• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Amazon launches lossless high-res music service!

audimus

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
458
Likes
462
Asking people to calm down is a form of insult, you know? ;)

I will take this as a case of mutually mistaken insults on either side and raise a virtual beer to good music and audio.

No, it is not sensitivity to CDs at all or any identity connected to it. That would be missing the point. And you are still missing the point talking about 8 tracks. So, just stop and listen before keeping throwing those things around.

It is more of an ongoing debate elsewhere as well between owning vs renting content that will have significant impact on how content will be available in the future. So educating people on the value of and need for owning vs renting when they don’t see the former is a necessary thing. Harping on possible theft as a reason to subscribe than own (CD being one form of it) seemed silly for reasons I stated. You took it as an insult and escalated it. Happens in forums.

Most people, I know of at least, have already ripped CDs to keep it digitized and the physical CDs are a good backup form. Keeping a backup in cloud while paying for the storage isn’t financially smart either. So theft is not even an issue.

I would suspect that in this particular group which spends probably several thousands of dollars on their audio chain and so likely to be seriously interested in music beyond “casual listening of the next one on the charts while doing Instagram and Facebook”, would likely own a good library of music that has withstood test of time and they would continue to be selective in their choices. For this, owning makes a lot more fiscal sense than subscribing. That kind of music does not get produced every month. So you are paying continuously for the same content most of the time.

People vested in the streaming industry might feel otherwise but while they serve a purpose for some types of listening, they contribute to escalating costs of consuming music to feed their business models and not because the musicians necessarily see the benefit of it. If there is no pushback to the view that no one needs to buy/own content, then that is the model the industry will evolve to. That is a bad thing.
 

Burning Sounds

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 22, 2016
Messages
523
Likes
883
Location
Co. Durham, UK
Maybe it's just my lack of faith in people's ability to pay attention to details but I have a feeling that with "loudness normalization" name being so similar to "loudness control" (or compensation), many people will read in this article about "boosting lows and highs" or "compensating DSP filters" and will wrongly assume that this is what streaming services are doing.

I hope I'm wrong.

You are not wrong, you are right.

I thought the same thing myself - loudness control and loudness normalization are quite different. Using the word "loudness" makes it misleading. JRiver calls it Volume Leveling which seems more appropriate.

What we don't know is what method Amazon is using to normalize volume.

JRiver, for example uses the EBU R128 standard.
 

doctorjuggles

Active Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2019
Messages
152
Likes
182
Location
London, UK
If I had known this was a touchy subject I would have chosen my words more carefully
Haha. I don’t think it’s particularly touchy, most people are unlikely to be offended, I was just trying to offer some reasons - many have been burned in the past and view streaming as just as fleeting and ethereal as these past fads (rightly or wrongly)

All good as far as I’m concerned ;)
 

day7a1

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
70
Likes
53
Location
United States
Harping on possible theft as a reason to subscribe than own (CD being one form of it) seemed silly for reasons I stated.
Ah. Here's the misunderstanding.

It was an actual theft and the story was meant as a personal sob story of why I don't own any music. You appeared to insult me completely out of the blue about how I was whining about my predicament.

Seemed a bit much. But if you didn't catch the actual theft part, I can certainly see your train of thought. It wasn't fear mongering, it actually happened to me and probably won't happen to anyone else, at least not today. It happened all the time back then though. I never once seriously thought potential theft to be a serious case against owning CDs. That would be silly, lol.

I certainly see the the problems with streaming, but it's better than stealing which was quite common. From the consumer standpoint I don't get digital downloads, but just because I don't understand why people do things doesn't mean that I think it bad, it just means I don't understand it.
 

audimus

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
458
Likes
462
How one views Owing vs Renting depends on how and why one consumes music.

If at one extreme, like for some people, music is passing like video, listening once or twice before moving on to the next one, then streaming makes sense because it is cheaper than to keep buying music for that mode. They would not understand why one would want to buy music.

If at the other extreme, like for some people, not all music is music and they like to keep listening to selective works that move them and not anything that comes down the pipe and add slowly to their listening list. Since music they like enough to listen again and again does not come frequently, paying continuously to keep listening to their interests makes no sense at all.

In reality, people fall somewhere in the spectrum anywhere between the two extremes and unfortunately for the second group, a lot more fall closer to the first group than the second and so if their view dominated, industry would start catering to only that mode.

Both models (own and rent) co-existing is a good thing and people being aware of both sides is necessary for that to be so.
 
Last edited:

day7a1

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
70
Likes
53
Location
United States
paying continuously to keep listening to their interests makes no sense at all.
I'm not sure this is true. I mean, from the consumer's standpoint I can see how this is common sense, but while I have no strong views either way on this topic for music, my view of the subscription model for video games has changed dramatically and I think the reason is relevant here.

There are a lot of good games that came out and people love, but since you only buy them once there is no follow on support of the developer. If it's niche (heck, even if it's not niche) once the new shiny comes out 80% of the people move on and it's not really worth it for the developer to fix bugs or add things. For some games there is a player-based community that does this, but that is normally done for free. Other games just rot.

Subscription models, on the other hand, allow the developer to constantly improve the game. Some people play that game and only that game and others play and leave and come back on occasion, but the developer is constantly making money and able to put out more content or even work on other games because of that steady income stream.

I know it's NOT (lol, caught myself missing a key word) exactly the same, but while the "buyers" would actually end up paying more for their small collection in the long run, that money is focused on the artists that they listen to, if I understand the business model right (and keeping in mind that I'm quite aware of the current, actual problems with the streaming model and payments, I'm speaking ideally here) each play will go to the artist which may be in excess of what simply buying it would give BUT would be proportional to the amount of plays the artist.

In other words, while it may make immediate financial sense for a buyer of an artist, they're essentially getting away "cheap" by not paying the full value for the intellectual property. The potential consequence of that is less studio time, less tour dates, etc. It's hard to imagine a fan not wanting to pay the full value of the music, which is different than the price in the traditional model. Price of a download can't be changed depending on who you're selling it to in order to better match demand.

Like I said, I haven't put a lot of thought into this vis a vis the music industry, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount the subscription model if I really liked only a few, select artists. It feels like better resource allocation for people who really like the artist to pay more than people who will just move on.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
I'm not sure this is true. I mean, from the consumer's standpoint I can see how this is common sense, but while I have no strong views either way on this topic for music, my view of the subscription model for video games has changed dramatically and I think the reason is relevant here.

There are a lot of good games that came out and people love, but since you only buy them once there is no follow on support of the developer. If it's niche (heck, even if it's not niche) once the new shiny comes out 80% of the people move on and it's not really worth it for the developer to fix bugs or add things. For some games there is a player-based community that does this, but that is normally done for free. Other games just rot.

Subscription models, on the other hand, allow the developer to constantly improve the game. Some people play that game and only that game and others play and leave and come back on occasion, but the developer is constantly making money and able to put out more content or even work on other games because of that steady income stream.

I know it's NOT (lol, caught myself missing a key word) exactly the same, but while the "buyers" would actually end up paying more for their small collection in the long run, that money is focused on the artists that they listen to, if I understand the business model right (and keeping in mind that I'm quite aware of the current, actual problems with the streaming model and payments, I'm speaking ideally here) each play will go to the artist which may be in excess of what simply buying it would give BUT would be proportional to the amount of plays the artist.

In other words, while it may make immediate financial sense for a buyer of an artist, they're essentially getting away "cheap" by not paying the full value for the intellectual property. The potential consequence of that is less studio time, less tour dates, etc. It's hard to imagine a fan not wanting to pay the full value of the music, which is different than the price in the traditional model. Price of a download can't be changed depending on who you're selling it to in order to better match demand.

Like I said, I haven't put a lot of thought into this vis a vis the music industry, but I wouldn't be so quick to discount the subscription model if I really liked only a few, select artists. It feels like better resource allocation for people who really like the artist to pay more than people who will just move on.
I'm not quite following your logic here, but my optimistic view is that long term the music industry will learn that away from the top 40 total revenue will be higher for music written, played, recorded and mastered to be listened to repeatedly. In the past when CD was king if I bought an album and I listened to it once or 100 times the revenue was the same, now if I don't even get through the first play and never come back it generates almost nothing, but if I play it over and over for years the money will keep coming in. A lot has to happen to the revenue streams and payouts for this to really work, and it will take music execs time to grasp it as well, hence why this is probably optimistic for a while at least.
 

audimus

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
458
Likes
462
Comparing games (or in general software) to music is absolutely the wrong equivalence. It is based on ignorance of one or the other industry to make that equivalence. In fact, using this equivalence the other way is exactly why Apple screwed over so many developers. Buy once and never have to buy again which was fine for their music creators but not for the software app developers. So, you land up with throwaway/abandoned apps, sneaky in app sales, etc.

Music only gets created once. It is a story like a book. Creators don’t have to provide support, update it, improve with new features, fix bugs, update everytime the OS changes APIs, etc. This is why a one time sale has always made sense just like a book. Software is totally different in the way it is created and has to be maintained and updated and often just because the platform changed under them. Imagine if music creators had to re-record their song or at least re-master it every time a new iOS version came along! Then pay per play makes sense.

Pay per play would not work in software either if it was created like music. Imagine if you had to keep paying for a game even though the developer provides zero additional value for keeping paying. Subscription models work in software only if it is to ensure continuous updates and bug fixes and/or a service like connecting multiple players or providing cloud storage, etc.

Music creators don’t provide any of that. The only reason for a subscription service for a streaming service is the cost of maintaining that streaming infrastructure not because of what the artist has to do. While, the streaming industry may obfuscate this by saying artists now get more and as long as people keep playing, this is absolutely misleading and false. What it does is a more complex version of 50/50 lotto used by clubs to raise money. The pooled money gets given to a few and the rest don’t make any money. Most of it goes to the middleman for dubious value in solving a problem that has other cheaper solutions (or at least value to only part of the subscriber base).

I know a few musicians amateur and professional. They don’t expect to get pay per play royalties from consumers nor do they think it is fair for the consumer. They just want to be given a fair share for providing that music to a consumer and more money when more consumers enjoy that music. The pricing models would not support reasonable pay per play for each one even if they wanted it unless most of them made no money and the pool went to a few as it happens now with streaming services. Their gripe has always been with the middlemen who keep screwing them over and over again unless you get to be a Taylor Swift or Beiber.

If you want a subscription model that benefits the musician than the middleman, then have subscriptions to a musician that you like where you will keep getting the latest music created or they can even keep putting out singles than have to wait for an album. The middlemen can get a cut out of it for streaming but the musicians and consumers have the benefits and choice. Change the subscription when you like. This is more like a software subscription.
 

day7a1

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
70
Likes
53
Location
United States
I'm not quite following your logic here, but my optimistic view is that long term the music industry will learn that away from the top 40 total revenue will be higher for music written, played, recorded and mastered to be listened to repeatedly. In the past when CD was king if I bought an album and I listened to it once or 100 times the revenue was the same, now if I don't even get through the first play and never come back it generates almost nothing, but if I play it over and over for years the money will keep coming in. A lot has to happen to the revenue streams and payouts for this to really work, and it will take music execs time to grasp it as well, hence why this is probably optimistic for a while at least.

You say you don't follow but you expressed my point better than I did. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice this.
 

day7a1

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
70
Likes
53
Location
United States
If you want a subscription model that benefits the musician than the middleman, then have subscriptions to a musician that you like where you will keep getting the latest music created or they can even keep putting out singles than have to wait for an album.
So you agree but missed where I said:
(and keeping in mind that I'm quite aware of the current, actual problems with the streaming model and payments, I'm speaking ideally here)

??
 

AudioSceptic

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
2,693
Likes
2,535
Location
Northampton, UK
It would be more a matter of figuring out what they are preferring about it, not indicating that measurements are wrong.

People often prefer the 2H distortion common to 'tube' equipment. Does that mean it isn't distortion? Of course not. It also doesn't mean they 'shouldn't' prefer it. I actually enjoy it sometimes myself. But I also like being able to make the choice to turn the preferred distortion profile of the moment off, and know that I am back to a signal that has a high degree of fidelity to the original.

Is there some unknown human organ that somehow is involved in the hearing process that will change everything? I don't know...i wouldn't be that surprised...but I would be surprised if we still aren't able to measure what we can hear.

Most who claim the differences haven't set up a process that can be trusted by themselves or anyone else.
Apparently some tests have found than some people actually prefer MP3, and not at high bit-rates. They like one of the more obvious defects, an extra "sizzle" on cymbals, etc.
 

AudioSceptic

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Messages
2,693
Likes
2,535
Location
Northampton, UK
I know. I'm just baffled how a hi-res, or even CD-quality for that matter, streaming service can go live without a quality playback system on a PC. Plus, I don't think JRMC WDM is truly bit-accurate as it is just a virtual driver that still has to work within the Windows driver model and when used in shared mode it has to mix, etc. They probably have some smart tricks in it which is probably very close to being bit-accurate, but this is not a true solution. May not matter in the end, but not everyone has a JRMC license.
Won't lots of people sign up, "knowing" they are getting better quality, even if they can't hear it?
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
Won't lots of people sign up, "knowing" they are getting better quality, even if they can't hear it?
Which is a shocking turn around for so much hifi where so many people buy things thinking they are getting better quality, and if they are lucky it's no worse than the cheap option, at least in this case it is actually better, even if they may not be able to hear the difference.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
Has anyone seen any indication if payments to artist will change?
 

rmo

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2018
Messages
67
Likes
52
The problem with Tidal is that it may not be there tomorrow. Amazon will be.
This is absolutely true . If Roon integrated Amazon they will also completely solidify their business model for good. Amazon HD is not going to close. Tidal, per reports has had trouble paying the music companies.

The new Amazon HD service could be very good news or very bad news for Roon. If they cant work something out with Amazon they face the possibility of having no music services on their platform. Roon is appealing because of the streaming integration with your library .
 

GrimSurfer

Major Contributor
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
1,238
Likes
1,484
Maybe it's just my lack of faith in people's ability to pay attention to details but I have a feeling that with "loudness normalization" name being so similar to "loudness control" (or compensation), many people will read in this article about "boosting lows and highs" or "compensating DSP filters" and will wrongly assume that this is what streaming services are doing.

I hope I'm wrong.

All good points. Some loudness normalization (and mastering techniques) do work that way. Others (https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3342.pdf) don't, but have tricks of their own to avoid having very loud and very soft passages skew loudness.
 

rmo

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2018
Messages
67
Likes
52
The icing on the cake would be if Amazon starts selling Ultra HD albums. HD tracks with their high prices may be shaking in their boots as we speak.
 

GrimSurfer

Major Contributor
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
1,238
Likes
1,484
Comparing games (or in general software) to music is absolutely the wrong equivalence. It is based on ignorance of one or the other industry to make that equivalence. In fact, using this equivalence the other way is exactly why Apple screwed over so many developers. Buy once and never have to buy again which was fine for their music creators but not for the software app developers. So, you land up with throwaway/abandoned apps, sneaky in app sales, etc.

Music only gets created once. It is a story like a book. Creators don’t have to provide support, update it, improve with new features, fix bugs, update everytime the OS changes APIs, etc. This is why a one time sale has always made sense just like a book. Software is totally different in the way it is created and has to be maintained and updated and often just because the platform changed under them. Imagine if music creators had to re-record their song or at least re-master it every time a new iOS version came along! Then pay per play makes sense.

Pay per play would not work in software either if it was created like music. Imagine if you had to keep paying for a game even though the developer provides zero additional value for keeping paying. Subscription models work in software only if it is to ensure continuous updates and bug fixes and/or a service like connecting multiple players or providing cloud storage, etc.

Music creators don’t provide any of that. The only reason for a subscription service for a streaming service is the cost of maintaining that streaming infrastructure not because of what the artist has to do. While, the streaming industry may obfuscate this by saying artists now get more and as long as people keep playing, this is absolutely misleading and false. What it does is a more complex version of 50/50 lotto used by clubs to raise money. The pooled money gets given to a few and the rest don’t make any money. Most of it goes to the middleman for dubious value in solving a problem that has other cheaper solutions (or at least value to only part of the subscriber base).

I know a few musicians amateur and professional. They don’t expect to get pay per play royalties from consumers nor do they think it is fair for the consumer. They just want to be given a fair share for providing that music to a consumer and more money when more consumers enjoy that music. The pricing models would not support reasonable pay per play for each one even if they wanted it unless most of them made no money and the pool went to a few as it happens now with streaming services. Their gripe has always been with the middlemen who keep screwing them over and over again unless you get to be a Taylor Swift or Beiber.

If you want a subscription model that benefits the musician than the middleman, then have subscriptions to a musician that you like where you will keep getting the latest music created or they can even keep putting out singles than have to wait for an album. The middlemen can get a cut out of it for streaming but the musicians and consumers have the benefits and choice. Change the subscription when you like. This is more like a software subscription.

Thanks for this post, @audimus, and your earlier contributions. You've raised some excellent points.
 
Top Bottom