Article: The Future Of HiFi

[realhifi]

I can only answer for myself, but I can tell you why I find it depressing. It's not free. And saying it's almost free is disingenuous. And honestly, I'm not asking for it to be free. It's *another* monthly bill. Everything seems to be moving towards the subscription model. Add your monthly streaming fee to your monthly cable bill, your monthly cell phone bill, your monthly internet access bill, your monthly Netflix bill, your Hulu bill, , your Beer of the Month Club bill, your monthly Adobe Creative Cloud bill, and it goes on and on. And as soon as you stop paying, that access to virtually any recording ever released is gone and you've got nothing left. On top of that, I value and appreciate my local music stores. Bull Moose, Enterprise Records, Moody Lords, Electric Buddha; I either know the owners or know the employees. I appreciate that they are there and what they do. Music is a social thing for me. I enjoy talking to other people in the store about music. I appreciate walking into a store, and the owner or whomever knowing me and my musical interests. Hey Tim, I just got in this album you may be interested in. I'd rather have a person recommend music to me than an algorithm.

 

That is not meant as a knock on anyone who values and enjoys streaming services. I understand why someone would value it. For a time I was a subscriber to MOG before it became Beats. It was nice to be able to listen to and album for me when trying to decide what I thought about an artist I wasn't familiar with, or a particular album. I've discovered new music through Pandora or whatever, and appreciate that. And I'm not a Luddite. I enjoy and appreciate technology. What I am looking for is balance. And a future in which music ownership goes away, where all music is stored in the cloud and streamed, where my "music provider" knows every track I play, or have ever played, etc... is a future I have zero interest in participating in. *That* is depressing.

 

 

+1. 100% agree with you. Well put.

[tailspn]

The problem for the 10% of classical music listeners that Eloise identifies will be the continued availability of recordings. Streaming services have a flat pay-out schedule for the music they house and stream. It's in the pennies for each play instance. While that's OK for the large labels of popular music (after all, they negotiated and set the terms with the services), smaller labels, and especially those independents recording classical music, can not exist if streaming becomes the majority distribution modality. There's simply insufficient income.

 

Classical music labels gross income from CD and SACD sales average between $2.00 and $7.00, and about 10% more for a album download. Given that an average classical music album sells in the neighborhood of 3,000 copies (if mainstream and successful), it's not a get rich business when production costs and royalties are subtracted.

 

Further, to the degree that orchestras and classical music artists are supported by labels with both royalties and exposure, they to will be in jeopardy. The larger orchestras have begun to take recording into their own hands, and write off the losses as promotion.

 

Maybe classical music distribution is the new buggy whip, and should disappear. But maybe so should Western civilization culture as we know it. That sounds dramatic, but consider the trends, and evidence.

[Audio_ELF]

One interesting development in the "mainstream" music... Here in the UK streaming services are now being included to produce the Top 40 (and other) charts.

 

The first chart incorporating streaming was last week (6th July 2014) and (iirc) 100 plays of at least 30seconds of the track equals one purchase (physical media or download).

 

Eloise

[james45974]

Seeing the news today about Hulu streaming South Park I wonder how many subscription services you have to pay to get the music you want to hear? Will Spotify lock up some artists and Beats lock up others and Wimp lock up even different artists? Seems like a recipe for disaster when it comes to streaming music. And the less popular music will disappear, don't think it won't happen either, look at Netflix culling their available selections a while ago.

[realhifi]

Seeing the news today about Hulu streaming South Park I wonder how many subscription services you have to pay to get the music you want to hear? Will Spotify lock up some artists and Beats lock up others and Wimp lock up even different artists? Seems like a recipe for disaster when it comes to streaming music. And the less popular music will disappear, don't think it won't happen either, look at Netflix culling their available selections a while ago.

 

Exactly. Look for the Beatles on a streaming service much less a more obscure reference. I can't imagine services being able to have complete discographies of artists either. I have been noticing some very relevant albums missing from artists I research on both Spotify and Beats.

 

The drumbeats seem to all point to streaming right now and I can't help put part of the blame on the journalists that are covering the music and technology sector today. I keep waiting for this to come up in an interview with Jimmy Iovine or Dr. Dre or someone else that actually has a pulse on the music and recording industry today. The points being made on this site right now are not only relevant but important in the scope of the recording and distribution of music moving forward.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Exactly. Look for the Beatles on a streaming service much less a more obscure reference. I can't imagine services being able to have complete discographies of artists either. I have been noticing some very relevant albums missing from artists I research on both Spotify and Beats.

 

The drumbeats seem to all point to streaming right now and I can't help put part of the blame on the journalists that are covering the music and technology sector today. I keep waiting for this to come up in an interview with Jimmy Iovine or Dr. Dre or someone else that actually has a pulse on the music and recording industry today. The points being made on this site right now are not only relevant but important in the scope of the recording and distribution of music moving forward.

Some people can find a dark black lining in any cloud. No pun intended. I chose to look at it positively and can't wait for catalogs to get better. I look forward to every song ever created available in the cloud from all streaming services. It could happen. In fact there's a better chance of hearing out of print titles via cloud streaming than there is getting a label to fire up the machine to produce physical versions of OOP titles.

[james45974]

Some people can find a dark black lining in any cloud. No pun intended. I chose to look at it positively and can't wait for catalogs to get better. I look forward to every song ever created available in the cloud from all streaming services. It could happen. In fact there's a better chance of hearing out of print titles via cloud streaming than there is getting a label to fire up the machine to produce physical versions of OOP titles.

 

Chris, I am an optimist by nature and the thought of having "every song ever created available in the cloud" is the stuff that could make someone interested in music have their mind explode but if you buy into that I have a bridge I would like to sell you! Comparing the dysfunctional music industry to the relative organization of other media such as books, movies, and TV doesn't make me have much optimism. I don't even see having every song ever created from a small country happening.

[wwaldmanfan]

I don't see how this could ever happen. I have CD-R's in my library that were self-published by artists that I discovered busking on streetcorners in New Orleans for tips. (Anyone else here own CD's by the Kitchen Syncopators?) It happens to be fantastic music, but not available for sale anywhere. Who would be responsible for uploading this sort of thing to "the cloud", and how would publishing royalties be accounted for and distributed?

Call me old-fashioned, but streaming is the modern equivalent of listening to the radio, something I have not done on a regular basis since the 1970's.

[The Computer Audiophile]

It was a figure of speech used as an illustration. I'm sure the Syncopators will remain off of my cloud.

[james45974]

These crystal ball gazing discussions can be kind of fun, there is really no right or wrong answer. It is kind of nice to dream about having access to all that music, but in the end reality rears its ugly head.

 

BTW, I am still waiting to Ford to get that new fangled flying car on their lot that we were promised decades ago.

[The Computer Audiophile]

These crystal ball gazing discussions can be kind of fun, there is really no right or wrong answer. It is kind of nice to dream about having access to all that music, but in the end reality rears its ugly head.

 

BTW, I am still waiting to Ford to get that new fangled flying car on their lot that we were promised decades ago.

The year 2000 was supposed to have flying everything :~)

[Skeptic]

I don't think streaming services are ever going to completely replace your own physical library.

But if you're the kind of person that buys more than one album a month - and I suspect most of the users here do - then replacing one of those albums with a subscription seems like a pretty good deal, if you get at least CD quality.

 

OK, so whichever service you choose might not have all the artists you want to listen to, or rare discs from certain artists, and something like the Beatles may not be made available on any streaming services.

 

Well that doesn't stop you from playing the Beatles CDs that you already own.

And if there's something which you really like, there is nothing preventing you from buying the physical CD or a download of it.

 

It seems like a good way to augment your existing library and find out about artists you've never even heard of, rather than completely replacing the way you listen to music today.

 

 

I've only used the trial for Spotify, but it seemed pretty good in that regard.

They had albums that I haven't been able to find on CD anywhere (long out of print) and the recommendations based on what I was listening to seemed to be pretty good.

It also seems to get around the problem with a lot of modern albums where there are maybe three good tracks and the rest is filler - you don't have to buy the album, you can just listen to the ones that you like.

 

Of course I'd prefer that albums were good from start to finish, but I don't think streaming services are the cause - streaming services and being able to buy tracks individually from services like iTunes seems like it would encourage artists to make better albums.

 

 

If, on the other hand, you only buy one album occasionally - less than one a month - it does seem like a subscription might not be the best deal, as it would cost you more. But I do think it would help broaden your tastes and maybe get you listening to more music.

