Is streaming at CD quality the future?

Not for me.

 

Grandpa fits two of your criteria
Is That You? @jeffmo789

 

Who cares about the future?

The past was better,at least in music it was.

OK officer,I'll go back to the day centre now.

 

One example (of many)...do the services have anything but the recent (LOUD) remasters of the Rolling Stones output?

 

This board is populated mostly by people who care about quality mastering. You'll never get your choice of masterings on Spotify like you do with CDs and LPs. They just use whatever the Big Three music companies make available to them.

Who cares if the stream is CD quality if the source files are indifferently mastered or brickwalled?

 

Google Play Music seems to offer both the 2009 and 2011 masterings of most Stones albums. I checked a couple other bands I associate with frequent remastering like Led Zeppelin, and found similar offerings. I'm actually surprised they do this, as for the majority of customers this adds to clutter and confusion.

 

For most people, no. And I’ll be a little contrarian here and say that I actually prefer a good recording played through Spotify (320 kbps) than a mediocre recording in even hi-res. Streaming from Spotify also responds well to upgrading the bit source feeding the DAC. So for most people, it would make more sense to upgrade their gear before they shell out extra money for full redbook or higher resolution streaming.

 

Anyone seen this French company for streaming?
Qobuz - Unlimited music and downloading in 24-Bit Hi-Res. »
How does it compare to the others?

 

Not necessarily. For streaming, HD video, yes. But for hard copy material, such as DVD, plenty of lossless audio content with video.

 

I use them. I also subscribe to Spotify and Apple Music. I like Qobuz's interface a lot more. Also, if you pay for streaming, you get a discount on hires purchases, hires for the price of mp3. Since I mostly use streaming services to audition, the discount has already paid for the cost of the annual streaming subscription. The discount is not available for all labels. For example, ECM albums don't have the discount. ECM albums also aren't available for steaming other than 30 second samples. Through the web interface, you can stream at either 320kbps or lossless FLAC. You can't stream higher than 44.1/16. They have a desktop app and you may be able to stream hires with that, I don't know.

Since I'm in the US, I originally had to use a VPN to access it. I didn't subscribe to the streaming service until after the stopped enforcing the VPN requirement for my account. I say this because the French site is cheaper than the UK site, but since I only speak and read a little French, I can't always tell the difference between different editions of older albums. An example is the Stones as mentioned above. They have 3 versions of Let It Bleed

• 2002 date available CD quality only available for 15,59 € on the label AZ, whatever that is. Copyright date is 2002. No PDF liner notes.
• Two versions dated 2005, available in 88.2/24 for 11,99 € or 8,64 € with the discount on Abkco. Copyright dates are 2002 and 2005 on both. Both have PDF liner notes. Often they'll have something like this but the cheaper one doesn't come with the PDF.

The write up on all three is the same other than the dates and labels. The first one is the only one that is streamable. You can only listen to samples for the two dated 2005.

 

I am the Geezer in the download to iTunes club. I personally do not need the physical copy to enjoy the music.

For the OPs question, Streaming at CD quality is already here and better.

 

I don't see how moving to cd quality would kill the competition - could you explain?

 

Not really an apples to apples comparison. 4K is barely limping along as people have no wish to replace their perfectly good HDTVs and the cost of ownership, let alone the cost of running true film projectors would bankrupt most people who would even consider dipping their toes in those waters. Good prints cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, are hard to source, and usually aren't for public sale. That's not even considering the cost of the actual projector, the lamps, a platter system, and the electrical needs of that system. And then you need enough space to throw the image.

4K/8K would be the answer to this but to get the benefits of 4K you also need a large space or sit far too close to the TV to notice the upgrade in resolution. That being said, there are already hardcore videophiles who have bought 4K TVs and the handful of 4K Blu-rays available.

I would argue most music listeners don't care about lossless audio anyway. If you go to A/V enthusiast sites, I'm sure you'll find people who care enough to go to the extremes of video in pursuit of the best picture quality.

 

My comparison had to do with compression (hence, "lossy"), not resolution. Nobody ever complains that the video they watch is compressed as MPEG-2, h.264 etc.

Why is this only a "thing" with audio?

 

I guess it's an issue of file size. A good quality 1080p file can be up to 40 GB. A 24/192 FLAC file is what, 100 MB?

Personally I listen to music from 256 AAC/VBR MP3 all the way up to 24/192, plus vinyl, and as long as it's mastered well I don't have a problem.

 

"The Future" for us audio enthusiasts will be three camps of primary focus...Streamers (in hi-res), Downloaders (files, CD rips, etc), and Geezers (LPs, CDs, etc). [/QUOTE]

I'm a mixture of all three currently but my steaming activity is definitely increasing as broadband coverage becomes wider and faster.

 

I don't know. That's kind of the point I was making in the post you quoted from earlier....?

 

I was referring to other streaming competition. If Spotify were to implement lossless streaming I don't think Tidal would last long, for example.

What about all the contemporary music that is only available as one mastering? Using a streaming service to explore contemporary releases is, I find, a great way to expand one's musical awareness and at the same time enables one to 'vote with their wallet' on good sounding recordings, but stick to the lossless stream for the rest.

 

I'll keep my music close to me thanks, whether it be digital or a physical format. I will not rely on the internet for my music. Internet goes down, or you've exceeded limits - no music. Your kids get on Skype with their friends - where's the music gone? Modem plays up - music gone. No thanks. Even in an electrical blackout I could resort to a Pono, IPod or other portable players.

 

Honestly these are non issues for anyone with a half decent broadband connection. Mine maxes out at 7 Mbps and even with that there are none of the issues you describe.

 

With very few exceptions, all consumer video content is lossy. This includes UHD and beyond.

 

The audio might be lossless, but not the video.

 

$20 says he's listening to talk radio.

 

I was thinking low bit rate Sharebear dubbed to tape tunes

 

"People Of Walmart" isn't really a thing anymore. But I'm thinking "People Of Home Style Buffet" would be at least as entertaining.