|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.222.105.47
With all the posts about Tidal and other companies losing zillions, the following article (link below) may provide additional information for us to consider. Here's a little taste:
According to the article, "U.S. streaming revenue grew 57 percent to $1.6 billion in the first half of 2016 and accounted for almost half of industry sales."
Follow Ups:
Music Industry being the major labels, rights holders, etc. Those involved in selling rights to companies like Apple, Spotify, TIDAL and on and on.Musicians and companies involved in streaming services themselves?
Not so much.
Also keep in mind that in its heyday (those $14-$15 Billion years) music was a HUGELY profitable business for the rights holders and it was largely in the hands of some of the most unscrupulous and greedy operators seen before or since.
Edits: 09/22/16
Streaming is like FM radio for some of us. You don't get to pick what you want. "Genre" choices are yuck to me. FM and streaming are for background noise while commuting, cooking or sweating at the gym to me. YMMV
SiriusXM satellite radio offers programming that is vastly superior to anything you can get from terrestrial radio. If you like show tunes there's a channel that plays nothing but show tunes. If you like blues there's a channel for that. If you want to hear old time radio shows from the 40s and 50s, there's a channel for that. There's a techno channel and country music channels and a channel that plays only Jimmy Buffett. There are classical music channels and heavy metal channels and rap channels. There are political talk channels, every Major League baseball game, and every NFL game. Freed from the control of the FCC, satellite radio can offer channels where adults can discuss adult subjects using adult language. Another advantage that satellite radio has is that the music channels don't have commercials, and on the talk channels that do have ads they're far less frequent than terrestrial radio's average of 1 minute of commercial for every 2 minutes of programming. Lastly, SiriusXM has a streaming service so you can listen to the programming on a smartphone app or computer. I haven't listened to terrestrial radio for more than a few minutes total since 2005 (my clock radio wakes me with an FM station every morning).
Edits: 09/22/16
Although I am an XM Subscriber, I would not listen to any serious music with it. I use it for news and information. Here are the very poor Specs.
****************************************************************************
Siriusly Compressed
When satellite radio first came out it sounded pretty good. It wasn't exactly CD quality, but it was still pretty good. However, as the competition heated up between Sirius and XM, the compression increased. Bandwidth was squeezed and each provider added more channels in an attempt to be more attractive than the other. When service first started each provider had around 120 channels to choose from (from recollection - I can't find an original channel line up). Now the combined SiriusXM offers more than 175 channels.
So how badly is it compressed? How about 32 kbps (kilo bits per second). Let me put that into perspective for you. When you buy a CD in the store (I think they still exist) the CD relays 1411 kbps of information. So let's do the math.
Okay, so 32 divided by 1411 equals about .02 or we can call it 2%. You're listening to 2% of the original information. What does that mean? You lose:
Detail
Nuance
Depth
Richness
Clarity
Body
Fullness
Warmth
98% of the original audible information the artist intended to relay
That is why satellite radio sounds so tinny and hollow. That is why it has no bass, no warmth, no punch. Don't get me wrong - It's fine for news, talk, sports and entertainment, but PLEASE, for the love of God, do not listen to SiriusXM for music and then complain to me that it sounds bad. This is why it sounds bad. You can't make 32 kbps sound good, you just can't. It's going to sound bad. Why would you want to listen to something that sounds bad? I just don't get it.
Cut-Throat
1. Access via internet is not as limited in bandwidth. You are able to choose two higher resolution settings.
2. I use it for exploring new music, never "sirius listening". :)
You should check out Tunein Radio (Free) for exploring new music (Especially the Russian Jazz Stations) and Spotify Premium ($10 Month). In Spotify Radio, I have over 300 Genres of Music that I can select from. If you find a 'keeper', simply save the Artist, Album or Track in your Spotify Library.
Cut-Throat
1. I'm not a jazz fan
2. I enjoy accessing new music in our vehicles
Thanks anyway. Perhaps I'll give one a trial.
My wife and I were offered free trials in our last two cars. I couldn't believe how bad it sounded. Needless to say we didn't stick with it.
Great content in mediocre sound beats crap content in great sound, always. Satellite radio never promised better sound quality than terrestrial radio; it's all about the content. It's just not arguable that satellite radio has a vastly broader variety of programming than is found on terrestrial radio. You might find a couple of hours of blues per week on a college FM station in your town, for example. SiriusXM has a 24x7x365 blues channel. Maybe there is an NPR affiliate in your town that has a weekly opera program; SiriusXM has a channel that plays nothing but opera. I like listening to '40s and '50s radio shows when I drive long distances. Good luck finding a terrestrial station anywhere in the entire United States that plays those around the clock. SiriusXM has a channel for that.
we pipe in satellite radio at work and I hear the same playlist over and over again day in and day out, multiple times per day.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Tunein Radio offers much more for free than my XM Subscription, and at a much better quality. There are about 25 Russian Jazz Stations that stream American Jazz music 24 hours a day with no commercials, at 256 kbps. You should sign up it's free.You can listen to stations from all over the World, Pretty much an unlimited supply of News, Info, Sports and Music at Great quality.
