|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.220.25.80
In Reply to: RE: A good article on the topic I think posted by David Smith on September 04, 2014 at 12:05:57
Spotify streaming of MP3 at 320kbps for $10 a month certainly doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of your attached piece, does it?
Streaming 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC for closer to $40 a month might, yes?
Can't say for sure what QOBUZ will charge if and when they make it to the us, and it's a big if now. I'm paying 20 Euro a month for QOBUZ, but limited to the Classical Music catalog (I registered while living in France). I'd pay twice that, if I had to.
I managed to get no direct quotes, but I'm pretty sure that's what MOG/Beats Music had in mind (higher resolution for more money) before the Apple acquisition.
Following the TV analogy, a wider pipe should mean higher resolution for both downloads and streaming. LTE on my cell phone is now faster than my 20Mbps home internet service.
My guess is that within a year Spotify will be selling Lossless FLAC streaming for $30-$40 a month.
Follow Ups:
People don't pay for and watch Breaking Bad because it's in high def, and yes Spotify applies very directly to the article.
The reason for the resolution level of most streaming sites is convenience. As technology increases and makes higher resolution more practical, the resolution of streaming services will increase, just as it has (most stream at 256 or 320 where it used to be 128 or lower). The cost of the services has little to nothing to do with the resolution, and the price people pay has little to do with it either. It's true, as the article says, that marketing quality and making it an issue would be helpful, but that's not the core of the problem. The core of the problem is that people think they shouldn't have to pay for music, and the structure of the industry at present is such that, effectively, they don't have to.
Dave
but I have friends who pay nearly $200 a month to Comcast and yes, I do believe I've heard them say they pay extra for 'Hi Rez' cable.
And yes, I pay extra for 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC, and eventually I'll pay $30-$40 a month for for the same music catalog as Spotify if and when it's available in 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC.
Neither do I. When your $40/mo streaming company buys Spotify, do let me know.
Dave
At $30-$40 per month lossless FLAC, are you in?
I am.
If your argument is that nobody currently subscribing to Spotify (me) will move to QOBUZ (me as well) if and when it comes to the US with higher resolution streaming, the all those NEW customers must be INCREASING the total revenue the music industry is seeing from streaming. Now I'm just guessing here,but doesn't it make sense that the recording industry would demand a higher fee for streaming a tune at 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC than at MP3?
If not, why are we paying MORE for higher resolution downloads? Do the record labels and artists receive more $$ from a high resolution download vs. and MP3 download?
It certainly reads as though you didn't and don't understand my position/point.I don't have definitive answers to your questions about payment relative to resolution, though it is entirely the prerogative of the vendors (ie iTunes) which resolution they use. They get the music in CD quality form. I'm doubtful that Mobile Fidelity pays more to the record companies for making half-speed masters than they would for making ordinary pressings on cheap vinyl. But they can get you to pay more for it, just as with the streaming services.
Given that very few of them advertise or mention their sound quality it would seem they don't consider it a point that the public cares much about. For the .01% of listeners that are audiophiles it's a different matter.
Dave
Edits: 09/05/14
They offer multiple resolutions at various price points.
Of course I can't prove that the same will happen when multiple resolutions are available for streaming.
The fact that streaming services in the US don't advertize audio quality is likely because the currently stream MP3 ONLY.
BUT, I CAN say that in Europe, where streaming IS available in multiple resolutions people can and do pay differing subscription rates from 10 Euro for MP3 and 20 Euro for Lossless FLAC.
I suspect the same will be the case here, and sooner rather than later.
Whether the extra $$ per month streaming service add for higher resolution will be shared with the labels or musicians, I can't say.
Does HD Tracks pay more to the label for a 16/44.1 download vs. 24/196?
Don't know the answer to that either. Do you?
Low res is no cheaper to produce and has no less value, so there is no reason to discount it relative to hi res.
I'm sure that whatever the negotiated outcome is for a given vendor, payments reflect revenue. Hence my original post.
Dave
"Low res is no cheaper to produce and has no less value, so there is no reason to discount it relative to hi res."
And yet many download sites like eClassics and HD Tracks currently sell higher resolution at higher prices.
As does QOBUZ currently in Europe.
Now you can say that people won't pay more for better quality sound/higher resolution than MP3 and who can argue as Lossless FLAC streaming is not available in the US as yet.
You CAN'T say that higher resolution (as downloads) is not currently offered and higher prices.
Do you have a point relevant to the discussion? I don't think any of that contradicts anything I've said, nor does it address the topic.
Dave
"$10/mo for access to the entirety of recorded history is not financially viable"That was your first contribution to this thread. If that $10/mo fee was the ONLY fee charged by any and all streaming services, then I would agree.
"There needs to be tiered rates based on amounts of access, and significant access needs to be closer to $50 monthly at minimum."
Again, I kind of agree but predict that it will be based on the quality of the stream being accessed(higher resolution than MP3) not on the amount of content (music) one is allowed to stream.
Edits: 09/05/14
Care to take guess of total number of subscribers worldwide paying more than $9.99/mo? I'd say very, very few. Such that the fact that a few are paying more is negligible at this point to the effects on the music industry.
Dave
But by necessity, they live outside the US and they post on this board. :-)
But if I am correct, streaming 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC will soon be available in the US and when it is it will cost more than the $10 we we pay for crappy Spotify 320Kbps MP3 or the free but even crappier YouTube at a maximum 192Kbps.
I would think you would welcome that eventuality.
Does Spotify offer a higher-tier FLAC service in Europe? Why not?
Of course I welcome higher-quality music at a higher price, exactly what I said in my first post, however it can't compete with the lower price. The wider public will always choose the cheaper option as long as it's an option.
Dave
Which is why QOBUZ offers MP3 streaming for 10 Euros a month and Lossless FLAC for 20 Euros a month in most of Europe and the UK?
Again, how do you know when no one in the US has tried?
How do you know if Spotify hasn't already thought about streaming Lossless FLAC but has yet to put together the necessary infrastructure to stream it?
How do you know Beats wasn't discussing higher quality streaming at the time they were purchased by Apple? They certainly knew that QOBUZ was planning to launch Lossless FLAC in the US even though that now appears uncertain.
Who knows what Apple will do?
What is certain is that it takes FAR more infrastructure to steam Lossless FLAC than 320Kbps MP3 (or in Spotify's case, Ogg Vorbis format).
If you believe that 320Kbps is the end of the line, quality wise, for streaming music all I can suggest is...
Wait and See!
I've never suggested that mp3 is the end of the line. I fully expect 44.1 at least to become the standard for streaming. What won't happen is people choosing higher resolution en masse if they have the option of 320 mp3 for a lower price. Whatever the "standard" is for streaming, it will be the lowest price available. If at that point nothing is available for less than $40/mo, that could be the price. I think a much likelier outcome is that streaming is 44.1 at $9.99/mo, just as it has been with the transition from 128k to 320k.
Dave
but you keep mentioning the $10 per month plan which is the MOST EXPENSIVE and the ONLY ONE with 320Kpps sound quality! ;-)
And true that $10/mo subscribers only accounts for a portion of Spotify users. I cite that rate because it seems to be the standard rate available for unlimited use of any of the major streaming services. None of them are sustainable.
I don't know specifically at what rate it's sustainable. Perhaps if every household in the US did subscribe at $10/mo it would work. Perhaps given a realistic rate of subscription it would need to be $50/mo to be sustainable. What I do know is the current rates (in whatever distribution they exist) are paltry and it takes tens of thousands of plays to equal the revenue of a single album purchase on iTunes. The rate of revenue is far, far short of being sustainable, and is not a matter of a few more people signing up.
Dave
At over 115 Million US households, yeah might work. That would produce roughly twice the current US music industry revenues of $7 Billion.But then I have friends who pay $220 a month to Comcast.
I think the number will be between $20 and $40 for unlimited lossless FLAC if and when it gets here, and with the faster cellular data and faster internet connections, that should be sustainable over the long haul.
Edits: 09/06/14
But alao I am extremely wary about their claim of 'High Res.' due to lack of regulation, a provider can claim whatever. I know that upsampled redbook files sound worse. I've sampled a few files bought from HD Tracks and the CD or vinyl sounds much better. And these files were expensive!
I guess I have developed a distrust to any internet service providers. I lump them in with cell phone service companies.
By the time *hidden* fees and taxes are added, I bet 10$/mo. quickly turns into 15$/mo..
All of my non audiophile friends do not give a damn about quality. Older generation hipsters are fine with downloading from itunes and younger generation go for the cheapest source. ( free ) no matter how bad the resolution is.
I've certainly witnessed vinyl trouncing the HD Tracks 192k.
Dave
But the best case scenario digital high res tunes I have heard were non commercial files that were directly fed from the recording device and done by a decent engineer played back via rather costly streamer/DAC sounded wonderful. I could not however, compared to the comparable vinyl source because the LP does not exist!
All things equal, vinyl still are the highest resolution media but hurt by their production quality most of the time. A high res files have chance to be good but even after 10+ years it's too premature and costly.
Over wireless to an Apple Laptop then back of wireless to the server to a Marantz Network Player via Apple Airplay sounds quite as good as the original CD on my main system, but close.
Better than Spitify, through the same system, by leaps and bounds!
How much is this Gluzman high res. SACD download?
Yes it arrived along with other babe CDs! :D
And I'm not sure what sampling rate BIS recorded it but according to eClassical.com it was recorded at 24/44.1 so that's the best you can get.
Link below:
But more important, what do you think of the CD?
I haven't listened to the CD yet.
Tonight I am in the mood for Ravel, Stravinsky and Chopin!
Listening to La Valse right now.
From about 6-9 months ago, don't recall even listening to it yet but will now.
and you were right the Vol. 2 is even better than the Vol. 1. Still my fave for Ravel is Cluytens but this disc is enjoyable. A nice sound quality too. Priced way under 10USD, I wonder how the record label makes any money on this.
But it's been a while and I stream about 3-4 LPs per day on average, sometimes more.
That's the problem with streaming. On the one hand, you want to hear every classical recording ever made, and then you worry if somehow all of the streaming sites will close. =:-0
And because it's streaming, you never really OWN the stuff in your favorites, you're borrowing from a library that just might close.
I buy vinyl for sampling classical music mostly because they are cheaper than itunes or CDs and can sound better than MP3 or CDs. But I soon will have to give up many. Running out of the space! Plus, I only want to keep the ones that I like. ( I certainly don't need 56 Beethoven Piano Concerto No.1s )
Why not purchase physical media for only the ones you like?
If I still had a streaming device ( I tried Squeeze Box ), I'll be probably using it as a sampling/screening purpose.
I do sometimes borrow music from a local library but unfortunately they have a very limited collection.
But Lossless FLAC is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Of course I still buy WAY too many silver disks. But then I still buy LPs and am listening to vinyl as I type this.
But I'm looking to upgrade my DAC/Headphone rig that's hooked up to my laptop just because I'm listening more and more to streaming.
The music recording industry, the "major labels" in particular, sat on its a$$, resisting innovation as much as possible and relentlessly allowing its product to deteriorate, throughout my lifetime (starting with the LP of the late 60s and 70s), especially in the US. When cassette tapes came around, they were so badly made that I could produce a superior product for a fraction of the price by making homemade tapes of radio broadcasts.
Then came the CD, superior from a convenience standpoint, and admittedly better in sound quality in some ways, but with heavy digital distortion that was fatiguing and irritating. Philips wanted to make it even worse, but Sony, then led by a classical music lover, prevailed. Finally, CDs began to improve circa 1995. All this time, I was paying $18 (later $16 and finally $13) per CD, before that $16 per commercial cassette (though I had a substantial collection of homemade cassettes and bought few commercial ones), and before that $3 for budget LPs and $7 (eventually $12 or $13) for full priced LPs.
Then came SACDs around 1999, at $20 or more each, with good digital sound. By that time, a couple of younger generations had come of age, and they were computer users, on the internet by 1995. But the music industry steadfastly refused to make their product available online, trying to force their customers to buy physical discs, until the wildly successful Napster started doing it illegally.
After protracted litigation, the recording industry finally put a stop to Napster, and after that, finally started offering their product online in an inferior digital format (ironically, in part by buying Napster). But by then, two online generations had grown accustomed to thinking about music files as costing nothing, and worth nothing. Most of what they download illegally they would ignore completely if it wasn't free or very close to it. (Even illegal downloads aren't free, Dave. You still have to pay an ISP and buy hardware at a minimum.) Yet the recording industry continues to focus on piracy issues. And the product continues to deteriorate, now compressed by the loudness wars.
I think the only cure for the music recording industry is for it to disappear, perhaps to be absorbed into the video industry or the ISP industry. Although now that the "major labels" are thankfully fading away, some imaginative people are trying to make a go of it with more innovative thinking. It's about time.
Certainly your timeline is exactly to my point about Napster being the game-changer. I guess you would like to blame the music industry (I don't believe I've said they are blameless), I don't think that absolves pirates or makes Spotify any more viable for the music industry.
If we disagree, that'd fine too of course, apologies if I've misunderstood.
Dave
Your statement "[T]he core of the problem is that people think they shouldn't have to pay for music" just isn't so. People pay plenty for their music, and I'm not talking about Spotify. They pay Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Apple and Microsoft, among others. Those companies have taken away the inept recording industry's business and are making billions by selling music without compensating musicians at all.
I saw an iPhone TV commercial not long ago that made no mention of telephone service, texting or web browsing. The sole subject of the commercial was music, and the message was music = iPhone.
iPhone users pay stiff monthly fees, and they don't want to pay additional usage fees, they want unlimited service, or as near to it as possible. They want unlimited calling, unlimited texting, and unlimited data. It shouldn't surprise you that they expect unlimited music too.
These companies are playing you for a sucker, convincing you to blame their customers, who are shoveling tons of money at them for your music.
"They pay Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Apple and Microsoft, among others. Those companies have taken away the inept recording industry's business and are making billions by selling music without compensating musicians at all."
What is the basis of that claim? What music is Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile selling?
I don't think people expect free music when they buy a phone any more than they expect free CDs when they buy a CD player or free drinks when they buy a glass or free money when they open a bank account. True that mobile has become an important if not dominant format, but people don't expect to get all their stuff from Amazon for free just because they can use their phone for it.
Going back to my initial post, the issue isn't the streaming format, it's the price.
Dave
That's what people are willing to pay for these days. Not usage.
"I don't think people expect free music when they buy a phone any more than they expect free CDs when they buy a CD player or free drinks when they buy a glass or free money when they open a bank account."
Ah, but David, they do. And remember they aren't just buying a phone, or even mainly buying a phone (or a tablet or laptop), they are paying a hefty monthly fee to buy voice, text and data service and internet access. They expect music access as part of the package. Musicians need to get their cut of those monthly fees. Some in the music recording biz are finally wising up and shifting to an access model, but it is very late in the game.
Yep, and that's why some people are willing to pay $200 a month(or more?) for cable TV.Not me, but...
Stream all of the worlds recorded music at or near CD quality?
Almost NOTHING I wouldn't pay!
Edits: 09/05/14
If Spotify or similar access providers are truly successful, I think the sound quality issue will be addressed. It's probably safe to say technological improvement is not at an end in this area.
Even compensation for lesser-known musicians who don't have contracts with major labels will likely improve somewhat. Whether it will improve enough for Dave to change his mind and concede I was right in our debate, well, only time will tell.
Just VERY different 'skin' and certainly the 'skin' he has in the game is likely more sensitive than mine. ;-)
If QOBUZ gets rights to stream 16/44.1 Lossless FLAC in the US later this year, that can only mean that the labels are licensing 'CD Quality' for streaming in the US.
I would expect that others like Spotify will follow suit. Like QOBUZ, which currently charges 10 Euros a month for streaming MP3 and 20 Euros a month for Lossless FLAC, competitors like Spotify likely with just increase the monthly fee for higher resolution.
But will Dave sign up? ;=)
I will!
I resent the personal references, this isn't about me. I'm making a living and supporting my family fine, thank you, and it has no place in this discussion.
Dave
No offense intended.
Just recognizing that your opinions are based of a differing position in the industry.
Ok, but my position is not a function of my "skin in the game" or my "livelihood being impacted by advances in technology, or just change in general". My position does allow me a clear view of what the affects are and how broadly they impact things, something that posts from you and others seem to suggest that you don't quite grasp. I do think it's great that you support higher end streaming services that subscribe at higher rates and continue to purchase music (and of course that you care about fidelity), unfortunately you don't represent the broader public which is the larger issue here.
Dave
Dave - That isn't entirely fair. You are a professional performing and recording musician, and a pretty well known one in my neck of the woods. That doesn't mean your opinions aren't intelligent, well informed and well worth taking seriously (they are, whether others agree with them or not, and I always appreciate your comments).
But it does mean you are not a neutral outside observer on the subject we were discussing. I think that is all Ivan meant. That is certainly all I meant. And your concern about fair compensation for all recording musicians is entirely understandable and shared by other professional musicians who are vocal on this issue. Nothing I said was meant to imply otherwise.
I appreciate your clarification, but my concern is really more as a music lover than as a musician. As a musician I have a vantage point where I see in very real numbers exactly how things work out and I also see in more detail how things relate than I might if I weren't.
But make no mistake, what we're discussing is not of any meaningful financial benefit to me. Making a recording in this day and age for anyone remotely in my position is a guaranteed money-losing proposition. My last record cost me $10,000 to produce. I have some unique situations where I probably have the ability to sell more CDs than many others in my position, and so far I have made back around $2,000 of that at best (it's been out 4 1/2 years). That record is not currently available on Spotify, when it was over the course of a few of years I made a bit under $9 from Spotify for it, not my "cut" but the revenue it generated. But in any case I'm out many thousands of dollars, which is to be expected and not a concern to me, nor is whether I'm out $6900 or $7600, not a lot of difference there really. I'm about to record another album, and I expect to be many thousands of dollars in the hole on it when it's done as well. That's ok, obviously I don't earn my living making and selling my records, and my music being popular is not one of my concerns.
Seeing the disparity in revenue between sales and streaming is rather alarming though, it takes many many thousands of streams to generate the revenue of a single iTunes album download, let alone a CD purchase. In the larger world of music, some records do generate income and that is a vital part of the music world. Much as people might hate to admit it, the music industry is very important to music. Drastically reducing the revenue generated by recordings affects every aspect of the musical world from whether talented people are pursuing music to whether there are any recording engineers with enough experience to make a decent recording to whether any music is being created that is great enough to warrant appreciation. I don't mean to sound as "doom and gloom" as much as to illustrate the far-ranging implications, it is not simply "oh well, they'll tour more and play the festival in California once a year". To whatever extent we are already seeing the affects of changes in the music industry from the 70's through the end of the 90's, and the changes since then, this is a much, much larger change and issue.
That is also a far bigger issue than my income as far as I'm concerned. I would think that concern would be shared by other music lovers and not just musicians, but perhaps I am wrong.
I don't mind that we disagree on some things, I appreciate your genuine discussion, people disagreeing is not exactly rare. I do think it's important for people to be aware of the issues and consequences of their actions, as they are not easily reversible (as Napster has taught us).
Dave
Understood. But as a lawyer and economist who has dealt with music industry issues, copyright issues, royalty issues and business issues generally for many years, I have my own viewpoint on these issues that isn't entirely naïve either. I could see the recording industry's problems coming many years before things reached their current state, and yes, before the Napster fiasco, which I see as a symptom or result of the problems, not their cause.
It is a hidebound industry that was accustomed to making profits a certain way, and when their comfortable world began to be threatened by advances in technology, rather than embracing innovation they resisted it at every turn. They lobbied Congress for changes in federal copyright law and got some of them, that at most have stifled competition and innovation and in the long term have not and will not save them.
I think it will be many more years before this industry stabilizes. But my suggestion that wherever possible, people want to pay for access, not usage, is something I've seen emerging for years now. I see you disagree. Time will tell.
I've said next to nothing about who is at fault for the present situation, because as far as the topic at hand (effects of streaming services on the music industry) it's largely irrelevant. Instructive for how the music industry moved forward - of course - but it has no bearing on whether or not $9.99 streaming is viable for the music industry.
I don't necessarily disagree about access vs. usage, I disagree with your previous comments about phone companies selling music without paying royalties and people's expectations when they buy a phone. Streaming is certainly the model of the future, which is why its viability is a significant issue.
We're not so far off, just focusing on different things.
Dave
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: