|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.42.83.12
In Reply to: RE: And yet, most 'hi rez' the download sites do... posted by Ivan303 on September 05, 2014 at 13:12:35
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
Follow Ups:
"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.
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: