ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
I have just joined Spotify and it is really good. Any music anytime and streaming from the internet.
I've not been as impressed for a while!
Beosound 8, Beotime, Beocom 4, Beo 5, Lutron Rania, MacBook 15" (Mid 2015), iPad Pro, iPhone 6S, B&O Play H3, Beolit 12, Form 2, A8 Headphones, B&O Play A1, B&O Essence
Living Room: Beosystem 4, Beolab 7-2 (Center), Beolab 9 (Fronts), Beolab 8000 (Rears), no Subwoofer. Screen: Sony KD-85XH9096Dining Room: Beosound Essence MK II with Beolab 4000 on stands, fed by Amazon Echo Show 8Home Cinema: Beosystem 4, Beolab 7-4 (Center), Beolab 1 (Fronts), Beolab 4000 (Rears). Projector: Sony VPL-HW55Home Office: Beosystem 3, Beolab 7-4, Beolab 5000, Screen: Sony KD-55XH9005 on Beovision 7-40 stand, ML to Beosound 9000 MK3 and Beosound 5/Beomaster 5 (1 TB SSD version)Bedroom: Sony KD-65XH9077, Beosound Essence MK II with Beolab 6002 and Beolab 11 (all white, wall-mounted)
In storage: Beolab 5000/Beomaster 5000 (1960s).
we tend to forget there is more to design than designing.
My wife was listening to Spotify for at least a year. I just ignored it. When the software on the Beosound 5 was updated to enable Spotify, I subscribed like any Beophile would. I really like it and am impressed at least for now.
Beosound Stage, Beovision 8-40, Beolit 20, Beosound Explore.
Chris Townsend:Too true, how will these poor multimillionaires afford to fuel their limos. Austerity bites again :-/
I don't think *every* musician on Spotify is a multi-millionaire, Chris. Just because you're a musician, it doesn't mean you're automatically rich, let alone a multi-millionaire. There are a hell of a lot - the majority - of musicians who can't get a record deal and, if they do get a deal, it doesn't mean they get rich.
Who said "every"?
I only listen to very rich musicians. Happy new year.
mjmedlo:Unfortunately for the artist I think the key is concerts Cd sales are de minimus on their earning arsenal nowadays. One cd is purchased and ripped and sent over the net to 5000 downloading kids. Way of the world I suppose. At least with spotify the artist get something.
Cd sales are de minimus on their earning arsenal nowadays. One cd is purchased and ripped and sent over the net to 5000 downloading kids.
Way of the world I suppose.
At least with spotify the artist get something.
The problem is concerts don't pay a wage, at least not until you're selling out arenas. It's pretty lucky for a band to just break even on a tour of local clubs etc once you factor in the cost of touring with a van & accommodation.
As someone who is in the industry and most certainly not 'at the top', I can see the direct effects of streaming services on the industry - it's turning it into a 'premiere-league' type of industry with huge amounts of wealth concentrated at the top of the charts (not actually earned through Spotify I should add) and everyone else is left floundering.
Now you only have to try and spend even a month or two in the industry to see that this is going to do nothing but stifle musicians on the way up and prevent them from ever focussing on their music. The record labels aren't investing in up-and-coming artists like they used to (ever hear the statistic about the top 10% paying for the other 90% on Universal Music? That's all changed now, the labels basically don't fund any 'loss-makers' which is most of the stuff which never got right to the top of the charts). This has lead to a massive collapse in the studio industry making it impossible for anyone who doesn't have a budget of thousands of pounds/day to work in a decent studio.
Of course the consumer likes it - it's very cheap/easy. But what are the major advantages of Spotify over something like iTunes (which does pay the artists)? Okay you have to download the music first on iTunes, but with modern broadband that takes what, a few seconds per tune? Why does Spotify have such a wide audience then? It's cheap, much cheaper than iTunes. Why is it cheaper? Because it doesn't pay the musicians.
It may seem better for the consumer in the short term but 10 years down the line when most of our musical culture has vanished, it'll seem such a shame to have back-tracked on ~70 years of a very successful industry for the sake of saving ~£7-8 an album.
The service is as sinister as it's success and the sooner it and it's rivals go disappear the better IMO.
Killyp:Of course the consumer likes it - it's very cheap/easy.
