Jump to content
IGNORED

Article: Cloud Storage & High Resolution Streaming - Possible? Practical? Pricey?


Recommended Posts

I'm not going to bet against Apple, Amazon and Google letting go on their lock on our user accounts (and credit card #'s) and proprietary media libraries any time soon. But, wouldn't it be interesting if record labels or artists could store 1 copy of their album in the cloud, then sell keys for people to access it through a program like JRiver. Would be a fun project for JRiver - they already make the downloaders for Acoustic Sounds and I think HD Tracks and could even piggyback on those store's retail front ends. They could charge a bit extra for a streaming and backup option.

 

Also seems like you should be able to edit your metadata separately from the actual files. You could have your own "library" but the files would live on the cloud.

 

We keep saying this is the way things are going eventually - everything in the cloud, and no more format change overs. Pono mentions streaming in their FAQ. So, maybe its coming faster than we think ;-)

 

Unfortunately, for those of us in the US, the end of net neutrality and the FCC's willingness to roll over and play dead means the bandwidth to make this all feasible for consumers could be available in the EU far sooner than the US.

Link to comment

One big issue with AWS is they have been reported to delete personal data if they think it is copyrighted material - a music collection would fit this criteria.

 

As for "if streaming high res audio possible" well if Netflix can stream 4k video then yes - though perhaps not using any standard service.

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
Why is this even worth discussion. Netflix and Hulu and HBOgo and Amazon Video are proof positive you can stream high def video from a "cloud" server with bandwidth requirements an order of magnitude greater than the needs of any audio.

RealAudio - Please do your homework before showing us your lack of knowledge again and again. All those services stream at a level below MP3 quality. HD has simply meant 1080i or 1080p. Using extremely lossy compression you can stream that over a dial-up line. It's like 44.1 can be MP3 or FLAC or WAV.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
One big issue with AWS is they have been reported to delete personal data if they think it is copyrighted material - a music collection would fit this criteria.

 

As for "if streaming high res audio possible" well if Netflix can stream 4k video then yes - though perhaps not using any standard service.

4K or SuperHD doesn't mean anything. It's so lossy it's incredible.

 

do you have a link to AWS deleting files? If I have the right to store the content and don't make it available to the world it "shouldn't " be an issue.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
4K or SuperHD doesn't mean anything. It's so lossy it's incredible.

 

do you have a link to AWS deleting files? If I have the right to store the content and don't make it available to the world it "shouldn't " be an issue.

 

 

Not to criticize you as the source of all knowledge on all subjects, but I would recommend you read the MPEG4 broadcast specs. The bandwidth for 192X24X2 (audio high rez) uncompressed is about 1 MBs. Using any sort of loss-less compression, that can be significantly reduced. 1080i MPEG 4 need more than that, and 1080p compressed gets you to 4 to 5 MBs pretty quickly. The idea that the bandwidth requirements for an audio stream are equal to or more than that of a video stream is just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Deduplication is a neat trick where the data on your disk is analyzed and basically, only one copy of duplicate information is kept. So for example, your music database is copied once, but from then on, only the parts that change are actually transmitted. Another example, if you have two copies of a music file, only one copy will be kept and a pointer to the second one will be stored. Or a better example, if you have a copy of a file in AIFF and WAV, where they contain identical PCM data. In that case, only one copy of the PCM data would be saved, along with the wrapper information that makes each file unique.

 

When you restore a file it is "re-hydrated", a process that gives you back the exact file, or the exact version of a file that you need. It all works very well, and allows one to often store say, 10Tb of data in less than a Terabyte of physical space.

 

Big storage companies can take advantage of systems that do this on a massive scale, and may be storing 1000TB of data in a mere 50TB of real space. That's how the online companies can control cost and make a profit.

 

Where it applies here is kind of simple. To synchronize two remote devices, if they both understand Deduplication, you can compress and transmit only the deduplicated changes. In the real world this may mean the equivalent of transmitting a few Gigabytes of information in only a few hundred meg's. Huge savings.

 

Why is that important at all? ISP home transmission limits. We have a 350gb per month cap on a 117mbs connection. A successful trip to gather records or used CDs can result in 20-30 new albums, hi-res is that are digital transcriptions of vinyl records, to transmit. That can easily hit 45gbs to transmit. We do that perhaps once or twice per month, as well as buying a half dozen new discs or so very month. Add in streaming movies and Tv in high def, and we have hit or exceeded that number upon occasion.

 

Our phone one have 'unlimited' data grandfathered in,mouth get capped and slowdown at 3gb/month. Hi rest streaming and a few movies can hi that limit pretty easily too. (I stream ALAC to my phone.)

 

Conversely, I hold a lot of business data online in deduplicated form, transferring the equivalent of hundred gigs or more per week. That has it's own internet connection, and never even comes close to the limit.

