Streaming high-res files - Maybe there is hope

heiney9

I think it would be great if high-rez streaming came about and for the right mix of music I'd even be willing to subscribe.

High-rez downloads is where it needs to be, IMO if I'm going to commit to move from cd's as a vehicle to make my own digital library

H9

BlueFox

inspiredsports wrote: »

Again, what we all should ultimately want the is the ability to "download", not just "stream".

Both are fine. I look at streaming as being like cable TV or the radio. Of course, there are ways to record those two items, and I'm not sure if you can record streamed music. I am sure there will always be a way to buy what you want. Musicians need actual sales to make any money. This was just in the local paper a few days ago.

"I played with the free version for several weeks, and upgraded to the premium service for $9.95 a month. I began to exhibit those unmistakable signs of obsession, wanting to tell every living being about the wonders of Spotify. It was those feverish first few days of a relationship that I was certain would last a lifetime.

Then, I met Erin McKeown.

The singer and songwriter happened to be speaking on a panel at a conference I was attending recently last week in Cambridge, Mass., called the Futures of Entertainment. During a discussion on the music industry, McKeown put up a chart showing what musicians make from a wide range of services. The audience gasped.

To make the monthly minimum wage of $1,160, a musician needed to sell 143 self-pressed compact discs. To make that from Spotify, they would need people to stream their songs more than 4 million times -- not humanly possible unless you happen to be Lady Gaga."

(I added the bold)

http://www.mercurynews.com/chris-obrien/ci_19361137?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

mdaudioguy

What's going to influence this the most is what the masses want. I think the masses are content with the streaming model. (And then there's "the cloud," where you pay data charges to stream content that you already "own.") Yes, competition for your dollar will drive quality increases, but the quality of the product that satisfies the masses, will likely not satisfy the enthusiasts.

AsSiMiLaTeD

I would assume that if ISPs are going to start capping and charging for bandwidth overages streaming is going to take a hit, no?

Streaming anything to me is a novelty. Whether it's streaming movies or TV through Netflix or music via another service, I always treat the content in those services as disposable. I pay Netflix $8 a month to stream unlimited content, and I've always got something to watch, but I know that I can't DEPEND on that service if I want to watch something in particular, as the content can change on a moment's notice, with no warning. When the content selection drops below an acceptable level, I'll ditch the service.

I take music more seriously though, and I'm very seldom in the mood to have my listening selection dictated by 'whats available'. For that reason alone I'll probably never get into streaming music unless there's a guarantee that won't happen.

As for going digital with music in general with hi-res downloads and lossless rips, I'm all for that. If I can make things easier without sacrificing quality then I'll do it, this SB Touch that I bought a few months back has literally changed the way I listen to and interact with music.

inspiredsports

BlueFox wrote: »

Both are fine. I look at streaming as being like cable TV or the radio. Of course, there are ways to record those two items, and I'm not sure if you can record streamed music. I am sure there will always be a way to buy what you want. Musicians need actual sales to make any money. This was just in the local paper a few days ago.

"I played with the free version for several weeks, and upgraded to the premium service for $9.95 a month. I began to exhibit those unmistakable signs of obsession, wanting to tell every living being about the wonders of Spotify. It was those feverish first few days of a relationship that I was certain would last a lifetime.

Then, I met Erin McKeown.

The singer and songwriter happened to be speaking on a panel at a conference I was attending recently last week in Cambridge, Mass., called the Futures of Entertainment. During a discussion on the music industry, McKeown put up a chart showing what musicians make from a wide range of services. The audience gasped.

To make the monthly minimum wage of $1,160, a musician needed to sell 143 self-pressed compact discs. To make that from Spotify, they would need people to stream their songs more than 4 million times -- not humanly possible unless you happen to be Lady Gaga."

(I added the bold)

http://www.mercurynews.com/chris-obrien/ci_19361137?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

Did she happen to talk about how how much it costs to be on the road? It came up in another thread and my opinion is that artists generally lose money touring, but the other poster felt it was a profit center.

inspiredsports

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

I would assume that if ISPs are going to start capping and charging for bandwidth overages streaming is going to take a hit, no?

Streaming anything to me is a novelty. Whether it's streaming movies or TV through Netflix or music via another service, I always treat the content in those services as disposable. I pay Netflix $8 a month to stream unlimited content, and I've always got something to watch, but I know that I can't DEPEND on that service if I want to watch something in particular, as the content can change on a moment's notice, with no warning. When the content selection drops below an acceptable level, I'll ditch the service.

I take music more seriously though, and I'm very seldom in the mood to have my listening selection dictated by 'whats available'. For that reason alone I'll probably never get into streaming music unless there's a guarantee that won't happen.

As for going digital with music in general with hi-res downloads and lossless rips, I'm all for that. If I can make things easier without sacrificing quality then I'll do it, this SB Touch that I bought a few months back has literally changed the way I listen to and interact with music.

Bandwidth is definitely a finite quantity. So far technological advances have kept capacity slightly ahead of usage, but I don't think that will last much longer. The streaming of non-compressed high resolution files could cause a tipping point.

BlueFox

inspiredsports wrote: »

Did she happen to talk about how how much it costs to be on the road? It came up in another thread and my opinion is that artists generally lose money touring, but the other poster felt it was a profit center.

Nothing about that in this article. I remember reading someplace that touring now was mostly to sell T-shirts and other stuff versus touring to promote album/CD sales. Whether that is true or not, I do not know.

Here is another interesting quote from the article.

"That's potentially bad, since rights holders might get 70 cents out of every 99 cents I spend on a track on iTunes. While the ratio might be similar, a single stream is worth less than a penny on Spotify. Indeed, after having music on Spotify for about three years, McKeown said her total income from the service is $35. "That was a real wake-up call," she said. "

cnh

I don't have that much of a problem with innovation and change. But I have to agree with Jesse, tonyb and H9 above. I "don't" want to be in a situation where I don't OWN a hard copy of something tangible, somewhere in the chain.

Imagine if the model becomes, "We sell you usage rights for 5, 10, or even 50 listenings"--but you have no RIGHT to own anything? If I were in the music industry, a giant in it, why wouldn't I want to "Deny" you "permanent" ownership of something that only "I" have and just "rent" it to you? This is certainly logical once we eliminate your ability to buy a "medium" and have a total monopoly over you and your purchases. You may be able to download copies now. But will you in the "future"?

I like the colors Kool-aid comes in but not the "flavor"! lol

cnh

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

To make the monthly minimum wage of $1,160, a musician needed to sell 143 self-pressed compact discs. To make that from Spotify, they would need people to stream their songs more than 4 million times -- not humanly possible unless you happen to be Lady Gaga."

(I added the bold)

http://www.mercurynews.com/chris-obrien/ci_19361137?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

Wow...knew it wasn't alot, but not that little. Why do they sign the license agreements then with music services ? Or is it the record companies ? Still, I'm not giving up physical media. If there's one thing I learned over the coarse of my life, it's to not under estimate the power of greed.

This can shake out a few different ways. Bands can become their own record company, sell cd's themselves from a website, not downloaded music to make money. On another hand, if cd's bite the dust, online music downloads will go up along with the price. Same old story, get everyone moving in on direction and then make a killing becouse your options will be limited.

Looks to me like holding physical media is a win-win scenario no matter how this all pans out. I just don't see how bands can make money anymore, but I do see why artists are pissed off.

ben62670

HDtracks.com has very high res digital audio downloads. You buy it, and you own it. No DRM. You can't beat the price, and the library is growing very fast. I have only a few titles at 24/192 and they sound great.

heiney9

This is true except I don't think the prices are "you can't beat it". I think their prices are rather high actually.

H9

PrazVT

Their prices are a little high - like buying a new CD at BB high. But you're getting 24/48/88/96/192 choices and their library has improved / expanded significantly in the last few months. I don't mind supporting them if they continue to provide us good tunes.

inspiredsports

PrazVT wrote: »

Their prices are a little high - like buying a new CD at BB high. But you're getting 24/48/88/96/192 choices and their library has improved / expanded significantly in the last few months. I don't mind supporting them if they continue to provide us good tunes.

They probably have a pretty high investment in building out their web infrastructure to deliver the files, and hopefully the artists are making a bit more than the almost zero they get through Spotify, etc.

soundfreak1

I've been streaming for years and recently subscribed to groove shark and I'm consistantly impressed with the sound quality of the sound I get ! Equal or better to cd. At least my cd's. Plus a huge selection of availability of music. Can also be recorded, saved and played offline ect. And all with a min. Of equip.