Audio content delivery

[andreasmaaan]

Amir Quality style or drivethrough McDonald’s?

Such a test would take good equipment and some skill, I guess?

Actually not really IMHO. There’d be no need for anything to go through DA or AD conversion, it could all the done in software.

I’d be happy to see if I can do comparisons with any snippets of audio any Tidal subscribers out there could send me. I’m not sure, but this would at least arguably come under a fair use exception to copyright infringement (“use of copyrighted material to provide analysis and criticism of published works”). The IP legality would be at least a little uncertain, however, plus I’m not sure what additional restrictions Tidal might place contractually on subscribers...

 

[svart-hvitt]

Actually not really IMHO. There’d be no need for anything to go through DA or AD conversion, it could all the done in software.

I’d be happy to see if I can do comparisons with any snippets of audio any Tidal subscribers out there could send me. I’m not sure, but this would at least arguably come under a fair use exception to copyright infringement (“use of copyrighted material to provide analysis and criticism of published works”). The IP legality would be at least a little uncertain, however, plus I’m not sure what additional restrictions Tidal might place contractually on subscribers...

Could you do an «anonymous» test? Don’t need to tell which track etc. Of course, diminishes value for skeptics, but a start?

 

[andreasmaaan]

PS apologies to @Cosmik for unintentionally hijacking the thread.. perhaps we could move this across to Watermarking: what do we know?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

SqueezeBox Touch



S

Ah. I used to have one of those.

 

[Cosmik]

...the cost of music distribution in the modern world is effectively zero. Or so close it makes no difference. Because digital music can be copied and shared in a way that has so little cost it is difficult to calculate. Due to simple supply and demand when cost is zero price will be near zero even with very high demand.

This presents a problem if you wish to be a professional musician. Where is your income stream if the price of your music is close to zero.

Could I not make exactly the same argument for software i.e. that the cost of copying, distribution, sharing is close to zero, therefore for software creators "the price of their software is close to zero". Why, then, do software creators not have the same problem making a living as musicians?

 

[sergeauckland]

Could I not make exactly the same argument for software i.e. that the cost of copying, distribution, sharing is close to zero, therefore for software creators "the price of their software is close to zero". Why, then, do software creators not have the same problem making a living as musicians?

My guess is that they do too. I would expect that just as most musicians have a day job, and relatively few can make a living as full time musicians, that those that write apps that sell for £0.99, or even £2.99 do it as a paying hobby, and their income is from elsewhere, possibly as a software engineer for a large company, but selling apps isn't their sole income source.

S

 

[andreasmaaan]

Software is normally harder to pirate than a mere copy/paste. Straightforward perhaps for an experienced user, but beyond the abilities of many everyday users.

Also, often what is paid for is not just the software itself, but support and updates.

And finally, a large part of the market is made up of business customers who are by nature less “hacky” than end-users and who will willingly pay for the security, support, etc provided by official licences.

 

[Cosmik]

Software is normally harder to pirate than a mere copy/paste. Straightforward perhaps for an experienced user, but beyond the abilities of many everyday users.

But why are we even in the position where music can be just copied and pasted? I think it's just a legacy of how audio formats have changed over the years. People have been resistant to the idea of DRM, because they wanted to be able to copy and paste files between their devices.

But now we have streaming, the cloud and constant internet we don't need to even be aware of files or DRM. On the rare occasion where there isn't WiFi or 4G, streaming can even be made available offline - all you have to do is to remember to press the 'make available offline' button while you've got WiFi, and you'll at least be able to take a playlist with you. Of course, at those times, you realise just how much you miss being able to listen to *anything* that takes your fancy...

My only worries about future streaming trends are:
(a) I may be denied access to the digital audio stream for active crossover purposes. MQA is a prime candidate for this problem.
(b) Streaming services seem to be moving over to modern 'digital remasters' and deleting the old, superior versions of certain records.

 

[andreasmaaan]

But why are we even in the position where music can be just copied and pasted? I think it's just a legacy of how audio formats have changed over the years. People have been resistant to the idea of DRM, because they wanted to be able to copy and paste files between their devices.

It’s a good question, and I’m not sure of the answer.

My only worries about future streaming trends are:
(a) I may be denied access to the digital audio stream for active crossover purposes. MQA is a prime candidate for this problem.
(b) Streaming services seem to be moving over to modern 'digital remasters' and deleting the old, superior versions of certain records.

Legitimate concerns, and ones I share.