 

Long explanation, but those are some of the technical reasons That force me to agree with Chris, hi res streaming just isn't ready for prime time yet.

 

-Paul

 

Typos courtesy of my iPad...

That makes sense. Thanks!

W10 NUC i7 (Gen 10) > Roon (Audiolense FIR) > Motu UltraLite mk5 > (4) Hypex NCore NC502MP > JBL M2 Master Reference +4 subs

 

Watch my Podcast https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMw_bZWBMtRWNJQfTJ38kA/videos

Link to comment
Not to criticize you as the source of all knowledge on all subjects, but I would recommend you read the MPEG4 broadcast specs. The bandwidth for 192X24X2 (audio high rez) uncompressed is about 1 MBs. Using any sort of loss-less compression, that can be significantly reduced. 1080i MPEG 4 need more than that, and 1080p compressed gets you to 4 to 5 MBs pretty quickly. The idea that the bandwidth requirements for an audio stream are equal to or more than that of a video stream is just ridiculous.

 

Again, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. You can talk textbook specs all you want but you're talk isn't based in reality. Please try to stream 24/192 lossless with a connection you think should work. You suggest 1MB (capital B), that would be about an 8Mb connection offered by any cable provider. Should work no problem huh? OK.

 

Suggesting 1080p compressed "gets you to 4 to 5 MBs pretty quickly" is preposterous when you have no clue about the adaptive lossy compression being used by all the providers. a 1080p lossy stream can be compressed down to 64 kbps if needed. Your math is all out the window when talking lossy compression. Ever watched House of Cards on Netflix in SuperHD? It can be worse than standard definition VHS at times. The bandwidth requirements for this are next to nothing.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Hi keeper - I looked at qobuz HiFi but it doesn't quite meet the requirements. It's not available in the US. Can stream no higher than 16/44.1, and has no remote control capability. It's really neat, but isn't a desktop app replacement or doesn't allow streaming through an app like JRiver Media Center.

 

I wish it was available here in the US. I really like that the app allows selection of one's audio device rather than just sending it to a default device.

 

IT IS available in the USA, i am listening to it now. It just takes a little bit of work. It is in 16bits/44.1 LOSSLESS FLAC on my mac mini via a schiit audio gungnir out to my semi hi end system-it sounds wonderful better than MOG and definitely better than BM( an apt acronym). BM can't even transfer my 250+ playlists. The selections are as good or better than MOG/BM. Give them some time,Chris, they have been around 7+yrs and probably will get the things you are looking for once they OFFICALLY are in the USA later this year.

bobbmd [email protected]

Link to comment
IT IS available in the USA, i am listening to it now. It just takes a little bit of work. It is in 16bits/44.1 LOSSLESS FLAC on my mac mini via a schiit audio gungnir out to my semi hi end system-it sounds wonderful better than MOG and definitely better than BM( an apt acronym). BM can't even transfer my 250+ playlists. The selections are as good or better than MOG/BM. Give them some time,Chris, they have been around 7+yrs and probably will get the things you are looking for once they OFFICALLY are in the USA later this year.

bobbmd [email protected]

What do they charge for USA customers?

W10 NUC i7 (Gen 10) > Roon (Audiolense FIR) > Motu UltraLite mk5 > (4) Hypex NCore NC502MP > JBL M2 Master Reference +4 subs

 

Watch my Podcast https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMw_bZWBMtRWNJQfTJ38kA/videos

Link to comment
What do they charge for USA customers?

 

jt: depends on what service you get- i have the 'HIFi' version which is the LOSSLESS flack 16bits/44.1kHz version

its 19.99euros/month and i think 199.99euros/year its same price for everyone in europe also the other versions are less expensive less features some without lossless flac

you have to use paypal and have to contact qobuz several times by email to get around the fact they technically are not in USA yet-the emotive lounge web site has different ways of doing it. if you want it just keep contacting them and they'll accept the paypal payment eventually also google 'qobuz reviews' for examples how to get the subscriptions

if you get the 7d free trial its only lossy 320kbps and selection of individual artists/albums is limited to 'covers' and kareoke albums

the real thing is really spectacular

bobbmd [email protected]

Link to comment

I recently got Quobuz HI-FI streaming here in the USA. I had set up an account a while back waiting for them to get here. I recently sent them a polite e-mail basically begging them to let me subscribe. They activated my account with a 30 day free trial. At the end of that I did the annual subscription at 199.99 euros which is about $24 per month after paying exchange rates thru paypal and a credit card fee. The service is just awesome. Streaming 44.1/16 lossless using flac the stream is rock solid and sounds great, much better than Spotify and MOG. I tested the same albums on all three with Spotify at the bottom, MOG in the middle and Quobuz on top. I have not even bothered to test Beats and cancelled my subscriptions to the other two. The desktop app is very good and lets you select the output device. The only downside is that you will get browser translations on the web page and I have found Chrome to be the best. The catalog of music is very broad but some music is restricted from streaming right now but Quobuz support says that they are expanding the streaming catalog as fast as they can. They say they have the rights and need time to activate. I expect that all these minor issues will be resolved when they make a formal push into the USA later this year. At this point in time, this is the best streaming experience available. It is expensive but not considering the product.

Link to comment
I look forward to the day that 10TB of cloud storage is affordable. I think by the end of the year I'll put another NAS offsite and the two will auto sync. That's the only reasonable cost effective way at this point to me.

 

Yea, just park it all on a cloud - then, just wait for the day your internet service goes black. No music, no access - no fun?

 

Hey, while you're at it - why not just park your car in someone else's garage?

As long as the door is unlocked when you come back, you'll be able to drive your car that day. If not, I guess you'll end up walking.

 

Forget the cloud, keep your own music in your own world.

Link to comment
Yea, just park it all on a cloud - then, just wait for the day your internet service goes black. No music, no access - no fun?

 

Hey, while you're at it - why not just park your car in someone else's garage?

As long as the door is unlocked when you come back, you'll be able to drive your car that day. If not, I guess you'll end up walking.

 

Forget the cloud, keep your own music in your own world.

I'd only do it as an offsite backup. I have plenty of backups and a NAS.

W10 NUC i7 (Gen 10) > Roon (Audiolense FIR) > Motu UltraLite mk5 > (4) Hypex NCore NC502MP > JBL M2 Master Reference +4 subs

 

Watch my Podcast https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMw_bZWBMtRWNJQfTJ38kA/videos

Link to comment
I recently got Quobuz HI-FI streaming here in the USA. I had set up an account a while back waiting for them to get here. I recently sent them a polite e-mail basically begging them to let me subscribe. They activated my account with a 30 day free trial. At the end of that I did the annual subscription at 199.99 euros which is about $24 per month after paying exchange rates thru paypal and a credit card fee. The service is just awesome. Streaming 44.1/16 lossless using flac the stream is rock solid and sounds great, much better than Spotify and MOG. I tested the same albums on all three with Spotify at the bottom, MOG in the middle and Quobuz on top. I have not even bothered to test Beats and cancelled my subscriptions to the other two. The desktop app is very good and lets you select the output device. The only downside is that you will get browser translations on the web page and I have found Chrome to be the best. The catalog of music is very broad but some music is restricted from streaming right now but Quobuz support says that they are expanding the streaming catalog as fast as they can. They say they have the rights and need time to activate. I expect that all these minor issues will be resolved when they make a formal push into the USA later this year. At this point in time, this is the best streaming experience available. It is expensive but not considering the product.

bobflood: Couldn't agree with you more! This could be the best thing since white bread. What i don't understand is why some albums by the same artists are restricted ie The Bands 'Last Waltz' and Dylan's 'Mono/Stereo Recordings'-but they are minor issues.The desktop app is great the ability to create playlists of any length/number of songs and the new/different artists from France and Europe is an added bonus the french covers of Dylan, Waits,Cohen etc are precious. I just hope my CFO doesn't 'restrict' ME when she sees the first bill!Did you notice under your preferences that the app recognizes all different setups/delivery systems you have in your Audio MIDI Setup ie core audio -speaker schiit USB gungnir audio device or Channel D PAD etc thats neat no one else does that. I will probably drop BeatsMusic as BM(an apt acronym) can't even transfer my 250+ playlists from MOG yet Qobuz will transfer playlists from Spotify and Deezer.All in all this is a tremendous streaming service.

bobbmd [email protected]

Link to comment

^ Chris thanks so much for testing this out!

 

Proves CA is at the cutting edge.

 

And that HiRez streaming services *could be* possible and offered to consumers right now

 

Awesome work

 

Wap

New simplified setup: STEREO- Primary listening Area: Cullen Circuits Mod ZP90> Benchmark DAC1>RotelRKB250 Power amp>KEF Q Series. Secondary listening areas: 1/ QNAP 119P II(running MinimServer)>UPnP>Linn Majik DSI>Linn Majik 140's. 2/ (Source awaiting)>Invicta DAC>RotelRKB2100 Power amp>Rega's. Tertiary multiroom areas: Same QNAP>SMB>Sonos>Various. MULTICHANNEL- MacMini>A+(Standalone mode)>Exasound e28 >5.1 analog out>Yamaha Avantage Receiver>Pre-outs>Linn Chakra power amps>Linn Katan front and sides. Linn Trikan Centre. Velodyne SPL1000 Ultra

Link to comment

Very interesting article on streaming from Pitchfork: Station to Station | Features | Pitchfork

 

"Digital streaming’s predictive algorithms and on-demand capabilities can feel futuristic, but they are built from the fundamental ideas of several music ancestors. Remember, pop music itself was born and nurtured on radio’s non-stop streams of ad-supported music—the most prominent ancestor of the feed-driven Twitter/Facebook/Tumblr landscape that shapes 21st century digital streaming. When cultural critic Geoffrey O’Brien described a radio stream as "an artwork that manages the flow of information and music” within which “the thing coming up will always surpass what went before,” he could have been describing wading through a social media feed packed with audio embeds, letting YouTube sidebar recommendations guide a late-night deep-dive, or pruning a personal Pandora soundtrack designed to deliver the perfect songs, one after another."

