:1. I'm surprised that analog isn't more popular considering these are 2 channel formats. 

FWIW-my vote was for SA-CD, but I LOVE vinyl. I'd probably lean more toward vinyl IF: 
1) It was a more durable format
2) I had a better T-Table & phono stage...I can't complain given that I got a t-table (w/ Grado cartridge) and phono stage for <$50! I do, however, miss my Rega P2.


----------



## Jungle Jack

bambino said:


> I Haven't listened to Vinyl since i was a kid (over 25+ years ago:whistling but have often tossed a thought or 2 around about buying a turntable but the only ones i want are expensive and i can't justify the price over the use it would see.
> My choice is CD allthough the degradation of them that JJ mentiond is a reality but i still have some of the discs i had when i was young and they work just fine others however are shot and it's even visible just by looking at the disc. My other favorite these days is Digital (for conveniance).:T


Hello,
I listen pretty much exclusively to CD's (too few SACD's Released). As for CD's becoming unplayable in the future, this is something I read about several years ago and really made me cringe. Variables like Sunlight Exposure plays a hand, but it is a potential issue. Again, I own a pretty ridiculous number of CD's and my thoughts behind it were to have a vast Media Library. And as I have never even Rented a DVD, my DVD/BD Collection dwarfs my CD's.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## wgmontgomery

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> I listen pretty much exclusively to CD's (too few SACD's Released).
> Cheers,
> JJ


+1; I _prefer_ SACD, but the only way to get them here (the *major* metropolis known as Greenville, NC :rofl: ) is online. I'm building my collections of SACDs, but I'm moving so quickly that I keep getting passed by sloths!


----------



## jackfish

Vinyl

The right LP on a good system just sounds better.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

jackfish said:


> The right LP on a good system just sounds better.


If you say so. The bigger problem, for me, is that there have not been any new classical vinyl releases in 20 years and I see no reason to expect any in the future. Issues of technical superiority, which I do not concede, are irrelevant.


----------



## OZZIERP

My main gripe with vinyl was I had a Thorens table SME tonearm and Denon MC cartridge and I would unwrap a brand new copy only to have ticks and pops and yes I used Discwasher before each play.
But I have heard good and bad of all formats and it all comes down to mastering. I think Classical sounds best on SACD do to the available dynamic range and ability to play really low notes without any kind of feedback.


----------



## wgmontgomery

Although NOT new, I picked-up Tchaikovsky [_1812 Overture_ (Vienna Philharmonic)] on CBS Masterworks today...for 50¢!!

I can't wait to give it a spin!!


----------



## JoeESP9

Why do I have to choose? I want it all. I've got a decent LP spinner, an SACD/DVD-A player and a CD player with a stand alone DAC. I buy new and used vinyl, new and used SACD's/DVD-A's and new and used CD's. An Oppo BR player is in the near future and I've been looking at RtR decks. 

I even play cassettes! There are about 200 LP's I recorded to High Bias/CRO2/Metal cassettes. Should I stop listening to them?

Why, when subjects like come up is it always either or? How about being inclusive instead of exclusive?


----------



## pxj

SACD lddude:


----------



## wgmontgomery

JoeESP9 said:


> Why, when subjects like come up is it always either or? How about being inclusive instead of exclusive?


The question is simply "what's your favorite format?" In other words, *IF* you had to pick one, which would you pick. It is not meant to imply that ONLY one format is good/worth a listen, it's just meant to get a few opinions and is inclusive of all formats. Sorry if it wasn't clear. :innocent:


----------



## Jusbegood

What is my favorite format? _ have an extensive vinyl library of music that measures 9' tall x 7' wide. It mainly consists of Jazz & R&B genre's dating from the 1920's to the 1980's. My CD collection is much smaller. I use 3 plastic tubs that can be bought at Target; to store any CD collection._


----------



## class a

I'm still old school analog (vinyl).:T


----------



## Jungle Jack

Hello,
Vinyl in the only Physical Media Format that has seen a gain in recent times. Especially among College Kids, LP's are really doing quite well. With CD Sales in the absolute gutter, it gives me hope that people in their 20s are realizing how lacking MP3 is.
Cheers,
JJ


----------



## wgmontgomery

Jungle Jack said:


> Hello,
> Vinyl in the only Physical Media Format that has seen a gain in recent times. Especially among College Kids, LP's are really doing quite well. With CD Sales in the absolute gutter, it gives me hope that people in their 20s are realizing how lacking MP3 is.Cheers,
> JJ


I agree. In fact, my local BB does NOT carry SA-CD _at all _but does carry select LPs.