Just trying to help you out here man.....
Cut-Throat
Edits: 09/22/16
You do with Spotify and Classics Online HD. In fact, there's more to pick from. ;-)
The other 5% I am at live concerts. --- Even though I have over a 5,000 Album Library, I rarely listen to it.Streaming is the future..... Where else can you instantly get a 30 Million Track music Library at your fingertips for $10 a month!
Cut-Throat
Edits: 09/21/16
Where else can you instantly get a 30 Million Track music Library at your fingertips for $10 a month!
So, you're able to completely control every album or track you play?
I quickly tired of Pandora, et al where you give it a seed and then it wanders to content you never selected or enjoy.
Yes, with Spotify, Deezer, Tidal --- I have used them all -- There is no difference between playing a stream from these than your music library. Select and Play!
My big problem with Pandora was the quality... I think 128 kbps... And as you said, no control of your music.
Cut-Throat
streaming tripled since 2010 whilst physical media purchase declining.
But the sad thing is that overall purchase of music by anyone is in decline. Hipsters and mellinnials are more likely to pay for live music than *canned* recorded media.
SO I guess I am propping up the dying and dead.
Oh yeah, maybe another $200 on actual paper books..
who spend a quite a lot in recorded media ( both CDs and LPs) and still love my flip phone.
I think it is possible that streaming can sound better than vinyl technically due to lack of airbourne vibration and certainly more consistent than any vinyl playback.
I might still stream from high res recording off my turntable some day in the event that I am too old or sick to que a record.
The overall $$ is down, despite the presence of music being more ubiquitous than ever--theft is the reason. The people being hurt the most are the artists; the average earnings of recording musicians is around #36,000 BEFORE expenses (touring, recording, etc). I bet the median income is even lower, given that artists like Taylor Swift are included in such average ($57 million per year).
Piracy is actually trending down, although it's still a big problem. But according to Nielsen, which just published its 2016 mid-year report, the amount of money being spent on music is currently above last year's pace.
A lot of that money, however, is being spent on subscriptions to streaming services rather than physical media. Physical media accounts for 10 percent of sales and is holding steady. Far fewer people are buying downloads, however, as cloud-based streaming has supplanted downloading.
I really don't understand these posts that say streaming is in trouble. Tidal is having issues but I do not know a single person who doesn't use Spotify or Pandora multiple times a day and Nielsen's report seems to confirm that as the norm.
I mean -- there's something to be said for a live performance, you know?
all the best,
mrh
but I just find it interesting that youth are willing to dish out for sky rocketing live concert tickets over enjoying a recorded music at home.
I have noticed that an average ticket price, particularly for popular music, has gone up quite a bit since my concert going days, making my subscriptions for CSO look like a great bargain.
Music sales are down because kids buy video games instead.
For the last twenty years for every increase in game sales there has been a reciprocal decrease in music sales. Even the youth's tribal behaviour (Beatles vs Stones etc) has shifted to games (playstation vs xbox). The kids used to queue up to buy the latest release from their idols, now they queue for the latest games.
these studies are okay, at best. We know that companies "cook" the books over many, many facets, of any business. Upon the release of the CD back in the early 80's, vinyl was thought to die suddenly.
And of course, vinyl has been wheezing back to life over the last couple of years. ;-)
And wheezing is about all vinyl will be able to continue to do. The sad fact is that production capacity of very old machines is at max and they are barely keeping the machines running -- parts are hard to find. Now top that off with two more realities: first, no one is building any new machines; and second, LP production is immensely dependent on experienced craftsmen. These guys are getting old, many have retired or died, and there isn't much talent in the pipeline.
Finally, a lot of production capacity is being sucked up by major labels hogging facilities for the 200th reissue of some aged rock band's greatest hits from the 70s. That makes it tough for new artists to ge things pressed, especially on a timely basis.
" first, no one is building any new machines".
Yes they are.
" LP production is immensely dependent on experienced craftsmen. These guys are getting old, many have retired or died, and there isn't much talent in the pipeline. "
I have no idea how you verified your final assertion above but as long as vinyl records are produced newcomers to the industry will, over time, gain the experience necessary. Just as their predecessors did.