 

[amirm]

My only worries about future streaming trends are:
(a) I may be denied access to the digital audio stream for active crossover purposes. MQA is a prime candidate for this problem.
(b) Streaming services seem to be moving over to modern 'digital remasters' and deleting the old, superior versions of certain records.

The biggest worry I have is that CDs will vanish, and the only form of consumption will be lossy music streamed. This is why I support services like Tidal and (used to) buy high-res downloads.

As audiophiles we cannot be married to CD seeing how it is on a path to be obsoleted leaving us with nothing. We need to support high-fidelity streaming.

 

[Thomas savage]

The biggest worry I have is that CDs will vanish, and the only form of consumption will be lossy music streamed. This is why I support services like Tidal and (used to) buy high-res downloads.

As audiophiles we cannot be married to CD seeing how it is on a path to be obsoleted leaving us with nothing. We need to support high-fidelity streaming.

Good logic .

 

[JJB70]

If a demand exists for something then usually someone will exploit that demand, it's a question of how much money is necessary to make it worth the effort. With high speed Internet I really see no reason not to stream at lossless CD quality, or higher if people want hi-res. AV companies already stream 4k movie and TV content.

 

[sergeauckland]

The biggest worry I have is that CDs will vanish, and the only form of consumption will be lossy music streamed. This is why I support services like Tidal and (used to) buy high-res downloads.

As audiophiles we cannot be married to CD seeing how it is on a path to be obsoleted leaving us with nothing. We need to support high-fidelity streaming.

I'm not worried about CDs vanishing as there are millions of CDs available used, and for the music I play, it's all been done, Beethoven, Miles Davis and Ella Fitzgerald are dead, so whatever they did will still be available.

If there are any new artists I may be interested in, as long as downloads still exist, then I suppose I can get those that way, streaming from the internet is of zero interest except for Radio Paradise and BBC radio.

S

 

[vitalii427]

Darn it...

I think nobody has ever taken a look at streamers; to check output vs CD/hi-res file, watermarks etc. So it would be groundbreaking work.

If you know of anyone done something like this, I’d be all ears.

Here is streaming quality comparison from a guy that has some knowledge in this filed. He tests different versions of the track vs original that he mixed.

 

[tmtomh]

I've got a general question regarding the direction of audio 'content delivery'.

The current situation is that we have files, and we also have streaming. Streaming fits the modern pattern: information in the cloud, available anywhere there is an internet connection. It is inherently controlled by DRM.

But files have a feeling of 'legacy' about them. The idea of the user even being aware of the nature of files and formats is very 1990s. That I have access to the raw digital stream and can implement my own DSP-based crossover can only be a temporary blip.

Whether it's MQA or some other invisible format, does anyone here think that there is any future for visibly file-based music at all? I don't. And therefore I don't think there's a future for non-DRM music. All we will have is pointers to content in the cloud that may, or may not, have restrictions placed on who has access to it and how much our bank accounts will be debited by.

Isn't Apple's iTune Match an example of the way this will happen? If I understand it, in order to access your music across all your devices, anywhere, Apple merely points to its own repository of music - and will even substitute one common version of a track for the different versions the subscribers may have uploaded. And over time, the original files will get lost as hardware devices die.

If, because of consumer demand, the special light on the front panel, and unhackable secure hardware advantages for content providers (because it's a chip or equivalent), MQA gets into the position of being the default format instead of '256 Kbps AAC', it could be in a good position to take over the world...

Amir, what do you think?

I agree for the most part with everything you say here. And I think you have summarized two things very well:

1. The direction the mainstream/mass market of music is heading;
2. The aspiration of MQA in particular to capture that market with their "one file, multiple platforms and resolutions" format.

Personally I despair of a streaming-only, DRM'd, cloud-based world of recorded music - I would really hate that, for the reasons already stated by many others in this thread. But I do agree with you that that's the direction where things are headed, and certainly the direction the tech companies, the record labels, and the streaming services all are pushing. Most of the responses disagreeing with you in this thread seem to be confusing the descriptive (what is most likely to be the reality) with the prescriptive (what folks wish would or would not happen). I am one of those folks who wants to own my music, who wants lossless formats and transparency, and who despises MQA - but none of that means you're wrong.

To be clear, I do think the chances of MQA in particular achieving the market penetration they desire, and that you have mentioned, are slim. But more generally, the prevalence of lossy streaming will only increase as time goes on. I would not be surprised if the average quality of the lossy streams improved - I would guess that YouTube and Amazon and anyone else not already using 256k AAC will eventually converge to that, since it's the best quality of the mainstream lossy formats, and it doesn't pose any bandwidth concerns.

 

[vitalii427]

I'm not worried about CDs vanishing as there are millions of CDs available used, and for the music I play, it's all been done, Beethoven, Miles Davis and Ella Fitzgerald are dead, so whatever they did will still be available.

If there are any new artists I may be interested in, as long as downloads still exist, then I suppose I can get those that way, streaming from the internet is of zero interest except for Radio Paradise and BBC radio.

S

+1 Radio Paradise

 

[Hugo9000]

I'm not worried about CDs vanishing as there are millions of CDs available used, and for the music I play, it's all been done, Beethoven, Miles Davis and Ella Fitzgerald are dead, so whatever they did will still be available.

If there are any new artists I may be interested in, as long as downloads still exist, then I suppose I can get those that way, streaming from the internet is of zero interest except for Radio Paradise and BBC radio.

S

Unfortunately, all of Beethoven's own performances were live-streamed*, and are now lost to us.



*acoustic streaming, unlike modern digital streams hahaha!

 

[amirm]

I'm not worried about CDs vanishing as there are millions of CDs available used, and for the music I play, it's all been done, Beethoven, Miles Davis and Ella Fitzgerald are dead, so whatever they did will still be available.

If there are any new artists I may be interested in, as long as downloads still exist, then I suppose I can get those that way, streaming from the internet is of zero interest except for Radio Paradise and BBC radio.

Downloads and even CDs of new music is sometimes difficult to find. Once the decline starts, it will go fast. I personally listen to far more new music than old. That future is quite bleak to me without streaming.

 

[RayDunzl]

Downloads and even CDs of new music is sometimes difficult to find.

Streaming often doesn't have the depth of catalog I seek, so I search out a physical copy.

Example:

https://listen.tidal.com/artist/4114143

Seven albums listed.

Discography (partial, 45 listed here):

• Infinite (Toshiba Express, 1971)
• Monday Blues (RCA, 1975)
• Endless Way (Columbia, 1975)
• Milky Shade (Union, 1976)
• Olive's Step (Better Days, 1977)
• Mermaid Boulevard (Inner City, 1978)
• Tokyo Joe (Denon, 1978)
• Lonesome Cat (Columbia, 1978)
• Kylyn (A&M, 1979)
• Kylyn Live (1979)
• To Chi Ka (Denon, 1980)
• Dogatana (Denon, 1981)
• Ganesia (Polygram, 1990)
• Mobo, Vol. 1 (Gramavision, 1982)
• Mobo, Vol. 2 (Gramavision, 1983)
• Mobo Club (Gramavision, 1983)
• Mobo Splash (Gramavision, 1985)
• Birds of Passage (Elektra, 1987)
• The Spice of Life (Gramavision, 1987)
• The Spice of Life Too (Gramavision, 1988)
• Kilowatt (Gramavision, 1989)
• Romanesque (Polygram, 1990)
• Pandora (Gramavision, 1991)
• O.X.O
• Resonance Vox
• Jigo-Jtoku
• Oyatsu (Universal/Polygram, 1994)
• Oyatsu 2 (Polygram, 1995)
• Talk You All Tight (Columbia, 1995)
• Esprit (1996)
• Dandyism (Decca/IMS, 1998)
• Dear Tokyo (Sony/Columbia, 2001)
• One for All (Gut Bounce, 1999)
• Beyond the Infinite (Universal/Polygram, 2001)
• Guitar Renaissance (WEA/East West, 2003)
• Mo' Bop (2003)
• Mo' Bop II (2004)
• Kaleidoscope (J-Room Jazz, 2004)
• Village in Bubbles (J-Room Jazz, 2004)
• Guitar Renaissance 2 (Warner Music, 2005)
• Guitar Renaissance 3 (Warner Music, 2006)
• Mo' Bop III (2006)
• Nowadays (Warner Music, 2008)
• Guitar Renaissance 4 (WEA, 2011)
• Tricoroll (2012)[6]

I count 55 in the rack.

As I said elsewhere, when I (eventually) find someone I like, I want to go deep.

 

[amirm]

Streaming often doesn't have the depth of catalog I seek, so I search out a physical copy.

And that physical copy is bound to not exist at some point. Without mass market, there will be little production of CDs as compared to today. And the mass market has already voted where they want to go.