----------



## OZZIERP

Mine just carries CD's and iTunes music cards.


----------



## tesseract

wgmontgomery said:


> I agree. In fact, my local BB does NOT carry SA-CD _at all _but does carry select LPs.


I've seen a few Nine Inch Nails SACD and DVD-A mixed in with the CD's at our local BB, but other than that... nothing! I wish I would have cleaned up on the Peter Gabriel SACD's when they had them.

Plenty of albums, but the prices on most are through the roof. Yes, they are remastered MoFi's, but I would prefer SACD's.


----------



## J&D

Digital no question - Movies, music, tax returns. Everything has to get there eventually. The idea of purchasing once and playing everywhere I am should finally become a reality sometime in the 21st century. Hopefully while I am still alive. How many times should I have to purchase a single song? How many times should I have to purchase a single movie in order to enjoy that song or movie anywhere I want?


----------



## gdstupak

+1 for digital (storage on computer).

It is very versatile. 
If I buy a CD, I download it into my computer in lossless. 
I try to find music online in it's highest resolution available and store that on my computer. Online music downloads has been most popular for me in the last few years.
I wish everything were available as online downloads in high resolution multi channel format.

When it's time to listen through the home audio equipment, it is played at it's native resolution straight from the computer.
When I need to squeeze it into a digital player (portable mp3 player), on the computer I down-res the tracks to a lower resolution (but never as low as the standard mp3 128 crud!), and then transfer a copy into the 'mp3 player.'
If I need it on a CD for some reason, I can burn the tracks from the computer.


----------



## wgmontgomery

wgmontgomery said:


> Although NOT new, I picked-up Tchaikovsky [_1812 Overture_ (Vienna Philharmonic)] on CBS Masterworks today...for 50¢!!
> 
> I can't wait to give it a spin!!


I should have waited...perhaps the worst LP I've ever heard!! It's actually a DDA recording! Sq was AWFUL!!! A waste of 50 cents! :hissyfit:


----------



## Tincanitus

Yes to digital for me too.

I never imagined that I would, but once all set up, it is very fine sounding, and so convenient to use. I was raised on vinyl using quality hardware, and since then have loved "High Fidelity".

If you love your CDs get them onto digital, because once the worms start eating they dont stop. As has been said another CD can be burnt from lossless format.

My setup: Rip CDs to lossless FLAC with dBpoweramp CD Ripper; playback with JRiver Media Centre; bypass ALL of windows mashing and masaging including bypass soundcard through the JRiver settings (one button); SPDIF (optical or coaxial) out to external DAC; into good preamp, power amp, speakers.

(The best soundcard available is the bypassed one. )

That method can easily surpass the sound quality of many (most? all?) CD players.

There you go there's something to argue about. 

There is becomming more and more FLAC available for download online.

Anything But Apple.

FLAC is my favourite format!


----------



## OZZIERP

For convenience most of the time I do listen to my library ripped to lossless on my MacBook Pro sent via Airport Express (bit perfect to 16bit) to Hi-Fi.


----------



## pharoah

I listen to mostly CD's.I do have a PC with some music on it.although the majority of my listening is CD's in a player.


----------



## HTip

I very much like to listen to SACD. It's plug and play. I have some very good sounding DVD-A's also, but the navigation is somewhat problematic. To avoid to have to turn my projector I made pictures of the menu's and play screens. Exception to the rule are the HDAD from Classical Records. They have some great sounding dual-sided discs with 96/24 and even 192/24.

In Japan a lot of music is re-released on the SACD format. Sometimes even on SHM-SACD's. Pretty expensive, but a promising prospect...


----------



## Dale Rasco

Personally I have really become a fan of FLAC. It offers a very full and rich sound and little to know noise. LOVE IT!


----------



## gorb

flac would definitely be my choice 

The why would be the lossless quality + convenience factor.


----------



## BD55

I've got MP3s AACs and WMA, and I honestly can't tell the difference between them and playing a CD, so I would have to say that digital is my fav format. With storage getting cheaper, I can afford to rip at a high bitrate, and I can't say I've got a distinguished enough ear to differentiate the _extensive_ world of high fi audio.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Vinyl because of teh ritual invovled in playing it. Plus I can read the liner notes. :bigsmile:


----------



## tesseract

Because of the ritual. Love the honesty, 3dbinCanada!