Of course. It's like free security software. I'm on another forum where the users are busy discussing adverts on the user-interface of their free AV software, complaining about the ads. However, they don't seem to understand that someone had to pay the developers to maintain the software to keep their system malware-free. An upgrade to a commercial edition is only $10, with no ads, but they don't want to pay $10. So sit there with the free version, complaining about the ads!
No one in this thread has mentioned that Spotify is music files in lousy (means: lossy) compressed quality.
Doesn't anyone care for that?
If you pay Premium, you get 320 kpbs, which is far from CD quality.
For a WiMP HiFi account (FLAC quality) you pay douple up, because of the higher costs and because the record companies gets more money for the uncompressed versions.
If the artists don't get paid, the record companies/agents have either made a bad deal with Spotify (or WiMP), or (which is more likely) they keep the money for themselves.
Which locates the problem - not by the comsumers - but by the record companies.
The problem with the consumers is more that they aren't willing to pay for quality!
MM
There is a tv - and there is a BV
Millemissen: No one in this thread has mentioned that Spotify is music files in lousy (means: lossy) compressed quality. Doesn't anyone care for that? If you pay Premium, you get 320 kpbs, which is far from CD quality. For a WiMP HiFi account (FLAC quality) you pay douple up, because of the higher costs and because the record companies gets more money for the uncompressed versions. If the artists don't get paid, the record companies/agents have either made a bad deal with Spotify (or WiMP), or (which is more likely) they keep the money for themselves. Which locates the problem - not by the comsumers - but by the record companies.
The record companies still earn their money from branding etc... of top level artists and the use of their music in advertising etc. It's no longer an industry which is going to culture new music.
Is Spotify single-handedly to blame for this? No of course not, but the fact that so many people can listen to Spotify without obviously worrying about how the system works shows that music has become a 'valueless' commodity. The existence and prevalence of Spotify only re-enforces this
If you were buying TVs in Currys for £4 a each, or watching movies for 10p a go, wouldn't you worry or at least think about how the manufacturer/developer/producer of that product is earning a wage? It seems not with music.
I don't really know if anyone sees a way out of this at the moment. People say the future of music is in streaming - I personally don't currently see any future for music with streaming, not unless the consumer starts paying enough to these companies for the musicians to get paid (which would cost a lot of money).
Spotify is 'too good to be true' in every way.
Millemissen: The problem with the consumers is more that they aren't willing to pay for quality!
I would tend to agree! Spotify is IMO a lesser 'experience' - the microwave meals of the music industry or even worse the 'pill meal'. Okay it's more convenient - but is it better? It's like sitting down to watch a movie on Youtube - what a horrible experience!
I'm old, so the model makes better sense than the Payola Scandals of the 60's, where the Artists' money was used to get Radio and TV coverage; And then the Who tour in 1981, when they got a US beer company to sponsor them; Or Badfinger, whose naivete got them worn out and robbed by their managers; Or how some artists got caught and published stoned, naked, or mangled, etc. Oh, wait, that's how it's done today.
In the words of Chuck D, "If you don't own the master, the master owns you". The nice thing is Artists/Labels don't have to sign on for iTunes, Rhapsody, Pandora, Last FM, or Spotify, etc. The fact that they do says there must be something in it for them.
Millemissen: No one in this thread has mentioned that Spotify is music files in lousy (means: lossy) compressed quality. Doesn't anyone care for that? If you pay Premium, you get 320 kpbs, which is far from CD quality.
I don't care!! And I think it is not that far from CD quality as you want to believe us it does. Spotify works for me so I can discover new music by following my friend's playlists. It’s also a great way to listen to ”disposable” music. Most songs are streamed by me 4 or 5 times, and I will never look back. I have no problem it’s presented in 320kbps. Good enough for me. If I really like an album or want to support my favourite artist, I’ll buy it in good quality. There are so many people managing a 1TB library or more, legal or not, all tagged with the right labels, all the work that goes with it. But the truth is, most songs will never come out of their speakers.
Killyp: I don't really know if anyone sees a way out of this at the moment. People say the future of music is in streaming - I personally don't currently see any future for music with streaming, not unless the consumer starts paying enough to these companies for the musicians to get paid (which would cost a lot of money). Spotify is 'too good to be true' in every way.
You can’t ignore the digital presence of music in which we live. There is a whole new generation of people out there, who never bought a CD, and never will. There is nothing you can do about it. And yes, maybe Spotify is ”too good to be true”. Napster in the old days was also a way of getting music for free, and nobody talks about it anymore. In 10 years or so, we might say the same about Spotify. On the other hand, if you see no future for streaming music, unless the customer pay more to the musicians, well, I don’t know how that can be done, or what alternative you have. You can still get illegal downloads fairly easy if you want. There is nothing you can do about that either. It's unstoppable!
