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

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Antoni - I can't make it to the Poland show this year.

 

I've been using WiMP for about a month. It's great. It's the future. However, it's not a complete solution for people with content that's not available via streaming. The new Black Keys album for example isn't available via any streaming service.

 

I disagree that my article makes no sense. Cloud storage of music is just as desirable as cloud storage of one's email. No headaches of storage at home etc...

 

The chances of Apple introducing high resolution streaming are less than 0%. Apple is too close to the phone carriers (AT&T, Verizon). The carriers would go nuts if Apple suggested everyone should start streaming 10x more music data. This would harm the tight relationship.

 

I can't wait for WiMP to officially arrive in the US. Just as important are integrated solutions. Sitting at my computer to switch tracks via the WiMP interface isn't fun.

[Antoni Wo]

For that cloud service you need a lot of space for data. More than 100GB (now 100GB in cloud isn't cheap)... Terabytes of space. Cloud bytes are expensive, you wrote about price. In subscribtion model we talk about thousands of dollars. I think that for music lovers this is unacceptable price (ok, like you said, there are some advantages, but this local storage - in my opinion - isn't big problem, not that big that you wrote) they buy top gear, rear vinyl but I think they don't like to buy zeros and ones, virtual spaces of data only for one reason - to archive their X Terabytes music coll.

 

 

If Apple not introducing good streaming service, and not change quality in iTunes store will be doomed (content distribution). I think they work hard for new posibilites, i.e they change Itunes libraries (better quality (remastered for...), better or the best music sources - very important), they talks with music industry about future changes in their services and so one, and so one. For carriers that scenario (HQ streaming) means more money (for example in Poland we have unlimited data plan for streaming services if you choose high price sub plan with phone). Of course two things are big headache now: battery life and today mobile network infrastructure. Apple have many strong arguments.

 

 

So, if you have right, it means that Apple have no chance, and iTunes today, tomorrow is like dinosaur. Apple loose, industry loose, and finaly carriers loose. In my opinion they want smth different, smth like win-win option. With modern streaming service (iRadio is not that service of course), with looseless tracks in iTunes store (some of them, like today remastered materials, could be in hi-res quality) they have chance, and for us it is important, because it means that better quality will be a standard, standard for music from Internet. If not Apple, who change situation, when 90 or more (?) % music in zero and ones is mp3/aac?

 

Yes, WiMP interface in Mac is ugly, it is comp interface (app or sometimes web... not fun like you said) but you have many alternatives... like I said: Sonos, Sqeezebox, millions of handhelds and a lot of AV components (i.e home cinema amplif.) Now Spotify mod. service for better experience for people who wants archive their music coll. I think in near future that will be all-in-one solutions. You will have access for new way of consumption and, also, all of your f. music (traditional usage). in cloud, in local memory, like you want. Carriers wants smth new... now voice, sms, mms, standard services are cheap or "free". It's time to make money in subscribtion model with them, with Spotify, with Apple, Deezer, WiMP etc. etc.

 

It sad that you not visit Poland in 2014. Your meeting was very good, for me, one of the best meetings in Audio Show history.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Antoni - I think we agree on more than we disagree but I also think there is a language barrier.

 

Apple will offer lossy streaming service to combat the decline if the purchasing model. Thus, the reason Apple is buying beats.

[Antoni Wo]

Hi Antoni - I think we agree on more than we disagree but I also think there is a language barrier.

 

Apple will offer lossy streaming service to combat the decline if the purchasing model. Thus, the reason Apple is buying beats.

 

Sorry for my English ;-) I read that deal is not done yet...

[Audio_ELF]

your topic ideas (cloud access to own music archive) have no sens because people do not need it

I disagree that my article makes no sense. Cloud storage of music is just as desirable as cloud storage of one's email. No headaches of storage at home etc...

The thing is though Chris ... until someone makes a service for storing your own music in the cloud (and at the quality you desire) is not the headache of uploading your music to "The Cloud" not greater than having your own storage.

 

You keep arguing that what you did makes sense, but I tend to differ in that opinion. Though you appear to say in your conclusion it doesn't make sense; but in the comments when people say it doesn't make sense you seam to disagree.

 

Possible? Yes.

Practical? Currently no.

Pricey? Definitely.

 

Perhaps in the the future it will make more sense ... but I can't agree with you that its the equivalent of storing email in the cloud. A commercial streaming service makes sense - but then you are out of control over what versions are supplied and most audiophiles appear to not want that. Perhaps I'm just too much wanting to be in control.

 

Eloise

[The Computer Audiophile]

What I'm saying is this type of cloud storage doesn't currently make sense.

 

Possible? Yes.

Practical? Currently no.

Pricey? Definitely.

 

It appeared that the comments suggested the whole premise of the article made no sense. That's where I disagreed. You never know if this is viable until you research it and that's what this article covers.

[Audio_ELF]

It appeared that the comments suggested the whole premise of the article made no sense. That's where I disagreed. You never know if this is viable until you research it and that's what this article covers.

Okay I think I understand better now where you are coming from. Personally I think it's only a very small number of areas where cloud storage makes sense... but I appear outnumbered in that thinking as everyone is heading off "to the cloud" en masse.

 

Eloise

[fritzg]

Interesting article. I'm setting up a NAS-JRiver on Mac mini system at present. I'm curious, how do you access the files on the Synology? Via file sharing or DLNA? I've experienced metadata issues coming through DLNA.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Interesting article. I'm setting up a NAS-JRiver on Mac mini system at present. I'm curious, how do you access the files on the Synology? Via file sharing or DLNA? I've experienced metadata issues coming through DLNA.

Via file sharing is the best way.

[MountainSufi]

Thankx for the article, Chris.

 

A looooong time ago, when NAS (Network Attached Storage) was pretty new, I bought a Bufalo Terastation. I slept well at night knowing that when a hard drive died I could simply swap in a replacement. I also knew as time went on and memory became cheaper I could even swap in larger drives. What could go wrong?

 

This worked well for years, and then it occurred... "The Day the Music Died"...

 

All files became a scrambled mess. Nothing was playable. Bufalo support told me this was due to a "software problem", and all information was irretrievably lost. They did tell me new product has "fixed" that problem.

 

No thankx. I've spent oodles of time re-downloading music into a simple external hard drive which recently failed. Luckily, it was the "box software" that can be replaced (& not the disk itself which I "kept promising myself" to backup "soon".

 

I'll never depend on NAS redundancy to protect files again (altho why not have a stack of drives with huge storage)? Thankx to this article I'll be storing (but not playing) music on either Google or Amazon.

 

Happy Trails!