Who doesn't miss album cover art and liner notes? Well, anyone under... lddude:


----------



## paulster

Hard disks and FLAC. Allows me to store CDs, DVD-As and Blu-ray audios and lossless downloads so I have one single format for storing everything.

And backups!


----------



## fuserules

My favorite choice is also FLAC files. I rip all my CDs to this lossless format. Don't need to worry about CD rot and in this format it is easy to keep a backups of my collection of music. I still buy CDs so I can do do that. I have also started to by high Quality Audio in FLAC from places like hdtracks but the choices are limited.

I play everything in that format via a couple WDTV Live devices that connect to a Tversity Steamer on a small NetTop PC. For the Cars and iPod Nano (old 3nd gen) I transcode my FLAC to MP3.

But I am not limited to 2 Channel with FLAC, I have been converting my DTS, DVD-A, and Music DVDs to FLAC as well. My SACDs are stuck since no way to extract that data.


----------



## JoeESP9

You can convert the analog out signal from an SACD player to a FLAC file.


----------



## paulster

If you get a fat PS3 (one of the ones that supported SACD playback) and ensure that the firmware isn't updated beyond a certain point then there is some software for it that'll let you rip the SACD to ISO format, whereupon you can convert the DSD tracks to a more convenient format via PC software. Never tried it myself since I never got into SACDs but it is at least doable if you can find the right PS3.


----------



## Dub King

For me this is the easiest question to answer... I'd want my audio on a solid-state hard drive - as uncompressed 24/192 files. Silent, fast shock-proof and possessing copious fidelity/dynamic range.


----------



## tesseract

Dub King said:


> For me this is the easiest question to answer... I'd want my audio on a solid-state hard drive - as uncompressed 24/192 files. Silent, fast shock-proof and possessing copious fidelity/dynamic range.


Agreed. I am working toward this end. 

Never owned a laptop before this year, now on my second one. As soon as it comes back from a warranty replacement of the HD and motherboard. :doh: Even Lenovo and ASUS have their bad days, I guess.

HTPC with SS HD and all the discs archived in my office. Downloads burned to disc and archived as well. Redundancy is the order of the day.


----------



## cometodeal

HD-CD and CD
Feeling different enough!


----------



## gordog

For serious listening, nothing beats vinyl on a better system. I can cope with the minor flaws of the medium as some of the clicks, etc. could be considered similarly distracting to hearing rustling and coughs at a real performance.


----------



## chashint

I have been ripping CDs in .wav format.
A hard drive connected to the AVR via USB is how I play the music at home.
How do you rip and playback the FLAC files ?
What is the advantage over .wav format ?
File size ?
Is the .wav format as good as it gets for fidelity ?

BTW I purchase music on CD.


----------



## JoeESP9

AFAIK, FLAC files preserve the metadata that handles things like song titles and album.

Wav files are bit for bit copies with no compression. IMO they provide the absolute best fidelity


----------



## paulster

JoeESP9 said:


> AFAIK, FLAC files preserve the metadata that handles things like song titles and album.
> 
> Wav files are bit for bit copies with no compression. IMO they provide the absolute best fidelity


FLAC files uncompress to bit-perfect copies of the original files, so they will provide equal fidelity to WAV files unless your decoder isn't decoding them properly. Plus they have the advantage of decent metadata support and a bit of disk space saving as well.


----------



## Dub King

Uncompressed 24/96 beats vinyl. How would you define serious listening? I'd say mastering an album in a recording studio is the very definition of serious. Having access to that master file is preferable to a vinyl disc IMO.



gordog said:


> For serious listening, nothing beats vinyl on a better system. I can cope with the minor flaws of the medium as some of the clicks, etc. could be considered similarly distracting to hearing rustling and coughs at a real performance.


----------



## Tincanitus

paulster said:


> FLAC files uncompress to bit-perfect copies of the original files, so they will provide equal fidelity to WAV files unless your decoder isn't decoding them properly. Plus they have the advantage of decent metadata support and a bit of disk space saving as well.


A good place for some more clarification. 