DoubleU, you're absolutely right about the quality and the fact that investing in a lot of music you never play isn't a good idea. I've gotten more discerning about things I buy, if it stands the test of time and I really like it,yeah, otherwise not. And Spotify gives me the best of all worlds, lots of casual music, and the ability to still buy what I feel necessary.
And symmes, there has always been exactly the same issues with the music biz, you're right. Most artists get squat, record labels get rich and shaft the talent, and unless you become huge you don't get rich as an artist. Been that way forever, seems a bit unfair to hassle Spotify over it. What really is happening is that a lot of this talk about places like Pandora and Spotify paying too little is PR put out by the music indy types, translated it is crocodile tears over the musicians when they really mean the fat cats aren't getting enough.
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
DoubleU: Millemissen: If you pay Premium, you get 320 kpbs, which is far from CD quality. I don't care!! And I think it is not that far from CD quality as you want to believe us it does. Spotify works for me.........
Millemissen: If you pay Premium, you get 320 kpbs, which is far from CD quality.
I don't care!! And I think it is not that far from CD quality as you want to believe us it does. Spotify works for me.........
fair enough - if it is so, it is the truth for you!
I have used Spotify (Premium) for quite a while to listen 'for convenience' and to discover new music.
If I liked the (new) music, I have bought it (in - as you wrote - good quality) - as a CD.
I listen to my CD's (and to the ones I already managed to rip to FLAC) a lot, but I was really interested in skipping the 'ripping business',
So - as WiMP started out in HIFi (losless/FLAC) - I gave that a try as well.
This way it has been easy to compare an album from Spotify and WiMP - and I hear the difference (no matter what you do or say).
Problem is that I - by far - can't find what I am looking for, so the good old CD is still spinning (and getting ripped) at my place.
And - what is even worse - on WiMP there is no 'gapless play' avaible. Try listening to a live or concept album, that doesn't make fun.
I am an 'album listener' - not a 'playlist consumer'.
But I realize that if you don't have such 'problems', if you are mainly interested in playlists or can't hear the difference, you won't have to bother - you just stick to Spotify as it is.
Greetings Millemissen
DoubleU: You can’t ignore the digital presence of music in which we live. There is a whole new generation of people out there, who never bought a CD, and never will. There is nothing you can do about it. And yes, maybe Spotify is ”too good to be true”. Napster in the old days was also a way of getting music for free, and nobody talks about it anymore. In 10 years or so, we might say the same about Spotify. On the other hand, if you see no future for streaming music, unless the customer pay more to the musicians, well, I don’t know how that can be done, or what alternative you have. You can still get illegal downloads fairly easy if you want. There is nothing you can do about that either. It's unstoppable!
I'm not ignoring the presence of digital music - iTunes is a model which works well for musicians - they receive a higher percentage of the £ spent by the consumer than any other major distribution network. Bandcamp can also work well, as can Amazon etc. This isn't to do with not embracing new technologies - if Spotify actually paid those supplying the music to them anywhere near what the music even costs to make, there would be a lot more people in the industry willing to jump on board. Not giving away everyone's music for free would help the situation too. Just because it's a 'legal' service providing the free download/plays/whatever doesn't make it any better than piracy.
Illegal downloads will always be there, but how many of you currently singing the praises of Spotify would be using illegal downloads? People that download illegally will always download illegally, Spotify won't really change that much. The problem is Spotify draws in an audience which would otherwise be purchasing music from iTunes etc. I see this myself when artists & small labels I work with release their music on Spotify, they see an often quite substantial drop in revenue from other sources (CD sales included as well as downloads). Because of the prevalence of Spotify it is becoming very difficult to gain much of an audience unless you are on the service. So what do musicians do? Give their music away for (what is essentially) free on Spotify and at least get an audience, or sell the music for what it is worth but find their audience is rapidly dying out? Spotify is the bellows fuelling the fire which is the currently burning out music industry. You won't see the real effects of it for the next 10-15 years on the coal face, but at least your music has been convenient to access and extremely cheap.