Link to comment

Chris-

Great articlce/topic, thanks much for all your insight and leadership...

What's the performance hit comparing S3 vs Glacier? Know that Glacier is primarily for archiving but was curious relative to performance in this scenario?

Thanks again,

JD

Link to comment
Chris-

Great articlce/topic, thanks much for all your insight and leadership...

What's the performance hit comparing S3 vs Glacier? Know that Glacier is primarily for archiving but was curious relative to performance in this scenario?

Thanks again,

JD

Good question. I didn't try Glacier yet. I assumed it would be a bit slow to start downloading, but once the download stream started it would be fine. Kind of like restoring data from a tape library in a datacenter :~)

 

I'll have to test it as the price is cheaper for Glacier.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Just wait for the day your internet service goes black. No music, no access - no fun?

 

+1 - Beyond the totally uncomfortable vibe of having my collection off in some strange land - this is the biggie for me. If the assumption is your connection will be available - think again.

 

Real world - that is simply not realistic. I have what I believe is of the best connections here in Calgary - but that doesn't mean it doesn't go south sometimes.

 

I will stick with in-house - so I know it's going to work.

 

VP

Link to comment

If the internet goes black, it is likely we all have much bigger problems occupying our attention that recovering our music collections. I think that particular situation happening is not something to really worry about. Occasional outages or a price spike? Yes. :)

 

-Paul

 

 

+1 - Beyond the totally uncomfortable vibe of having my collection off in some strange land - this is the biggie for me. If the assumption is your connection will be available - think again.

 

Real world - that is simply not realistic. I have what I believe is of the best connections here in Calgary - but that doesn't mean it doesn't go south sometimes.

 

I will stick with in-house - so I know it's going to work.

 

VP

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
If the internet goes black, it is likely we all have much bigger problems occupying our attention that recovering our music collections. I think that particular situation happening is not something to really worry about. Occasional outages or a price spike? Yes. :)

 

That's what I was referring to...not a total blackout...more like when I want to listen to something and Shaw here in town decides to do maintenance that day - it's pointless. Calgary is a high tech town with excellent service but I can't even stream dinky MP3s from my home server to my phone on the bus if it's two blocks from my house...never mind punching down 24/192 files from the cloud.

 

Also Chris's analysis of cost make this a tad ridiculous to consider. 2000+ a year for high res streaming? I would rather buy 2000+ worth of music instead and stream it on my network.

 

I guess I am too hands on and too paranoid about my stuff to consider any kind of cloud delivery. I certainly would not pay for it - when I have a perfectly good server and network right in front of me.

 

VP

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

In Europe, in some locations, we have WiMP HiFi. That streaming service using good quality sources (FLAC, ALAC with vbr 800-1100kbps), you have almost 20 mln tracks (most of them in HiFi aka CDA quality), you have offline mode (handhelds, computers(!)), you have access for service on Sonos players and some more streaming systems, of course also on every mobile and computers systems, it works over DLNA/AirPlay and - the best - all of it is for no more than 12 dollars per month (in Poland, of course it depends, in different loc. it cost from 10 to 20€).

 

 

I think that service is the future, and your topic ideas (cloud access to own music archive) have no sens because people do not need it - more atractive, more variable, multieveryplatform, more accesable solution will be / is services like WiMP HiFi. Many people wants also social integration, contact with artists (very important, big advantage for streaming services), more and more informations about listen music (concertos)... interactive solutions. Now, you have also quality, good quality, and this is fantastic for everyone who want explore music (very, very big music library), but also want good sources with no compromise.

 

 

Now, one more and maybe final step: hi-res sound. I think Apple plan something like this. They need smth new, because their distribution model (iTunes shop with tracks in AAC for 99c or more) have no chance today, when you have better alternative (subscribe streaming services). If they transform iTunes library to high resolution, also in services like iTunes Match (yes, yes, like your idea with cloud lib. with 1000 & 1000 tracks in 24bit ALAC), and they prepeard own streaming service with hi-res tracks it could be new begining of music consumption and distribution. We will see.

 

 

And one more thing ;) ... Chris, have you plan to visit Poland in november (Audio Show)?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...