When I began using FLAC, I, as many others, had slight confusion over the compression level, and was mistakenly viewing it in the same way as MP3 compression; ie lower quality as the file size decreased. :nono:

With FLAC it is possible to achieve a slightly smaller file by increasing the compression level, whilst still retaining the inherant lossless characteristic. Most agree that for normal use the default setting of, I think, -5 gives a satisfactory compression of -40% to -60% from WAV. Additional compression just adds significantly more time to the coding process for very little gain (a few percent, say 5% not sure, depends on music)

Decoding for playback is fast and takes about the same time regardless of compression level.

Once set up this is an extremely reliable and simple to use system. Conversion from FLAC to other formats is easy given the right Media Center. :wave:


----------



## OZZIERP

I think in the end Lossless on SSD will be the audiophile nirvana no mechanical errors or noise to compensate for plus this could be done from master to consumer without changing formats no more tape to disc or vinyl a nice copy digital to digital.


----------



## AudiocRaver

My preference is lossless, usually flac, some wav, not terribly concerned about hard drive space these days. I have some 320K MP3s of music I listen to rarely, but for music I really care about, it is not too hard to hear the difference between lossless and 320K MP3, so flac or wav always wins when the listening is serious.

Tincanitus: Good explanation on flac compression, I use the default setting, no significant advantage to more or less compression than that.

Dub King: If you have master files at 24/96 or 24/192, absolutely, why not? Hard to prove we can hear the difference from 16/44 (I think 48 versus 44 is audible; 24 versus 16, maybe with the right material), but given the files and the space for them, I would do the same, just because I could. I see no reason to convert 16/44 source to higher resolution or bit rate, though. I assume that is not what you meant.

cometodeal: Agreed, highest resolution you can get, up to master quality level.

chashint & JoeESP9: Wav is as good as it gets for fidelity, flac has the advantage of metadata and compression. Compression is less of an issue with today's storage costs but with a huge music library it might start to matter again.

gordog: What can I say, if you like vinyl, you like vinyl. To me it is digital with added noise and distortion, can be accomplished with plug-ins and save a lot of trouble:bigsmile:. Just kidding, you know. To each his own:T.

OZZIERP: SSD vs. HD, if you can, why not? I am perfectly happy with HD for now, but someday all HDs will become SSDs. I doubt that SSD versus HD is audible... until you lose files, then the silence is deafening. If you can afford perfection, go for it. Shockless and long-term durability are nice, redundancy a must.

All my opinion, of course.


----------



## gordog

Dub King said:


> Uncompressed 24/96 beats vinyl. How would you define serious listening? I'd say mastering an album in a recording studio is the very definition of serious. Having access to that master file is preferable to a vinyl disc IMO.


I agree that lossless digital sounds clean and free of the clicks and pops and other distortions that come with vinyl. I won't debate the vinyl vs digital issue here as I'm simply exprssing my preference when I sit down to just _*listen*_ to music. I do also listen to digital, but can tell you that a good turntable, set up properly can and will convey a greater sense of musicality than most digital setups, even those with $8000+ DACs and transports (which come closer, but rarely meet or exceed the sound of vinyl).

I am not one of those people that says that vinyl sounds superior to digital in most cases. In fact I find it laughable that some of the newbies to vinyl are saying vinyl sounds "warmer and more real" on their sub-$100 turntables or even poorly setup entry level audiophile turntables, even when compared with CDs.


----------



## Dub King

OK sure, I buy that. I listen to quite a bit of DJ music and (taking DJ Shadow as an example) I know that vinyl is a critical component of the overall sound, even though I'm listening to a digital track.

Limited dynamic range and tracking issues that can make it difficult to properly master an LP that contains deep bass are my two biggest gripes with vinyl. Well. that and the massive inconvenience and short play time :R

I'm old enough that I once listened to all vinyl - I remember when 'The Wall' came out, it was the first time my parents told me about 'high fidelity', throughout the 1980's I obsessed over my turntable and stylus. When I finally made the leap to CD, I did it with the Sony CDP-X7ESD and never looked back. That was one sweet CD player.

Today I output everything from my HTPC to my AVR at 24/192. Zero issues, sounds unbelievable. However my pride-and-joy is the speakers I built and I do want to hear some quality vinyl on a quality turntable play through my system. I'm thinking I could host a Philly area GTG, gotta work on that. FWIW, here's one of the Xploders:
 




gordog said:


> I agree that lossless digital sounds clean and free of the clicks and pops and other distortions that come with vinyl. I won't debate the vinyl vs digital issue hear as I'm simply exprssing my preference when I sit down to just _*listen*_ to music. I do also listen to digital, but can tell you that a good turntable, set up properly can and will convey a greater sense of musicality than most digital setups, even those with $8000+ DACs and transports (which come closer, but rarely meet or exceed the sound of vinyl).
> 
> I am not one of those people that says that vinyl sounds superior to digital in most cases. In fact I find it laughable that some of the newbies to vinyl are saying vinyl sounds "warmer and more real" on their sub-$100 turntables or even poorly setup turntables, even when compared with CDs.