Jeff: And symmes, there has always been exactly the same issues with the music biz, you're right. Most artists get squat, record labels get rich and shaft the talent, and unless you become huge you don't get rich as an artist. Been that way forever, seems a bit unfair to hassle Spotify over it. What really is happening is that a lot of this talk about places like Pandora and Spotify paying too little is PR put out by the music indy types, translated it is crocodile tears over the musicians when they really mean the fat cats aren't getting enough.
Are you in the industry? Do you see the first-hand effects? No. And none of the people using it want to because everyone is enjoying what Spotify provides. I don't work with any 'fat cat' labels (as you put it), most of the musicians trying to earn a living or wage in the industry don't have any involvement in major labels at all - a common misconception I hear from a lot of people. If you're working for a label which might sell 3, 4 maybe 5000 copies of your album, then the damage Spotify has done to business is immeasurable whether you submit your music to it or not.
As I say, until you are working in the industry and seeing the damage a service like Spotify does, I can see why anybody would think it's great. The truth behind it is the complete opposite though.
Hi Killyp,
I can only ask again:
why have the labels (the music industry) been that bad at negotiating the price for the music (and the fees for the artists)? Why did they make such lousy contracts?
Don't expect Spotify and co to pay more than what's in the contracts.
Please adress the labels - in particular the major labels - for this problem.
A problem that has always been there, by the way.
The industry never paid the musicians more than nessecary - if anything at all.
I would be glad to pay more for the music I really like, if I could be secure that it would reach the musicians, and not just fill the greedy mouths of some of the licence owners.
And I do think, that many musicians sell themselves too cheap - getting 'first time money', and then realizing that they have been put on handshells for years to come.
Millemissen: Hi Killyp, I can only ask again: why have the labels (the music industry) been that bad at negotiating the price for the music (and the fees for the artists)? Why did they make such lousy contracts? Don't expect Spotify and co to pay more than what's in the contracts. Please adress the labels - in particular the major labels - for this problem. A problem that has always been there, by the way. The industry never paid the musicians more than nessecary - if anything at all. I would be glad to pay more for the music I really like, if I could be secure that it would reach the musicians, and not just fill the greedy mouths of some of the licence owners. And I do think, that many musicians sell themselves too cheap - getting 'first time money', and then realizing that they have been put on handshells for years to come. MM
The labels have been exceptionally good (from their perspective) at negotiating fees for artists - they've negotiated so little they can hand the music over virtually for free to Spotify. However if you are a musician trying to get your music recorded in a studio (before you even think about earning money from it) and a record label offers you £20,000 for a week or two in a studio, then you can understand why so many musicians would jump at the possibility.
Please do not confuse the major record labels with the music industry - 95% of working musicians (if not more) never have anything to do with a major label. Maybe 10 years ago when there were still A&Rs in the industry (before the decline of record sales) things were different, musicians had far more interaction with the record labels.
Spotify works fine for the majors - but if you're a small independent record label (which is where most modern music is created and funded), Spotify is the worst thing to have happened to the industry.
Yes, the major labels are partly to blame for signing into the contracts in the first place but they knew exactly what the consequences would be, as did Spotify, but it was Spotify who created the business model in the first place.
The idea that musicians never got paid comes from stories of musicians who never signed into a contract, or at least a well thought out one with their record label and is by en-large not a valid or largely true argument. I know of plenty of musicians lower down the pecking order (session musicians, even engineers) who have earned very, very good livings from their past careers. Most of these people have now left the industry because the money coming in from the distribution networks (which is now primarily Spotify & YouTube) isn't enough to sustain them the way it used to be. There is one major engineer/producer who has worked with artists such as Tom Waits, Tracy Chapman, The Black Keys etc... is looking for a career in Wedding Photography because he can earn more money.
Believe me, the major labels are earning their money. Spotify continues to bring in enough to pay the executives, management and what little 'talent' is still left in the majors.
If you want to buy music without screwing over musicians then you can, it's called buying CDs, records and even iTunes downloads. What makes you think this money doesn't work it's way back to the musicians?
RE Musicians 'selling themselves, most I know can't 'sell themselves' for anything at all nowadays, but they are still expected to produce music (and fund the recording, tours etc...) themselves.
Your idea that buying music through a normal service just feeds 'fat cats' is completely wrong and misguided. On the other hand Spotify is only working for the side of the industry which is made up of management, marketing & label executive-types.
