What Has Music Streaming and Web Subscription Music Ever Done for Us?

Nigel,

Excellent post although I'm not sure I agree with you on sound quality.      My issue with streaming is the cost of replacing my CDS3 with a streamer of similar quality and then all the effort involved in ripping and tagging. And I still love FM. 

Regards,

Lindsay

nigelb posted:

web subscription music ever done for us (well me)?

Off the top of my head: Got you comfortable with a "pay to play" model where you never get to keep anything and the music stops when you stop paying.  Another gravy train for the industry.

Streaming, as in streaming 16/44 and above material over a home network, now that's another thing entirely. A huge step forward but the quality will only ever be as good as the source material - same as ever for any format.

Having Tidal has opened up a world of music that I would unlikely to have heard when I was buying CDs and LPs.

Excellent post [@mention:48872963983698699] : the tipping point for me came with Roon. When I started with it I didn't think the Tidal integration would necessarily interest me but as so eloquently outline above it has become an integral part of my listening,  purchasing and discovering of music. 

For me I haven't quite got to purchasing "files ", I either rent through Tidal or buy on CD. 

I'm listening to much more music but primarily my purchases are by clicking "add to my library " from Tidal in Roon. 

.sjb

Harry posted:

nigelb posted:

web subscription music ever done for us (well me)?

Off the top of my head: Got you comfortable with a "pay to play" model where you never get to keep anything and the music stops when you stop paying.  Another gravy train for the industry.

Streaming, as in streaming 16/44 and above material over a home network, now that's another thing entirely. A huge step forward but the quality will only ever be as good as the source material - same as ever for any format.

I mainly use Tidal for discovery and will usually then buy my favourite discoveries. These purchases are a mixture of CDs (which I then rip) and hires downloads. I agree that streaming rips and hires files over a home network produces better quality which is why I would always purchase the best finds. But full fat Tidal ain't bad these days. Gravy Trains will ultimately fail to run if there is no demand, no matter how misguided you feel that demand is.

I would only ever be comfortable listening to my favourite music via the best source (I have) which is streaming over my home network. But I have discovered most of that material using music websites, iRadio and Tidal. So I still maintain streaming and web music subscription services gives you the best of both worlds, and these two worlds complement each other perfectly IMHO.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Nigel,

Excellent post although I'm not sure I agree with you on sound quality.      My issue with streaming is the cost of replacing my CDS3 with a streamer of similar quality and then all the effort involved in ripping and tagging. And I still love FM. 

Regards,

Lindsay

Hi Lindsay,

Yes I get what you say, particularly the cost of moving to streaming. There is also the initial faff of setting up an ethernet wired home network when we have bought our new streamer (and server). IMO dealers are not doing enough to help us poor technophobes to install and optimise our home networks for music streaming. However they will offer some guidance and specify the kit you need (which isn't much and freely available). I managed it (with some help from my dealer and reading the Streaming Audio forum on here) and I am far from technically competent. Personally I have never had any issues with ripping and tagging because I have always used a UnitiServe for these functions. It rips a CD in a couple of minutes and takes care of all tagging anomalies for you.

One thing streaming will never give you of course is FM!

Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed the sheer magic that home streaming would bring.

Discovery has never been an issue for me.  Friends, acquaintances, dealers - in conversation or at events, borrowing things from people, radio TV and more latterly things like Google and Youtube. I've never paid a premium to sample something I'd never heard. That's one model which can stay firmly away from sunlight, thank you very much, unless it happens off the back of admission to a concert and liking what I hear played. That used to happen a lot.

I still mainly buy CDs but use deezer to audition music before I buy a well reviewed album. I use a u serve through ndac so use the n serve app to access my music for serious listening. Occasionally I think of moving to a full streaming system. However, what concerns me is when physical music has gone and the only way to get new material is streaming, what if artists start doing exclusivity deals. Ultimately our choice will be limited by which services we subscribe to. 

Take Premier league football as an example. Once I just had sky, now I need BT sport as well.If Ed Sheeran signed for Spotify and I subscribed to tidal what do I do?

I must be the only idiot then who disabled Tidal and Spotify on his 4 NAIM streamers  

Mind you - having a central server, with all the music available at fingertips is a wonderful solution. Funnily enough I buy a lot of music in physical formats - LPs (mainly old ones in Near Mint condition) or CDs (if I cannot find it as a download).

I didn't know you could disable it. On the NDS it is possible to hide the icons which is nice. Not on the MuSo though, which results in a cluttered screen with partial functionality.

Harry posted :

" nigelb posted:
web subscription music ever done for us (well me)?

Off the top of my head: Got you comfortable with a "pay to play" model where you never get to keep anything and the music stops when you stop paying. Another gravy train for the industry."