----------



## gordog

Dub King said:


> Limited dynamic range and tracking issues that can make it difficult to properly master an LP that contains deep bass are my two biggest gripes with vinyl. Well. that and the massive inconvenience and short play time :R


One of the issues I have with digital is the compression that is applied to the music. An example is the Beatles USB (FLAC) release on which the new Vinyl box set is based. The vinyl sounds much better since the same compression is not applied. I won't get into the utter mess that EMI made of this release however in terms of quality control in pressing at the Rainbo plant where some of the LPs are virtually unlistenable :rolleyesno:. (good arguement for buying the USB set which I considered until I got the UK pressings).

I too switched to CDs way back and only last year returned to vinyl after I heard a relatively modest system and said "I forgot how good this can sound!".

Now that I have a good DAC, I can also enjoy digital files, however I still give the edge to vinyl -usually.


----------



## xmas111

Vinyl is still my preference.

John


----------



## JoeESP9

I think that some are forgetting that digital doesn't have to be compressed. Whatever and how much if any compression that's used is the choice of the engineer and producer. 

It depends on the music you listen to. If you listen to mostly pop, top 40 and modern country you're going to get music that's been mixed and mastered to sound LOUD on car stereos and iPod's. Jazz and classical recordings usually have little or no compression.


----------



## 3dbinCanada

Vinyl is my prefered medium of choice because of the involvement in playing and maintaining it.


----------



## JoeESP9

paulster said:


> FLAC files uncompress to bit-perfect copies of the original files, so they will provide equal fidelity to WAV files unless your decoder isn't decoding them properly. Plus they have the advantage of decent metadata support and a bit of disk space saving as well.


IMO, all other things being equal no compression is always better. With that said, all the files on my music server with the exception of the few high res ones I have are FLAC files.


----------



## Bones13

Hi Res FLAC/ALAC, or some new lossless file format will be the long term winner for audiophile music. Whether you get this from a SACD (or similar disk based system down the road), or directly from the analog source (tape/vinyl), audio files will endure. Physical media will not.

Hi Res files through a great dac do compete well with vinyl, without the romanticism and ceremony that comes with vinyl. Mind you I love my vinyl system...


----------



## MrAcoustat

*REDBOOK CD,s SINCE 1983 computer music is for computers ONLY.*:rofl:


----------



## Billyk

My pick would have to be flac. I collect live music, flac files are the only way to go, used to be SHN, but no metadata. My whole CD collection is ripped to flac as well. Regarding vinyl... Most of my favorite versions of albums are "needledrops"; very carefully made digital "copy" of a vinyl disk, usually made with high end gear, by dedicated hobbyists. My second favorite source is HD-Tracks (no affiliation), a collaboration between Rhino and David Chesky, they have some truly remarkable hi definition recordings and remasters. 
Tagging is very important to my collection, I use tags for all the info I have about a file including artwork and notes about the recording. I don't want to start up anything about flac vs wav... When we do the live recordings they are hashed and by using ffp and st5 hashing (ffp not technically a hash) we can insure the integrity and if it's genuine. ST5 will uncompress and create a hash to check against the stored hash value and it will match the wav hash. If the hashes match the files are identical. So unless something is wrong in the player or decompression, there really should not be a difference inlistening.

So that's my $0.02


----------



## Savjac

Since i no longer had a turntable vinyl would be out, although the memories remain fond.

I would say for me it is SACD, usually 2 channel except for select recordings. 
Next and really more often than not equal to the SACD is my Macbook SSD using JRiver and Flac.
I also can use my pc as it holds more also using JRiver and FLac but with a spinning drive. The Mac sounds a bit better, more musical if you will. 

I do love being able to access any of my recordings via ipad or ipod touch remotely controlling the computers.


----------



## 8086

Jon Liu said:


> Good question! I would choose SACD as my one format. I just like the fidelity on CDs and while Vinyl might be better sounding overall, the drawbacks of analog sound, pops and such, are much more distracting to me.