I love vinyl, been collecting it for ever 20 years. But I could care less about the resurgence of vinyl. As a matter of fact, I think that the vinyl resurgence biz is kind of stupid. Vinyl had it's day and that day has passed.The best vinyl records - the ones that combined excellent musical talent with sensitive, minimalistic recording techniques - were pressed in the early days of stereo and hifi when the interesting artists, the machinery, and the engineers were young and in good shape.
But I see no point in trying to resurrect the technology of the past. The past was a bad place in so many ways, it was sheer luck that so much good came through it.
Also, PVC (vinyl) production is a highly toxic process unsuitable for use in the new global marketplace. We can produce good quality recordings more economically and more cleanly using today's technology.
Edits: 09/20/16
Also, PVC (vinyl) production is a highly toxic process unsuitable for use in the new global marketplace.
Huh?
" Roughly half of the world's polyvinyl chloride resin manufactured annually is used for producing pipes for municipal and industrial applications. In the water distribution market it accounts for 66% of the market in the US, and in sanitary sewer pipe applications, it accounts for 75%. "
All I'm saying is that we don't need to use any more PVC than we already do use, especially when less toxic alternatives are available. I would therefore not like to see a massive resurgence of the vinyl record business.There are safer plastics than vinyl but I'm not sure that they would work as well as vinyl does in a formulation designed for record making.
Edits: 09/21/16
don't eat the records! ;)
We have to consider all of the people and things at risk. This includes people involved in the manufacturing, usage, recycling, and disposal of PVC and/or PVC-like materials.
are well known and controlled by the EPA and OSHA.
Get over it.
We can and should try to do better. Enough said.
empty whining for me.Perhaps you should invent a new cost effective replacement for PVC plumbing made entirely with recycled material that will revolutionize the world market!
You'd make a fortune, right? :)
edit: I forgot to ask this question long ago. Since you're a genius and the rest of the world is obviously quite ignorant, do tell us your solution:
We can produce good quality recordings more economically and more cleanly using today's technology.
We're all very interested in your new materials technology and process.
Edits: 09/21/16
What are the high quality, economical, and clean alternatives to old style vinyl records? Hi-rez downloadable recordings. Eliminate physical media entirely, or as much as possible.Let those of us who already own vinyl collections keep and enjoy them. For the people who don't already own vinyl, too bad. Fuggedaboudit, it's always tough titties for someone.
BTW, I never said that the world is ready to eliminate the use of PVC. PVC is bad stuff so looking for (and hopefully finding) alternative material is a good goal. I never said or implied that the world is ready to eliminate PVC just yet. I only call PVC "unsuitable" because it is not clean enough for the future in a world that presently creates too many toxic products. The goal is to find cleaner and better alternatives.
So I'm suggesting that reducing or controlling production of PVC products is better for the environment than not doing so. The fewer PVC products made, the better. I therefore pray that the "vinyl resurgence" will fail, or better yet will not happen at all. Every little bit helps. Makes sense to me.
Panties in a wad today?
Edits: 09/21/16 09/21/16
BTW, I never said that the world is ready to eliminate the use of PVC.
Only that they could be produced more economically. NOT.
We can produce good quality recordings more economically...
With your comment about downloads, did you really me "we already do" just as presumably you meant you "couldn't care less" about the vinyl resurgence? In this context, the use of the word "can" implies possibility.
So, those who don't already have a computer infrastructure need to save the world and go do it!
The fewer PVC products made, the better.
Replaced by exactly what? Do you actually have any solutions?
I'll let you get back to the others singing "Kumbaya" around the campfire. :)
EVENTUALLY, dude.We can (and hopefully will) continue to move and improve. But a "vinyl resurgence" will not help us to improve anything.
We are working on viable solutions to all of the problems discussed. Not quite there yet but rest assured that better and cleaner is on it's way.
Edits: 09/22/16
But a "vinyl resurgence" will not help us to improve anything.
Do you really think that such a miniscule industry as compared with the universal use of it in virtually ALL plumbing and municipal water services worldwide would make any more difference than someone peeing in the ocean?
We are working on viable solutions to all of the problems discussed.
We? Are you a chemical engineer?
When a cost effective solution is available, then the world will transition. Clearly, nothing has changed in the fourteen years since your linked article. Meanwhile, I'll continue to smile at hysterical knee jerk reactions. :)
At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, average life expectancy in the US has gone up nearly 50% since PVC was first produced in the early part of the 1900s. Obviously, it's long term deleterious effects have been exaggerated.
