Thread: Do you file your SACDs with your CDs?

Posts: 65
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Post by John August 28, 2013 (51 of 65)
Not only separate but I try to subdivide by recording quality :
DSD, DXD (plenty of 2L), analogue, PCM and unknown

Every so often I have a burst and reclassify a bunch of SACDs into these categories but still the majority sit in the yet to be classified shelves

This way when a visitor asks to hear SACD I go straight to the DSD recordings and pick according to their musical taste.

Post by canonical August 28, 2013 (52 of 65)
Luke said:

Alphabetically, by composer?
And than, what with multi composer disks?

Yes: the multi-composer discs pose a problem.

I think discs should be designed to fall into 2 main categories:

1. SINGLE WORKS, or single ideas, or related material by ONE COMPOSER:
e.g. Beethoven Piano Concerto 1 and 3
Mozart String Quartets
Bach Cello Suites etc

These obviously sort neatly by composer ... and indeed, within any composer, they usually sort neatly within subcategories of: Beethoven SYMPHONIES, or Beethoven CONCERTOS, or Beethoven CHAMBER etc

2. RECITALS ... often works by many different composers
These are really expressions of a particular artist, so I sort them at the end of my collection under:
* Violinists - for violin recitals
* Pianists - for piano recitals etc
* Cellists etc, ... each alphabetical by the artist

Post by canonical August 28, 2013 (53 of 65)
Left-overs
---------
Who likes left-overs? Meh. What remains are those irritating CDs where a label combines something like a Haydn quartet with a Beethoven Quartet ... Personally, I don't think that such combinations make much sense: do you store it under Beethoven or Haydn? Wherever it goes, you can easily forget you have the other piece ... so if I store it under Beethoven, I add a little post-it note to the same piece under Haydn, noting that I also have the same work stored under Beethoven.

These releases ... the left-overs that don't really fit anywhere ... might be fine for people who download or rip cheapie box sets onto their computer (but that requires huge amounts of work too to make sure the meta-data matches) ... or for people who have small physical collections ... but I think such releases show almost a lack of care or disregard for the collecting public in their design ... placing what the artist has available to record before what makes sense for a buying public in an age where people often have hundreds if not thousands of albums.

And I really do try to avoid releases of such 'left-overs' these days, unless there is truly something spectacular about the performance/recording. I try to buy discs that are self-contained entities.

Post by Windsurfer August 28, 2013 (54 of 65)
Never have, and the idea made me laugh. Most of my CDs are boxed in storage now - still at home but not so accessbile. And you know what? It doesn't bother me at all.

Post by Euell Neverno August 28, 2013 (55 of 65)
There are undoubtedly many ways to organize disks and I have tried several. The objective, of course, is to be able to easily find a piece or recorded performance without having to leaf through a passel of disks. I am also a believer in disposing of disks one is unlikely to play, which results in a certain amount of turnover. SACD's and CD's are not separated.

The principal categories are orchestral, chamber, piano, choral, voice and opera. The orchestral category is subdivided into renaissance pre-baroque, baroque, classical period, and combined romantic and modern periods. These are organized alphabetically. If a disk combines orchestral or chamber works by several composers, those are separately shelved in no particular order, unless there is a clear principal work, in which case it is instead organized with the genre according to the composer of that work. The voice category is subdivided by period and style (e.g. lieder). In addition, there are several categories for disks that feature particular instruments, in recital or otherwise, but which are not limited to a particular composer, including woodwind, brass, violin, cello and viola, piano, and harp. Movie and show music is kept alphabetically as a separate category.

I don't have too many jazz and pop disks, so the organization is rather haphazard by style.

Post by Iain August 28, 2013 (56 of 65)
canonical said:

Left-overs
---------
Who likes left-overs? Meh. What remains are those irritating CDs where a label combines something like a Haydn quartet with a Beethoven Quartet ... Personally, I don't think that such combinations make much sense: do you store it under Beethoven or Haydn? Wherever it goes, you can easily forget you have the other piece ... so if I store it under Beethoven, I add a little post-it note to the same piece under Haydn, noting that I also have the same work stored under Beethoven.

........

And I really do try to avoid releases of such 'left-overs' these days, unless there is truly something spectacular about the performance/recording. I try to buy discs that are self-contained entities.

Indeed.

This one defies all logic:
Hagen Quartett 30

I bought it specifically for the Anton Webern piece, Who needs Beethoven or Mozart SQ!

Therefore it's filed under W and sits last on shelf.

What were Myrios thinking when they released it?

Post by Tehillim August 28, 2013 (57 of 65)
I file by label and within label (Sony Classical, Sony Red Seal, etc.)

Post by pacwin August 28, 2013 (58 of 65)
Tehillim said:

I file by label and within label (Sony Classical, Sony Red Seal, etc.)

That seems to be the only sane way to do it. They look neater as well.I also recommend using disc cataloguing software like Orange CD database when your collection gets to a certain size. You can then sort and group and create hierarchies of your records every which way, generate catalogues etc.

Post by Ubertrout August 28, 2013 (59 of 65)
Tehillim said:

I file by label and within label (Sony Classical, Sony Red Seal, etc.)

+1

I also tend to keep CDs separate, and shelve DVD-Audio and other surround formats separately as well. It's mostly a question of listening style...my CDs are mostly ripped, so there's minimal need to take them out...just a question of storage unless I need them. And I know what I have pretty well, so there's no need to organize by composer, which brings in an avalanche of complications, as we've seen noted above.

If I'm looking for a particular piece, I can always just look it up on my library on this site :p

Post by hiredfox August 29, 2013 (60 of 65)
Tehillim said:

I file by label and within label (Sony Classical, Sony Red Seal, etc.)

Does that imply that you value SQ above musical content? Otherwise in a collection of hundreds that will be some feat of memory.

I follow Gramophone's sub-division categorisations then alphabetical order by composer. Main work composer takes preference where bits are added on to fill discs. 'Collections' cover discs that have extracts from several composers.

On discs such as RCO Live's Beethoven S2 / Brahms S2 it's anybody's guess but we take merit of performance into account as it is that we are most likely to reach for, in this case it gets the Beethoven nod.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Closed