It's a close call between Hybrid SACD and Vinyl. If I had an ELP Laser Turntable, then Vinyl would probably my format of choice. Those laser turntables are said to be pop and click free and are full of hidden audio details. As a bonus, the laser will not degrade the recording each time it is played. The only major downside is cost, an ELP Laser Turntable costs north of $10,000. Rumor has it that the National Archives and Library of Congress have a few ELPs in their possession as a reference source player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_turntable
http://www.elpj.com/order/index.php


----------



## hwkn

My favorite audio format's cd but Blu ray's a close 2nd.


----------



## Audiofan1

I'm a DSD,CD, Blu Ray and USb kinda guy and listed in order of preference.


----------



## paulster

paulster said:


> Hard disks and FLAC. Allows me to store CDs, DVD-As and Blu-ray audios and lossless downloads so I have one single format for storing everything.


I'm going to amend this and add vinyl too. So many recordings lately have had the life compressed out of them on the CD and digital releases that you have to get the vinyl version to get any kind of dynamic range.

Fortunately I like vinyl too, but what the 'loudness war' is doing to recorded music kills me.


----------



## mjcmt

My vote goes for vinyl. There is something about the pleasure of cueing up an lp, sitting down, and treating your ears to the warmth and realism of vinyl for 20 minutes. I love the tactile connection with the lp and tonearm, and the large artwork. Also there is no possibility of flipping around from track to track from restlessness.


----------



## Blacklightning

SACD gets my vote. I wish this was a Poll.

I did not grow up a vinyl fan and Classical music is what I listen to, so getting up and flipping the LP in the middle on a symphony is a con for me. Plus the cleaning. Redbook CD's are also great if the recording is good, I can walk into my room while it is playing and I will not care if it's the CD or SACD version and if I'm trying to figure out which one it is, then I'm not really listening to my music, I'm listening to my equipment and that is not as enjoyable. 

That being said I have not really worked with computer formats but I guess if the quality is higher than a CD I'm happy. DVD-Audio or Blu-ray is too distracting for me as I need a screen.


----------



## AudioDawg

I love my vinyl, but if I had to be honest I would say that I stream my audio (Squeezebox ALAC files) almost 95% of the time.

Sometimes convenience just wins out.

I can set it to random mode and just sit back and let it pick from the 12000 song library for me.

Sometimes i am lulled to sleep by Holly Cole just to be thrust into the world of the awakened by Metallica. :rofl2:


----------



## NBPk402

Blacklightning said:


> SACD gets my vote. I wish this was a Poll.
> 
> I did not grow up a vinyl fan and Classical music is what I listen to, so getting up and flipping the LP in the middle on a symphony is a con for me. Plus the cleaning. Redbook CD's are also great if the recording is good, I can walk into my room while it is playing and I will not care if it's the CD or SACD version and if I'm trying to figure out which one it is, then I'm not really listening to my music, I'm listening to my equipment and that is not as enjoyable.
> 
> That being said I have not really worked with computer formats but I guess if the quality is higher than a CD I'm happy. DVD-Audio or Blu-ray is too distracting for me as I need a screen.


If the thread starter wants a poll, and can't add one I think I can add it for him if he asks and lets me know what he wants in the poll. :T


----------



## 8086

Blacklightning said:


> SACD gets my vote. I wish this was a Poll.
> 
> I did not grow up a vinyl fan and Classical music is what I listen to, so getting up and flipping the LP in the middle on a symphony is a con for me. Plus the cleaning. Redbook CD's are also great if the recording is good, I can walk into my room while it is playing and I will not care if it's the CD or SACD version and if I'm trying to figure out which one it is, then I'm not really listening to my music, I'm listening to my equipment and that is not as enjoyable.
> 
> That being said I have not really worked with computer formats but I guess if the quality is higher than a CD I'm happy. DVD-Audio or Blu-ray is too distracting for me as I need a screen.


I have an SACD where the recording is complete poop. I have a digital answering machine which sounds much better than Oasis' _Whats the Story Morning Glory_.


----------



## ajinfla

My favorite audio format is AT&Ts PSR
But I'm having a wee bit of difficulty with availability here, so I've begrudgingly settled with the 2k+ Redbook CDs available around me, for 4ch playback.

cheers


----------



## JoeESP9

ajinfla said:


> My favorite audio format is AT&Ts PSR
> But I'm having a wee bit of difficulty with availability here, so I've begrudgingly settled with the 2k+ Redbook CDs available around me, for 4ch playback.
> 
> cheers


4ch playback you say!:yikes: Whatever happened to 5.1?:devil:

What's PSR?:huh:


----------



## ajinfla

JoeESP9 said:


> Whatever happened to 5.1?:devil::


Great for movies! More like 5.6 with me. :yes:



JoeESP9 said:


> What's PSR?:huh:


'Twas linked in my post above (click on "PSR"). 
Or here ya go: http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm



JoeESP9 said:


> 4ch playback you say!


C'mon Joe, not old enough to remember quadrophonics? 

My 1812s maintain a strong center image, to outside of the speakers (yes, as in to the left of the left speaker, R of r). It's one of the things I like to highlight during demos. So, for music playback, I eschew any center. There's 2 of the channels. I actually just use good old, pure stereo signal (yes, lowly Redbook) up front.
But I take that same (unprocessed, 2ch) signal and feed it to a Logic 7 processor, which powers the 2 "rear" channels (actually side, slightly behind LP, upward firing speakers). So there's your 4.
It's by no means PSR, but it's a bit more convincing, to me, than plain 2ch. At least vs my memory, of live acoustic music.
...and it only requires what I already have, lots of CDs.
I've been hearing good things about those new 4 ch SACDs (IsoMike) and even some Bluray, but at $40+ a pop :rolleyesno:.......

cheers


----------



## JoeESP9

Who needs 5.1! I've got 4.4. I have no center channel speaker.

I'll check on PSR

Of course I was around when quadrophonic was new. I had SQ, QS and CD-4 decoders. I even had a Dynaco Quadaptor. 

I also play two channel material in two channels only. For surround/MC material I use the appropriate decoding scheme.


----------



## ferrellms

192 bit MP3 VBR - takes up little space compared to other formats, and many blind tests have shown it sounds identical to the unencoded original. However, if I were a library, I'd not use a lossy format like MP3, since the original cannot be reconstructed bit-for-bit from such a format.


----------



## Blacklightning

ferrellms said:


> 192 bit MP3 VBR - takes up little space compared to other formats, and many blind tests have shown it sounds identical to the unencoded original. However, if I were a library, I'd not use a lossy format like MP3, since the original cannot be reconstructed bit-for-bit from such a format.


I believe this is the beauty of MP3 format. You can burn at the level you want and listen to your hearts content and you still have the option of getting the original source out of a box... as long as it's not too long.


----------



## jtl

Favorite format would be DVD-A but mostly listen to MP3 music via computer.


----------



## kshallen

Vinyl. Cleaned on VPI, stored in clean archival quality sleeves. Lots of good vinyl out there cheap. Can;t pass a thrift store. 

Put a clamping ring on the outside (perfectly flat) on a VPI scoutmaster, cartridge of your choice = listening heaven


----------



## kshallen

Vinyl. Cleaned on VPI cleaner, stored in clean archival quality sleeves. Lots of good vinyl out there cheap. Can't pass a thrift store. 

Put a clamping ring on the outside (perfectly flat) on a VPI scoutmaster, cartridge of your choice = listening heaven for me.


----------



## NBPk402

kshallen said:


> Vinyl. Cleaned on VPI cleaner, stored in clean archival quality sleeves. Lots of good vinyl out there cheap. Can't pass a thrift store.
> 
> Put a clamping ring on the outside (perfectly flat) on a VPI scoutmaster, cartridge of your choice = listening heaven for me.


I agree vinyl is the best... CDs are for when you are too lazy to get up and change the record, like I am. I do very much miss listening to vinyl.


----------



## kshallen

And all tube pre and power amps for the golden age pushing Klipsch's. So nice.


----------



## RickPerconte

Audiofan1 said:


> I'm a *DSD*,CD, Blu Ray and USb kinda guy and listed in order of preference.


This.

Frankly, I'm surprised more people haven't mentioned DSD. It's the same format that's used on SACD's, but in downloadable format.

Lack of selection is the main issue right now, but I believe that will change.


----------



## Phillips

My favorite would be SACD, but wanting to buy SHM SACD (think that is correct) suppose be better than SACD. Selection getting larger.


----------



## whitey019

I preferred DVD-A over SACD.


----------



## flamingeye

my favorite is Blu-ray audio there finally getting some good groups out and every month there are more titles being released , I like the no compression multichannel capabilities of blu. hopefully they will start releasing more multichannel music , but for now there's more stereo titles . I'm a big fan of multichannel music


----------



## 16hz lover

LP's by a long shot, I have about 1400 of them, and most of the music will never be released on any other format.


----------



## AudiocRaver

16hz lover said:


> LP's by a long shot, I have about 1400 of them, and most of the music will never be released on any other format.


A true vinyl lover. LPs can be a lot of fun. Spent 2 weeks at Christmas listening to LPs with my son at his place. Good times!


----------



## AudiocRaver

flamingeye said:


> my favorite is Blu-ray audio there finally getting some good groups out and every month there are more titles being released , I like the no compression multichannel capabilities of blu. hopefully they will start releasing more multichannel music , but for now there's more stereo titles . I'm a big fan of multichannel music


I am hoping / guessing this is the HD music medium of the future.


----------



## AudiocRaver

ajinfla said:


> My favorite audio format is AT&Ts PSR
> But I'm having a wee bit of difficulty with availability here, so I've begrudgingly settled with the 2k+ Redbook CDs available around me, for 4ch playback.
> 
> cheers


Interesting. A full _recording > processing > storage medium > playback setup_ technology. Would love to hear it some time.


----------



## Theresa

Flac on my computer and android is my favorite.


----------



## ajinfla

AudiocRaver said:


> Interesting. A full _recording > processing > storage medium > playback setup_ technology. Would love to hear it some time.


Doubtful you ever will. Difficult to convey, but my post was mainly in jest.
99.999% of the population are not "audiophiles" and 99.999% of audiophiles are not heavily into classical/acoustic instruments "fidelity" to the real thing. You have a 1000x more likelihood of encountering a $500k gold encrusted Edison phonograph than anything remotely like this.
Despite the noble cause, there is no market for such product. None.
Realistically, maybe some (current) 4ch SACD and possibly Bluray at some point....minus the 7ch mic array, which is unknown sci-fi to small labels.

cheers


----------



## kevin360

If by 'favorite format' the question is how do I prefer to listen to music, it is via my music servers: Bryston BDP-1 through an Audio Research DAC7 in the mancave and a SONOS through a Parasound ZDAC in the bedroom system. I ripped my CD library to uncompressed WAV files (if that is what is meant by 'format'). I don't care about metadata and large disk drives are dirt cheap these days.


----------



## Theresa

An Asus Xonar Essence STX along with my Senn HD600s are "purist" enough for me.


----------



## tesseract

whitey019 said:


> I preferred DVD-A over SACD.


I prefer well recorded hi-rez files and discs, but how does one determine for certain that DVD-A is superior to SACD? I have friends that make the same assertion about SACD's superiority vs. DVD-A. I will buy a nice dinner and drinks for anyone that can prove either hypothesis to me.


----------



## AwsomeDude

For music 24bit/192khz Flac or Wav file converted from SADC, for video Prores all the way!


----------



## AwsomeDude

+


ajinfla said:


> /snip/.
> 99.999% of the population are not "audiophiles" and 99.999% of audiophiles are not heavily into classical/acoustic instruments "fidelity" to the real thing. You have a 1000x more likelihood of encountering a $500k gold encrusted Edison phonograph than /snip/
> cheers





AudiocRaver said:


> Interesting. A full _recording > processing > storage medium > playback setup_ technology. Would love to hear it some time.


Thats an interesting Idea, most recordings are "ProTools" project files one could tweek their own mastering mix. Of course you would need a program to interpret that. I thought it would be an interesting idea to record raw instruments onto disk and then play them back through various amps like bassmans. tweeds, marshall stacks etc.

Then you would be able to have your favorite musicians playing your favorite amps ... maybe through you favorite mics etc. of course this assums you have a sort of home studio or emulator ...

& I mean this as some sort of either reference thing for studios or available for hardcore ppl to play with audio


----------



## cdunphy

Digital no question - Movies, music, tax returns. Everything has to get there eventually. The idea of purchasing once and playing everywhere I am should finally become a reality sometime in the 21st century. Hopefully while I am still alive. How many times should I have to purchase a single song? How many times should I have to purchase a single movie in order to enjoy that song or movie anywhere I wan

Read more: http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ats-your-favorite-format-3.html#ixzz2tXPWt7bs

I AGREE but there is one caveat for some reason led zeppelin though it sounds good is missing something from the original albums
CD


----------