@killyp
I am involved with some artists who are far smaller than the type labels you reference. Those on Spotify/Rhapsody/iTunes are pleased that they can tell their network where to hear them. That's exposure, and gives them credibility for bookings where they are not well known. MySpace is a failure. Indies don't have to partake. Session musicians specifically don't get paid royalties, but they do get paid. Very few services are streaming full resolution product, so (to me) this is far more democratic than what went on in the old days. All of these points are really in support of your argument.
I think most of us want to see artists get paid, but the fact is very few can make a living making CDs and selling them on the open market.
Again, Spotify didn't create the revenue model, but they sure are good at it.
Like Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. Services like Spotify and the like give little known musicians exposure they wouldn't otherwise get. Maybe the money isn't what they'd like, but it is what the market rate is. Its what music services are willing to pay, no one forces a musician to put their ork out there I think. Music, as any performing art, is a tough business to be in, a few get rich, millions wait tables and perform if they can.
My brother in law is a musician, and owns a small studio that a lot of local musicians record in. He loathes file sharers with a passion, the only albums I've given him are things that are out of print and unavailable any other way. Most out of print for years. He has no issues with Spotify or Pandora though, or iTunes.
symmes: @killyp I am involved with some artists who are far smaller than the type labels you reference. Those on Spotify/Rhapsody/iTunes are pleased that they can tell their network where to hear them. That's exposure, and gives them credibility for bookings where they are not well known. MySpace is a failure. Indies don't have to partake. Session musicians specifically don't get paid royalties, but they do get paid. Very few services are streaming full resolution product, so (to me) this is far more democratic than what went on in the old days. All of these points are really in support of your argument. I think most of us want to see artists get paid, but the fact is very few can make a living making CDs and selling them on the open market. Again, Spotify didn't create the revenue model, but they sure are good at it.
Session musicians do get paid royalties through the PPL. Much less through streaming services like Spotify.
Credibility for bookings where they are not well known? You really think it's realistic for most bands to travel to the other side of the world with a van full of gear without financial backing from a label? How does the music even get recorded in the first place?
iTunes is great for musicians - Spotify is not. I see the figures on almost every project I work on which gets released on Spotify.
RE the music industry being tough - it always has been, but it's become a lot more difficult since the 'free music' model came along and Spotify is just fuelling the fire.
i pose you this question - why have so many musicians pulled their music from Spotify recently? I don't see label executives pulling music they hold the rights to from the service, but musicians who have kept their own publishing and licensing rights are jumping ship left right and centre. This is where you want to get your music from?
Another question - which would you rather use. iTunes or Spotify?
If I should answer that last question.
I would rather use:
An iTunes losless (ALAC) streaming service!
Wouldn't we all - although (horror of horrors) AAC 256 isn't as bad as many would have you believe. The quality of what's coming out of most mastering studios negates the point of lossless audio, let alone all this 96khz/24bit stuff. I would rather see a push towards good quality mastering with wide dynamic range than expend the same energy pushing for lossless audio.
Regardless of quality (and iTunes sounds better than Spotify Premium to my ears) - I still pose the question - iTunes or Spotify?
The only real difference I see is price - Spotify is way cheaper. iTunes is basically 'instant' on any modern broadband connection.
I mainly listen to Spotify using a 3G connection so the broadband thing isn't really a consideration. I don't care what label it has, but the Spotify product is very hard to beat.
If they start a premium service with CD quality music and then in the future Blu Ray quality films, then Spotify of today could be a Google or Ebay of the future.
Millemissen: An iTunes losless (ALAC) streaming service!
Sadly, I think there would be such a small minority demanding that service, it's not deemed commercially viable. Besides, that's what CDs are for - if you're really in to your music, you're not really expected to buy from iTunes, but buy the CD instead.
You need to remember that 'audiophiles' are a very small minority of the modern music-buying industry. As KillyP rightly said, most modern music is produced *for* streaming, so there's very little point worrying about lossless/high quality audio. I have a few audiophile friends and none of them go near Spotify, iTunes or similar and don't necessarily want to, either, even if they offered lossless streaming.
moxxey:buy the CD instead
An increasing number of artists doesn't bother to release CD's any longer.
//Bo.A long list...
Further interesting news on the 'decline' of digital music downloads, due to streaming:
http://www.macrumors.com/2014/01/04/digital-music-sales-decline-for-first-time-since-opening-of-itunes-music-store/
As for artists not releasing CDs - the point I was trying to make is that these publishers (it's not an artist decision, it's the publisher) make a commercial decision and if they aren't going to release a CD, then they aren't going to bother with lossless versions, either. We'll be stuck with digital-only downloads/streaming, soon, listening to these tracks on our £8K BL18/BL19 speaker setup.
moxxey: Millemissen: An iTunes losless (ALAC) streaming service! Sadly, I think there would be such a small minority demanding that service, it's not deemed commercially viable. Besides, that's what CDs are for - if you're really in to your music, you're not really expected to buy from iTunes, but buy the CD instead. You need to remember that 'audiophiles' are a very small minority of the modern music-buying industry. As KillyP rightly said, most modern music is produced *for* streaming, so there's very little point worrying about lossless/high quality audio. I have a few audiophile friends and none of them go near Spotify, iTunes or similar and don't necessarily want to, either, even if they offered lossless streaming.
Hi moxxey,
You seem to tell me, that I will have to stick to CD's (and ripping them to FLAC), if I am 'really into music' and want CD quality/losless quality? Why?
Wanting losless streaming - from whoever? - does not make me an 'audiophile'. 'Audiophile' is different!
I just want the quality that is presented on the physical medium (the CD) as a streaming service.
If Apple (iTunes) pays the artists more descent, I would choose them!
But - as things are now - I choose 'WiMP HiFi' - and buy CD's if I want something, that I can't find there.
The french company 'Qobuz' has losless streaming as part of their business model too!
By the way - what I listen to is NOT produced *for* streaming - by far!!!
And KillyP is quite right when he writes about how important it is that the mastering process gets more focus than 'highres'..
If the recording/mastering is as good as can be, you may buy the music 'downgraded' to whatever quality yoy want/need/accept - or want to pay for.
I would go for the losless version - if possible...
...at least for listening at home with good (B&O)loudspeakers or headphones.
moxxey: Further interesting news on the 'decline' of digital music downloads, due to streaming: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/01/04/digital-music-sales-decline-for-first-time-since-opening-of-itunes-music-store/ As for artists not releasing CDs - the point I was trying to make is that these publishers (it's not an artist decision, it's the publisher) make a commercial decision and if they aren't going to release a CD, then they aren't going to bother with lossless versions, either. We'll be stuck with digital-only downloads/streaming, soon, listening to these tracks on our £8K BL18/BL19 speaker setup.
High Resolution Audio group establishes itself at CES next week. The usual suspects will participate but, hopefully and more importantly, groups like iTrax, HDTracks, and OraStream will establish a foothold as credible offerings for the high performance media fan. This is the chance to communicate and differentiate digital music quality from that of the current state, including iTunes.
iTunes and streamer remasters don't do that and probably never (never say never) will. Why would they? Most of the world could not care less...link to B&O strategy here.
music is like wine and food and maybe appreciated more with age. I can remember when I was young listening to Radio Luxembourg fading in & out and thought at the time this was the best it would ever get until Radio Caroline arrived with their powerful radio transmitters.
I now crave for the best audio quality because I care, maybe we should all start teaching the world and having open HiFi events to the public.
There's a big difference between offering CD for high quality and a separate streaming/download version, and offering music in lower and higher streaming/download qualities to serve different markets. Maintaining a CD distribution path in the face of declining sales and interest on top of a streaming/download distribution is something almost impossible to rationalize, more so as time goes on. if the dollars in sales are there I can easily see music labels and such supporting multiple quality streams, it doesn't cost them that much compared to CD.
And bravo to the comment about mastering quality being missing more than bit rates are missing.
Millemissen: You seem to tell me, that I will have to stick to CD's (and ripping them to FLAC), if I am 'really into music' and want CD quality/losless quality? Why? I just want the quality that is presented on the physical medium (the CD) as a streaming service.
But that doesn't exist and isn't likely to exist, which is exactly my point. There just isn't enough demand from the majority of modern music purchasers to warrant such an option from the current commercial streaming/download services.
The irony is that B&O purchasers on this very forum are singing about the virtues of compressed streamed audio, and listening on very expensive speakers, which exactly answers my point: most people are more than happy with the audio quality from iTunes and Spotify. Even those who are spending £8K on their speakers. They are satisfied, on the whole.
It's like going out and buying a £7K B&O TV, but then satisfying yourself with watching a movie via Apple TV. Yes, it's a very good experience, but not a great experience. You don't get lossless uncompressed audio and the picture isn't quite Blu-ray quality. Most people are satisfied with the compromise. I'm not, I should add. I've moved back to buying Blu-rays and ripping/backup them up to my NAS drive.
moxxey: Millemissen: You seem to tell me, that I will have to stick to CD's (and ripping them to FLAC), if I am 'really into music' and want CD quality/losless quality? Why? I just want the quality that is presented on the physical medium (the CD) as a streaming service. But that doesn't exist and isn't likely to exist, which is exactly my point. There just isn't enough demand from the majority of modern music purchasers to warrant such an option from the current commercial streaming/download services. Please tell me then, what WiMP Is doing when they offer their 'HiFI version': http://wimp.dk/wweb/specials/hifi_lossless/ http://www.studiocity.co.uk/hifi-for-wimp-plays-the-grim-reaper-for-low-audio-quality/ Might not be avaible in the UK (yet), but in Scandinavia and Germany - seems to be enough demand for starting a high quality streaming service. ......I'm not, I should add. I've moved back to buying Blu-rays and ripping/backup them up to my NAS drive. I never stopped buying Bluray-discs!
Please tell me then, what WiMP Is doing when they offer their 'HiFI version':
http://wimp.dk/wweb/specials/hifi_lossless/
http://www.studiocity.co.uk/hifi-for-wimp-plays-the-grim-reaper-for-low-audio-quality/
Might not be avaible in the UK (yet), but in Scandinavia and Germany - seems to be enough demand for starting a high quality streaming service.
......I'm not, I should add. I've moved back to buying Blu-rays and ripping/backup them up to my NAS drive.
I never stopped buying Bluray-discs!
Raeuber:Last week I had some friend visiting me. And I took the chance for a test: I streamed music via Spotify (free account with only 160 kbs) from my IPad to Apple TV connected to BV 7. Simultaneously the same music was played from CD in my Beosound 9000. We listened to the music from my Beolab 1 and I asked my friends if they can hear a diffence and if so which source sounds better. ALL of my friends had the opinion that there is NO DIFFERENCE in sound quality! So please tell me why not use Spotify for music listening or are the Beolab 1 so bad or does all of my friends (including myself) have a hearing damage?? Greets Räuber
I streamed music via Spotify (free account with only 160 kbs) from my IPad to Apple TV connected to BV 7. Simultaneously the same music was played from CD in my Beosound 9000. We listened to the music from my Beolab 1 and I asked my friends if they can hear a diffence and if so which source sounds better. ALL of my friends had the opinion that there is NO DIFFERENCE in sound quality!
So please tell me why not use Spotify for music listening or are the Beolab 1 so bad or does all of my friends (including myself) have a hearing damage??
Greets
Räuber
Those of us who have setup and done proper level matched double blind tests between good encoders and CD have the same results unless the bit rates are too low, usually under 100kbs. No matter what people say about being amazed people with expensive speakers are listening to lossy files.
And BL1's have the reputation of being too clinically transparent and unforgiving, not for hiding details.
Raeuber:Last week I had some friend visiting me. And I took the chance for a test: I streamed music via Spotify (free account with only 160 kbs) from my IPad to Apple TV connected to BV 7. Simultaneously the same music was played from CD in my Beosound 9000. We listened to the music from my Beolab 1 and I asked my friends if they can hear a diffence and if so which source sounds better. ALL of my friends had the opinion that there is NO DIFFERENCE in sound quality! So please tell me why not use Spotify for music listening or are the Beolab 1 so bad or does all of my friends (including myself) have a hearing damage??
Did you do fast A/B switch-overs to compare, or listen at length? I find the real difference with Lossless vs MP3/compressed audio becomes a lot more apparent when you listen at length - say over a time of an hour or two. I can't really tell much if any difference when switching from 256kbps iTunes downloads to Lossless quickly.
I also kind of thing good sound and good music is much like drawings of hands. Why is it so difficult to draw a really convincing hand? It's because we spend most of our time looking at our own, they're the parts of our bodies we are most familiar with. Hence, when we see a drawing of a hand, we will be far more critical of it than say, the drawing of the back of a leg or your own face.
The same is true with art and music, sound quality etc.... if you spend all of your time around poor quality sound or bad music, it becomes very difficult to know whether something is actually any good or not.
Going back to the business of Spotify, I have seen artists put out their albums on Spotify only to find their sales plummet on iTunes, Amazon and Bandcamp, but have a marginal increase of plays/hits.
Spotify is driving the industry further towards music written specifically to earn money, label intervention in the creative process and less independence for musicians to create music the way they want.