 

 

Unfortunately, I can also see providers pushing for exclusive content, and it may end up that a few years from now, these services become like cable subscriptions where you rent the basic package and then have to pay for upgrades to get access to certain catalogs of music. I don't like the idea of that at all. But it's early days yet.

[mac_and_dac]

Some people can find a dark black lining in any cloud. No pun intended. I chose to look at it positively and can't wait for catalogs to get better. I look forward to every song ever created available in the cloud from all streaming services. It could happen. In fact there's a better chance of hearing out of print titles via cloud streaming than there is getting a label to fire up the machine to produce physical versions of OOP titles.

 

+1.

 

For the less youthful among us, it can be difficult tracking down rarer tracks and albums, and Spotify - just like P2P file sharing networks before it - affords an opportunity to find and potentially record this music.

 

It took me years, for instance, to find a copy of the deleted album 'Sulk' by 'The Associates' from 1982. I ended up paying a ridiculous price on e-bay for the CD. Since then, through Spotify, I have already found a number of other rarities which I thought I would never see again.

 

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how Spotify records its music? The quality is generally of a consistent standard, as are the track lengths, so am I correct to assume that it is not underpinned by a semi-regulated P2P network?

[mac_and_dac]

+1 for looking positively at Spotify and the like.

 

For the less youthful among us, it can be difficult tracking down rarer tracks and albums, and Spotify - just like P2P file sharing networks before it - affords an opportunity to find and potentially record this music.

 

It took me years, for instance, to find a copy of the deleted album 'Sulk' by 'The Associates' from 1982. I ended up paying a ridiculous price on e-bay for the CD. Since then, through Spotify, I have already found a number of other rarities which I thought I would never see again. I would rather have these in lo- or mid-fi than not at all.

 

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how Spotify records its music? The quality is generally of a consistent standard, as are the track lengths, so am I correct to assume that it is not underpinned by a semi-regulated P2P network?

[Buffalo Boy]

I don't see how this could ever happen. I have CD-R's in my library that were self-published by artists that I discovered busking on streetcorners in New Orleans for tips. (Anyone else here own CD's by the Kitchen Syncopators?) It happens to be fantastic music, but not available for sale anywhere. Who would be responsible for uploading this sort of thing to "the cloud", and how would publishing royalties be accounted for and distributed?

Call me old-fashioned, but streaming is the modern equivalent of listening to the radio, something I have not done on a regular basis since the 1970's.

 

A name Robert Crumb would love. I must check them out.

[realhifi]

Some people can find a dark black lining in any cloud. No pun intended. I chose to look at it positively and can't wait for catalogs to get better. I look forward to every song ever created available in the cloud from all streaming services. It could happen. In fact there's a better chance of hearing out of print titles via cloud streaming than there is getting a label to fire up the machine to produce physical versions of OOP titles.

 

Around my house I am regarded as the eternal optimist! I'll share the assessment of my opinions with my wife, she'll get a kick out it!

 

I was merely trying to look at the streaming explosion in yet another light as I am one to try to see all points and sometimes find myself arguing for an opinion that I previously thought was totally wrong. The fact that some artists are not in the "big library in the sky" is really just the tip of the iceberg and the Beatles mention is an obvious omission that I'm sure would be rectified at some point. Besides, I'm thinking that they are not worried about making more money from their catalog! They are however watchful about how their artistic output is distributed and I am sure are very cognizant of both the positive and negative consequences of having their music available through a subscription service.

[Audio_ELF]

At the end of the day the technology to do what Chris suggests is available. The problem is that everyone wants to retain control as much as they can.

 

I'm not sure how it affects the USA; but look at the conflict between Google / YouTube and the independent artists -- REVEALED: Google's proposed indie music-killing contract terms -- or the fact Amazon are refusing to pre-sell titles from particular publishing houses who won't agree to their terms.

[realhifi]

At the end of the day the technology to do what Chris suggests is available. The problem is that everyone wants to retain control as much as they can.

 

I'm not sure how it affects the USA; but look at the conflict between Google / YouTube and the independent artists -- REVEALED: Google's proposed indie music-killing contract terms -- or the fact Amazon are refusing to pre-sell titles from particular publishing houses who won't agree to their terms.

 

Bingo. Exactly where I was heading in my comments. You think its a mess now? From the looks of it, it could a LOT messier before it gets better.

[lazy]

I haven't read all the comments, so I apologize if this has already been covered, but I'd like to suggest a refinement to the cloud thing.

 

I agree that outside of one's home, an internet-based cloud will be the likely long-term delivery basis. But I think bandwidth cost/limits, security, privacy, control and quality of service considerations will probably mean that a "home cloud" will also exist via a NAS or other similar centralized home-located storage device distinct from any phone or computer for home entertainment delivery of owned files. The "home cloud" will connect to the "internet cloud" for the purposes of backing up or accessing content not locally stored.

 

With the increasing capabilities of home wireless and networking, I think home storage will be increasingly separated from home PCs and phones, but without taxing or being taxed for using internet bandwidth for files one already owns and wants to retain.

 

Another aspect that I think will develop related to this is the need or incentives to locally cache desired internet-located content in low demand hours so that internet pipe owners can more efficiently manage bandwidth. For example, if you can select what you want locally cache on your (NAS-based) home cloud, you could get a bandwidth credit on your monthly internet bill. In other words, I think it'll be increasingly expensive and inefficient for internet providers to provide bandwidth to handle peak demands, and I thus think these companies will develop incentives to locally cache content to make better use of total internet bandwidth and limit peak service degradation.

[matt123]

In other words, I think it'll be increasingly expensive and inefficient for internet providers to provide bandwidth to handle peak demands, and I thus think these companies will develop incentives to locally cache content to make better use of total internet bandwidth and limit peak service degradation.

 

They already do this extensively and have been since the beginning of the consumer Internet. Akamai is but one example, they were founded in the late 90s. Bandwidth is like new highways - build more lanes on the highways, and more people start driving.

[lazy]

They already do this extensively and have been since the beginning of the consumer Internet. Akamai is but one example, they were founded in the late 90s. Bandwidth is like new highways - build more lanes on the highways, and more people start driving.

 

ISPs are already using time-dependent pricing for home usage? News to me. Never even seen it in the consumer market, much less extensively. A good overview of the bandwidth usage and pricing considerations emerging is http://www.tc.umn.edu/~ssen/papers/IEEEComMag-preprint.pdf

[Audio_ELF]

One thing I've always felt missing (and really I'm talking about video here but it applies to audio to) is when you have multiple streaming services as well as over the air and local media files is finding what you want (and I think that was Steve Jobs problem too).

 

If I want to watch a particular episode I can either browse or do a search... But what if I have the DVD as well as the episode being in HD on the streaming service. Or perhaps I favour Netflix but not sure if what I'm looking for is there or on LoveFilm. So not only do I need to search/look in 3/4 or more places, but should my interconnect drop I can't continue watching from the same place transparently. Or next time I search for the same series if I don't use the same service it doesn't remember how far through the series I've watched especially if I look on a different device.

 

Eloise

[matt123]

One thing I've always felt missing (and really I'm talking about video here but it applies to audio to) is when you have multiple streaming services as well as over the air and local media files is finding what you want (and I think that was Steve Jobs problem too).

 

If I want to watch a particular episode I can either browse or do a search... But what if I have the DVD as well as the episode being in HD on the streaming service. Or perhaps I favour Netflix but not sure if what I'm looking for is there or on LoveFilm. So not only do I need to search/look in 3/4 or more places, but should my interconnect drop I can't continue watching from the same place transparently. Or next time I search for the same series if I don't use the same service it doesn't remember how far through the series I've watched especially if I look on a different device.

 

Eloise

 

An opportunity for JRiver or a similar company? I doubt all of the various services (Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Google, Spotify, etc.) will play nice and let you consolidate your rights/library in one place. However, online resource providers for university libraries have been doing this for years so that you can search all of the available resources and sign on using one login. This should be something "the Internet" and web technologies more general would be good at. You don't need to be on the same ISP to send each other email or view a web site. But, with content it seems the walled garden is back.

[Paul R]

ISPs are already using time-dependent pricing for home usage? News to me. Never even seen it in the consumer market, much less extensively. A good overview of the bandwidth usage and pricing considerations emerging is http://www.tc.umn.edu/~ssen/papers/IEEEComMag-preprint.pdf

 

 

Reading that, it sure seemed like it may have been funded by Comcast or AT&T, or something similar. No consideration of the consumer in that at all!

[Paul R]

Did anyone notice that Microsoft 360 subscribers now receive more than 1Terabyte of storage for OneDrive?

 

That at could easily have some ramifications!