I actually have few qualms with a pay to play model as such. It's often struck me that I paid the same amount of cash for (e.g.) The Beatles' Abbey Road - that I must have played and hugely enjoyed hundreds of times - as I paid for all those 80's pop albums like Level 42 at I played once, hated straight away and never played again. Is that remuneration model fair to the respective artists involved ? Personally, I'd be happy to have paid The Fabs 50+ Quid and ongoing for the pleasure that their genius on that album has given and continues to give me. Conversely, I feel ripped by somebody regarding the Level 42...!

The way I now sample, access and pay for music has changed and pay to play is now inextricably linked with traditional pay to own for me. Bizarrely, with the recent benefit of pay to play, I have bought far more through the pay to own channel in the last couple of years. This is because pay to play has allowed me instant access to far more new (to me) material than ever. Consequently the best stuff I sample via pay to play (which is much more these days) I simply go on to pay to own due to the superior SQ of streaming via my home network. Indeed I still have a pile of newly purchased CDs waiting to be ripped. These CDs mostly comprise of new (to me) material but also include some old favourites that have been lost from my collection along the way.

As a consequence then this new (and often maligned) model of pay to play has resulted in me 'investing' far more in the traditional channel of pay to own music, which supposedly pays more to the artists (although I am not too sure on that as the new models rollout). If artists do indeed get more form pay to own sales (others will be better placed to confirm this), then this customer has put more in their pockets solely due to the advent of pay to play. Weird but true in my case.  Of course I am probably not a typical music consumer and I am sure the youngsters rely more on pay to play. But at least I can sleep soundly knowing I have contributed more to the artists' coffers as a direct result of pay to play. I also believe that talented but lesser known artists can get a 'louder share of voice', and hence a better chance of financial success due to online marketing possibilities and online channels to market. Smaller marketing budgets go further online if you are smart IMHO and that has to be good in bringing struggling new talent to the fore. 

Harry posted:

I didn't know you could disable it. On the NDS it is possible to hide the icons which is nice. Not on the MuSo though, which results in a cluttered screen with partial functionality.

On the ND platform and the previous Uniti, Tidal and Spotify have the same status as 'inputs' - digital, iRadio, etc..So can be disabled and effectively disappear from the Naim app.

kevin J Carden posted:

I paid for all those 80's pop albums like Level 42 at I played once, hated straight away and never played again. 

 

 

Oh yeah. I bet we've all got a few like that

I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in online subscription streaming services, and I don't use any. To me the only purpose of any online streaming would be to hear if I like a piece of music I might have heard of, but not heard, in which event  mp3 samples, U-tube, Spotify etc is all that is needed. I buy music because I want to hear it, again and again, so I am only interested in sources where I can buy, either a physical CD I can rip, or a file to download.

But streaming of music files from my own store is quite another matter, and surpasses all other media: WIth the possible exception only of pristine analogue-recorded albums on top-flight turntable etc including meticulous cleaning etc),  the sound quality can be better than LP, without its compression, surface noise etc.  As for CD, inherently streaming can be at least as good as good CD, with no misreading and associated error-correction algorithms at play, and higher resolutions also available. Add to that no styli to wear out,, no mechanical CD mechanisms to go out of alignment, no bulky storage requirements, selection from my seat - what is there not to like?

As a Teenager I would travel from Brighton up to London to buy the latest releases that I wanted a round trip of over 100 miles and to listen to the latest music on David Rodigan's Capital Radio show we would have to go up onto the top of Brighton carrying a radio on the 4 mile, 2 Bus journey.   Ownership of that music then had a real sense of pride, some of the mixtape's I made I still own today.  Fast forward and now I can access any music anytime and I have listened to lots and lots of new types of music since I have had my Tidal Subscription stuff I would never have listened to and so my musical horizons have broadened no end and like NigelB so has my music collection.

I'm woth Nigelb on this. HQ online streaming service for discovery, sampling recommendations and for background listening. Buy the stuff I really like and store locally to stream at the best sound quality (without the horrible watermarking that online services have).

Would I ever stop buying music and rely on an online service? Not as it stands for 2 reasons - the SQ even with Tidal Hifi isn't there yet and once a streaming service goes out of business (or your internet goes down), you have no music. I suspect, when Spotify goes to CD quality we'll lose either qobuz or Tidal.

I would add into the discovery side of streaming, Internet radio. Particularly 6Music, Soma channels and the rather wonderful Radio Paradise (to which I also subscribe a modest regular payment).

"What Has Music Streaming and Web Subscription Music Ever Done for Us?"

First off, I have to ask who are the "Us" in the topic heading?  Are you talking about Naim Owners / Audiophiles, or the wider music buying / listening public?  Well I'm going to address the latter.

I suspect (but this is a guess) this topic may have been prompted by this weeks charts - 9 out of the top 10 are tracks from Ed Sheeran and all 16 tracks from Ed Sheeran's new album are in the top 20 (I think I have that right). This is down to streaming and the effect of streams on the charts.

I've read comments (in music related news rather than HiFi forums) bemoaning the dominance and how streaming is killing diversity.  But I would say "No".

In the past, a young music lover would have the funds to buy perhaps 2 albums (or 6-8 singles) a month. So if a big popular artist like Ed Sheeran came along; that meant his album plus one other.  Now for £10-20 a month - the cost of 2 albums; they can listen to Ed Sheeran, but also Laura Marling ... and Holly Macve ... and Nadia Reed ... and Spectres ... and ... well you get the idea.

So perhaps many of those albums won't be listened to again after 6 months; but the cream and the favoured albums will.

Different strokes for different folks. My anecdotal observations down the years suggest that most lovers of music don’t collect it and that those who do take it rather seriously. Taste may change but it can be circular. I drop things, only to return to them, sometimes decades later. Of course, we all make mistakes.  And not just on purchases. Streaming something which gets tried once and rejected is still a waste of money, albeit a lesser one. Or maybe not, since you don't have something to sell on.

Using the model above, calculating on the basis of two albums per month, in the fifty years that I have been collecting music, mistakes included, I would have collected 1200 albums.  As opposed to nothing. An extreme extrapolation granted. But technically true. What do you actually  pay for on a subscription? Permission to listen to somebody’s music collection.  What do you get to keep? Memories.  

Fine if you want to. One person’s discovery method is another’s waste of money.

I find all this interesting albeit the polarized "rent vs own" argument / debate leaves me both puzzled and cold... the "collection" vs "listening" comment above resonates a little better with me. In the rambling spirit of some corners of the forum, I can share the following...

Lots of pay-while-using (/ enjoying) models exist, with a full spectrum of price points. I'm back to being an active public library patron now that I have hassle free access via my iPad and online browsing, requesting, borrowing, and returning. It amazes me that I stopped going to the physical library, but I did... many years ago, in fact, and now I'm back. I still buy the odd book and enjoy that too. But I pass them along much more quickly than before, with nary a bookshelf in sight in my home nowadays. What am I collecting? Memories and experiences and pleasures, yes... I also buy a lot of magazines, but keep virtually zero; it's a price I'm happy to pay for a couple of hours especially on planes or in foreign hotels where the real value is the relaxing down time, not merely the content and certainly not in the physical possession.

Same for television and movies at home. I have a cable tv channel package again, after a few years of cord-cutting and relying on over-the-air service for Saturday night hockey. I have Internet and Netflix too.  I could live without this stuff of course, and consider doing so occasionally, but it's there and I enjoy it so I am ok to keep it going. But I don't have any permanent possession at the end of each month. The DVD and BluRay discs I used to buy are in boxes downstairs, the digital versions that sometimes accompany them are on my Mac in iTunes ... but I buy very few titles these days. My enjoyment is not lessened by this choice; the convenience is arguably enhanced, even though some titles are not permanently on offer. I don't have a DVD player in the living room any more...

I view the commercial internet music streaming services the same way. My cd collection never really replaced every vinyl album I owned, although the must-haves are there. I no longer listen to vinyl, haven't done so for way more than twenty years. My cd ripping project is not fully complete either, I slowed down and came to a halt - a hiatus let's say - after a couple / few hundred were available on the NAS. I don't play cds any longer either - although I can go find one and rip it if it comes to mind of course. I don't have a CD player in the living room any longer either.  

The discovery of new music is huge fun, and I benefited greatly from Radio Paradise from day one owning a UnitiQute. Almost every new artist I purchased in the final three or four years of buying cds was heard on RP. I still like the station - it's playing right now. I always felt that "old people" became old around the point where they stopped listening to new stuff, not when they hit a certain age. Now I've hit a much larger "certain age", but believe the same thing and cling to bits of youthfulness without any sense of hypocrisy haha.

Tidal fills both a forward and backward looking role for me, with access to old things I wanted in my youth but never managed to find or buy on vinyl (Rainbow in Curved Air or In The Skies come immediately to mind, but there many are others) or that I never bought on cd or, most particularly, that I never heard about or discovered. Same for new artists or albums - an entire record shop to explore right in my own living room (and car), improving the utility and creating joy from threads such as "What are you listening to right now" and magazine / online reviews beyond all imagining. Yes, I spend the equivalent of one or two purchases a month for this access, and no I have nothing of permanence afterward. But I chose to stop buying cds as a test and have not been driven to acquire anything for a couple or three years now, even though I listen to music far more now than, say, five or ten years ago. More absolute quantity in terms of hours, more relative quantity in terms of new-to-me titles and artists and genres. 

I've said before that, among this company, I feelvery lucky to have such high quality sound and such variety of choice. I am not unable to enjoy music due to poor quality very often in my home, which I suppose is a blessing relative to others who struggle to find a sound that is in their head but not their living room. It hasn't stopped me from enjoying my life long favourites to have access to a whole new world of content. And,as someone else mentioned, I don't care if I listen to something once or twice, enjoy it more or less, but never feel a need to go back again. Like a magazine, it was worth it while it lasted even if it doesn't sit forever in a box in my basement...and the number of things I can try for the cost of the one or two I could purchase instead amazes me. 

I like the CD quality streams from Tidal very much. I enjoyed the more personalized recommendations based on my listening habits at Spotify (although I cancelled my subscription after about a year of non-use) - so CD streaming from Spotify would lure me back in a heartbeat. The decision to keep or cancel Tidal at that future point would take me another few months and tens of dollars, I know...

Rambling over. I for one am glad for choices. Ok to go for what appeals to us each. But I don't buy the perspective that I'm paying a monthly fee and not receiving value in return. For me I get value enough. For others, different things take priority: whether it is improved sound from alternative source materials (cd, ripped or not, or hi res downloads) or whether it is the visceral comfort of physical ownership (in hard or soft copy)... and the make a different choice that is right for them. 

Sorry this ends without a point. Please accept as a contribution to the thinking, more than a marshalled argument in the debate. 

Regards alan

alan33 posted:

 

I for one am glad for choices.

I think, if nothing else, this is the one thing we should be grateful for and guard jealously. No choice isn't a nice place.

Young folks who don't have a large music collection are facing different options. Whether they buy costly hardware + CD's and downloads or they simply subscribe to Tidal, Qobuz, etc.. and have immediate access to the music they want. 

IMHO, servers and streamers will not disappear in the near future but are facing the threat of extinction in the long term.

Some very valid points made here. I used Tidal for the initial trial period and for a short while thereafter, but found I wasn't really using it enough to justify it, yet at the same time felt it meant I wasn't playing the records and CDs I'd already purchased (and I have quite a large collection). There were also periodic dropouts which could be quite irritating. On balance (today at least) I favour the pay to own model, but I may go back to Tidal if the reliability improves.

Otherwise, and notwithstanding the difficult firmware update process, the NDS remains a reliable source, at least for CDs streamed over my home network. I just wish the process by which downloaded hires files were transferred to the server was more reliable and repeatable - I have bought a few hires files which just don't appear on the iPad despite being quite visible in the correct folder on Windows Explorer. I then end up buying the CD or vinyl record as well!

Eloise posted:

"What Has Music Streaming and Web Subscription Music Ever Done for Us?"

First off, I have to ask who are the "Us" in the topic heading?  Are you talking about Naim Owners / Audiophiles, or the wider music buying / listening public?  Well I'm going to address the latter.

I suspect (but this is a guess) this topic may have been prompted by this weeks charts - 9 out of the top 10 are tracks from Ed Sheeran and all 16 tracks from Ed Sheeran's new album are in the top 20 (I think I have that right). This is down to streaming and the effect of streams on the charts.

I've read comments (in music related news rather than HiFi forums) bemoaning the dominance and how streaming is killing diversity.  But I would say "No".

In the past, a young music lover would have the funds to buy perhaps 2 albums (or 6-8 singles) a month. So if a big popular artist like Ed Sheeran came along; that meant his album plus one other.  Now for £10-20 a month - the cost of 2 albums; they can listen to Ed Sheeran, but also Laura Marling ... and Holly Macve ... and Nadia Reed ... and Spectres ... and ... well you get the idea.

So perhaps many of those albums won't be listened to again after 6 months; but the cream and the favoured albums will.

Eloise, the reference to 'Us' in the title was my rather infantile attempt at humour by referencing the Monty Python sketch, 'What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us' which allowed me the equally infantile concluding and final sentence in my post. I guess I need to work on my writing.

Of course my post can only be about my personal experiences of the benefits to me of both the pay to own (ripped CDs and hires downloads) and pay to play (subscription) models for accessing music.

I read with interest the rest of your post.

nigelb posted:

If artists do indeed get more form pay to own sales (others will be better placed to confirm this), then this customer has put more in their pockets solely due to the advent of pay to play.

They do.  Spotify etc pay virtually nothing to the majority of artists, albeit that big artists with millions of streams can make sizeable amounts of money.

Of course, the rest of your post shows that it's not a clear cut issue whether this is a good or a bad thing from artists' point of view, as it may generate sales which otherwise wouldn't have happened.  That said, while I approach it in a similar way to you (i.e. stream to audition, buy to keep), I suspect that the majority of younger people stick to streaming, so the extra purchase effect is probably less significant than it might feel to the likes of us.