If "resurgence" implies "a bringing again into prominence" then the potential impacts caused by a renewal of the record making industry might be slightly more than "miniscule".
Luckily, I don't think that a huge resurgence of the vinyl record industry is likely to happen but I still would not hasten to encourage the manufacture and use of any more PVC than is absolutely necessary. You may not jibe with such a meticulous mindset, but in order to move forward I think it's important that we instill that sort of consciousness.
More "affordable" alternatives to PVC for use in household products, flooring, siding, roofing, and other things have been making headway in the marketplace for some time now. Parts of the world are certainly transitioning away from the use of too many PVC products, so expect marketplace shares to increase as time goes by.
Concerning life expectancy issues now vs. then? Well, we definitely have much better surgical techniques, antibiotics and other life-saving drugs available now that did exist the early to mid 1900's. Antibiotics and vaccination programs alone have worked wonders. So, advances in medical care count for a lot. That said, do we live "healthier" - or do we simply have better array of bandaids available today?
And we have to take into consideration the idea that what we do might affect the health of others species, even when what we do does not seem at first to affect us. And the health of the "others" in our natural environment, in many ways, continues to spiral downwards since the time PVC and other things PVC-ish were first introduced.
Of course, I cannot prove that the use of materials chemically similar to PVC are a major culprit in the downturn of the natural world - just as you cannot prove that our health might not be even better than it is right now if PVC had never been widely used. But chemical manufacture and use is suspected to be one of the major factors responsible for this steady and gradual downturn.
So hey, once again: All I'm saying is that we'd be wise keep on moving in better directions whenever possible. Why remain still and complacent? Things might seem hopeless at times but start out slow and things might gain in momentum. It's the goal.
Of course, I cannot prove that the use of materials chemically similar to PVC are a major culprit in the downturn of the natural world
Downturn of the natural world? Thanks for all the laughs!
Yours is just another knee jerk reaction - devoid of data to support changing any current EPA and OSHA guidelines.
Why remain still and complacent?
Rational behavior.
Sure, "irrational" people everywhere are working to replace PVC and other things thought to be greatly contributing to global warming and a toxified environment.And I hope you are not implying that the condition of the natural world is stable, or even in an "upturn". I know you know that there is plenty of data showing that this is NOT the case.
But regardless, I think that you and I have both had a chance to say what we think here. So It think that it's time we ended our little conversation.
Enjoy your daily commute back and forth to work in the Silicon Valley or wherever it is you go. I'm pretty sure that the air is satisfyingly stinky enough for the most rational of peoples.
Edits: 09/22/16
And I hope you are not implying that the condition of the natural world is stable,
Planet Earth has been changing for the past four and a half billion years.
know you know that there is plenty of data showing that this is NOT the case.
Sorry, but you continue to be mistaken. Data-free links from marginal greenie sites is obviously not compelling scientists at the EPA. :)
Enjoy your daily commute back and forth to work in the Silicon Valley or wherever it is you go
?? My daily commute is about eighty feet from the bedroom to the home office. I live in a small college town where distances are short and drive efficient two and four wheeled Honda vehicles. That makes sense.
I'm pretty sure that the air is satisfyingly stinky enough for the most rational of peoples.
Air quality? I thought all the hand wringing about PVC was about children absorbing dangerous toxins in their impressionable bodies. Further confusing the issue with more facts, air quality in the US has continued to improve over the past couple of decades. Scroll down to view the data. This through changes proven to be beneficial.
Thanks again for the humor!
We believe differently from each other, no doubt. And neither one of us is going to budge, just as neither one of us is ALONE in our respective beliefs. So I see little point in continuing this conversation.
Thanks for the slice.
try using statistically sound data to support your argument. And avoid putting your foot in your mouth with comments contrary to reality.
You might actually convince folks. :)
Believe what you want to believe, I guess. I can only hope that my side wins, just as you would I'm sure.
Thanks, and good-bye.
/
I use "Classicsonline" and the sound quality is excellent.
The search engine is pretty good for classical music.
+1 on classicsonlineHD. The catalogue is huge and easy to search. Bit rates over 2500 are common, and go over 5000 on some albums.
If you mean which platforms, I'd think you know the answer to that one already. Hint: it's part of your own system! ;-)
If you mean which streaming services, I defer to Ivan303 (I think he's used them all at one time or another - LOL!), since I'm familiar with only Spotify and Classics Online HD (the latter of which is excellent).
What's interesting to me is that current total revenue is ~1/2 of the peak and has been flat for the last 6 yrs or so. IOW, the OA market has reduced revenue-wise and is stagnent but delivery formats have changed. I wonder how actual "music consumption" correlates to revenue.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: