Owned physical media and/or downloaded music vs streaming services.

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Price.pittsburgh, Oct 28, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jeff Kent

    Jeff Kent Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mt. Kisco, NY
    I too stream to sample. I find it hard to listen to whole songs this way though. Usually just enough to confirm that I want to buy the CD.
     
  2. Pizza

    Pizza With extra pepperoni

    Location:
    USA
    I would only need a hundred of those things. It's funny how times changed. Now K-Tel would be sued for showing/using those album covers to sell their product.
     
    TonyCzar likes this.
  3. Chemguy

    Chemguy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Western Canada
    I stream. I buy vinyl. I embrace.
     
    bherbert, SandAndGlass and angelees like this.
  4. Jeff Kent

    Jeff Kent Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mt. Kisco, NY
    Music is the best.
     
    Claus LH, Chemguy and angelees like this.
  5. sunking101

    sunking101 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Yorkshire, England
    If I was getting into HiFi/music now I would dive into vinyl. Five years ago? Streaming. £10 a month to Spotify, a decent bluetooth speaker coupled to your smartphone and you instantly have the biggest collection of music in the world.

    Sadly I'm of the generation where vinyl was phased out and CDs were sold to us as being the future. They were far smaller, scratchproof (yeah right!), indestructible and what's more they provided superior sound quality.:rolleyes:
    Little did we know that we would lose all of vinyl's wonderful warmth and be thrust into mastering issues etc. What's more vinyl ended up making a resurgence and CD is dying a death.

    Streaming makes all the sense in the world. It's incredibly affordable, takes up no space and you have instant access to all the new & old music you could ever possibly need. However, there is just something about owning the physical product, searching for it and waiting for it to come through the post. Not to mention the increased sound quality. As ever it's horses for courses but for young music lovers the choice has never been better.
     
  6. broshfab4

    broshfab4 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    ????? So many things wrong here.

    Saving money? At least I can resell my music and many times at a major profit! Just wait until CD's go retro like vinyl did and. Streaming is renting, you don't own anything.

    Stress? I love my library, wonderful feeling to go through my shelves, pull out a record or CD and enjoy the album art or read the liners while the music's playing. Can't do that with a file.

    No way I'd rent music. Physical media is the best way to listen. Period.
     
  7. Jose Jones

    Jose Jones Outstanding Forum Member

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    The vinyl comeback has little to nothing to do with sound quality. Millennials that buy vinyl are (mostly) not audiophiles. They just think it's retro and cool. How many high-end TTs are being sold now? Or high end stereo systems to play them through? A $100 cd player sounds excellent; a $100 TT is crap.

    Cds are indeed more durable than vinyl records. I have cds from 1987 that look absolutely mint and never skip, play scratchy, etc. Anything can get beat up or abused through stupidity or negligence, including records and cds.
     
  8. Dynamic Ranger

    Dynamic Ranger Forum Resident

    Location:
    Old Town, Maine
    My thoughts exactly. I'm glad I'm not the only one who loathes streaming, downloading, etc. Crappy sound, no artwork, nothing to collect, nothing to gain. It's just as someone else said, it's like renting air. How boring is that?

    It simply SUCKS.
    I have nothing more to say, physical music all the way!
     
  9. nikosvault

    nikosvault Forum Resident

    Location:
    Denmark
    Lossless FLAC Collection guys. Best of both worlds.

    With streaming you can't control titles availability or their mastering.

    That should be a deal breaker for any serious music lover.

    Streaming is good for sampling though.

    Lossy downloads was DOA. Trash audio replaced by more convenient trash (streaming).
     
  10. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Florida
    I too believe that once cds completely disappear from the stores that a retro hipster movement will start up but it will take a quite a while.
    I can see the intrigued youth searching for original 80s and early 90s versions
     
  11. angelees

    angelees Forum Resident

    Location:
    Usa
    Yet you can try everything. Even music that you otherwise would've never come across. Get suggestions and mixes based on your listening history. You're trading possession for exposure. It's not a bad trade off, especially if you really love music. If you do, streaming will only encourage you to listen to more and more songs that you otherwise probably wouldn't have tried. As you find more music you love, your physical collection will also likely expand!

    Oh but you can. You can surf genius.com for lyrics and read Wikipedia about the making of the album, the number of copies sold, the critical reception, etc, all while listening.

    Is it? Can you take your whole vinyl collection in the car, on the road? At the gym? Can you have your vinyl collection everywhere you go? Can you make playlists with your vinyl collection? Best of lists? One for every occasion?

    Streaming isn't better than vinyl or other physical media, but it is different. It has huge advantages that vinyl doesn't have and vice versa.

    Remember: It can be Streaming & Physical media, not Streaming vs. Physical media.
     
  12. Gramps Tom

    Gramps Tom Forum Resident

    We need to remember that when we purchase media, we the buy license to access a particular album, song, film, book, etc. for our own use.

    IIRC, that license does permit copying FOR OUR OWN USE and enjoyment privately.

    So, if my understanding is still correct, the consumer does not own the album, but in essence, leases it for our own private use.

    In my own mind, streaming is the most compliant method of accessing the media whose licenses we pay for. Followed by legal downloads, and then physical media.

    As most of my friends know, I am a physical media-only consumer (and I consume a lot-ask my wife and the USPS :laugh:). I do not download nor stream, even though I have the access.

    Tangible enjoyment is essential for me, of course, and that truth has always captivated me.

    For example, you don't get these posters, suitable for framing or tacking on your bedroom wall, in a download:

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    ~dave~~wave~ likes this.
  13. ibanez_ax

    ibanez_ax Forum Resident

    That is the best thing said on this thread.
     
  14. Plectrum Electrum

    Plectrum Electrum Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    You can stream at 16-bit 44.1hz CD Quality or even 24-bit 96hz & beyond (Qobuz Sublime +) these days. You also get digital artwork/booklets with a growing amount of downloads on Qobuz and possibly other lossless/hi-res online stores. Gone are the days of 128kbps MP3s. If you prefer physical music, that's great, but you're uninformed about what digital music offers these days.
     
    fatwad666 likes this.
  15. ~dave~~wave~

    ~dave~~wave~ Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lincoln, NE
    Performers are cheated and ripped off by streaming, we all know this. You could look it up.

    I heard a new twist on that last week at a CD release party for jazz vocalist Jackie Allen and bassist Hans Sturm.
    Hans wrote all the compositions, for financial as well as artistic reasons.

    He told me when they stream standards or covers they did not write, they lose money.
    For the single penny they earn for a play, they owe five cents for the publishing.
    The more plays, the more they go in the hole. :crazy:

    They decided with this release to sell physical copies or downloads only.
    They will not stream.
     
    Dynamic Ranger likes this.
  16. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    I can fit at least a hundred 200 CD's in top quality on one bluray. What more does one want?? Full resolution Vinyl at half that but still? I like food, but I don't have to have every kind on my plate at the same time? For crying out loud, do people actually plan anymore?

    My playlist is permanent, and I like it that way. Chronological at my finger tips and plays perfectly uncompressed. With blurays storage getting cheaper and better, this will be even more true. But why that much? I already have the entire official collections of artist on 1 disc (in the middle of Bing Crosby which will likely be over a thousand songs) uncompressed. If I wanted, I could fit my entire collection on a few blurays, but why? Even if I made a file tree (which I HATE and that includes any kind of interface for streaming) and some fancy menu, it would annoy me. If I need to search for a song, I click through it in less than a minute, but in most cases less than that. Chronological and knowing your artist is key. That and the fact that any artist worth their salt don't need some stupid mix and match. Albums are way more listenable than smashing tracks together like it is a darn mix party. When I hear Something outside of Abbey Road I scream. That song belongs with the ALBUM experience.

    As for the gym, I pull whatever I want onto a drive in full quality if I want to listen to some stupid fluff over and over again. Can I stream if I want, sure..but not what I usually choose by any means. It is like fast food, I don't pretend that it has any lasting benefit.

    I agree the two can go together. Renting is important just like buying. As for choosing renting as the only way....well the world does needs test rats (I am kidding and not meaning to offend here). It is a necessary evil.

    I do fail to see convenience being a huge "advantage" over quality. If I have to choose spending less time listening to music if I have to sacrifice quality, I wait until I can listen proper. Thankfully I don't have to do that, but if I HAD to, I would.

    On the other hand, it is a very good point that streaming screws performers in so many ways, and times are a changin'. Enjoy it while it lasts, because youtube has already proven that artists are tired of giving their stuff away for free. Every time someone falsely "tags" a track, they are cheating the artists that worked on the product of their fair due.

    xxxxxxxxxx

    Are you kidding me? The average bit rate of any server is pitiful. You can download a high res copy, but stream?? Yeah, and who is participating? I really want to hear this one.

    Look, not to sound hostile, but you do realize the providers are already choking out because of the stress of bandwidth already. Bit rates are minimal and that is the only way that it stays as it is.

    To me it will never make any sense to have all content available at all times to every person. The artists/companies just might have a little something to say about that.

    Also, I have zero trust that a fluid state will ever be as reliable as a peer reviewed save state where money is tied up into pressing a quality product that can be proven to have existed.

    How do you prove that what you pay for is actually what you got? How do you prove that person A got what person B did? You know that you don't as it is right? No two streams are the same because of obvious physical limitations. What are you going to do when companies find it advantageous to vary content catered to the listener? Screw that. I don't support thin air, and people that truly love artists and what they stand for won't either.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2017
  17. Plectrum Electrum

    Plectrum Electrum Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    Quite honestly, I don't know about bitrate fluctuation with servers. I do know that the music I stream at CD quality with Deezer Elite sounds good. Qobuz Sublime+ offers hi-res streaming. I considered it, but after trying their CD quality 15-day trial, decided against it due to the app crashing, too many gaps in artist catalogues and the price (£350 for a year, or thereabouts). I know some members here subscribe to it, and would be interested to read their thoughts.
     
  18. I never regretted it. Yes, it drains your bank account but I still find it enjoyable. The day I don't, it's time to move on. Streaming is a temporary thing. There's no guarantee that what you listen to today will always be there tomorrow in particular some of the more obscure artists or music I like.
     
    no.nine likes this.
  19. I agree it really depends on how you feel about music. It's free form radio with you in charge but you are still limited to what is available. No,doubt more will become available with time but I'm reminded of the shrinking selection of movies on Netflix and other video streaming services -- we aren't in charge of what is made available. Yes, streaming has its place but for folks like myself who enjoys movies from the silent still today, seeing the same 250 movies available doesn't do much more me. I suspect that the streaming market make go the same way to a degree.

    The argument that what one buys is really nothing more than leased is a straw man argument--you have the media and it's not like they are going to go door to door to demand it back whereas those streaming are truly at the mercy of the licenses. It may not matter to some but it does, for example, matter to me. Streaming has radio for me. I was never a big fn of music videos as I felt it was a literal translation (some really creative some not so much) that changed my perception of the song (sometimes better than others).
     
    no.nine likes this.
  20. OnTheRoad

    OnTheRoad Not of this world

    I used to occasionally 'stream' something for a preview....but not in a long time.

    I buy cd's and love to hear them for the first time on my modest system. Since 99.9% of what I acquire is older stuff 50s onward....I'm also 99.9% sure I'll enjoy it. There's just something to be said about the ole jazz, R&B, Rock, Blues, old country etc....that lends itself to my personal enjoyment.

    I don't need to stream nor sample. I've very rarely bought a dud.

    Now....I've archived all my cds on HDs and have also made many 320kbps MP3s for remote listening from micro SD cards, NOT the cloud. However, if I could efficiently load all my music quickly to a cloud that was damn near free....I would. I just realize the time it would take to upload, considering also that I don't have internet at home...it would be prohibitive. I've already taken so much time to rip and convert and migrate etc...my music and it's been a labor of love..

    Nothing....NOTHING better to me than playing my physical CDs sitting in my prime spot listening attentively and undistracted. Anything else is a compromise.
     
  21. JakeLA

    JakeLA Senior Member

    Location:
    Venice, CA
    There's no reason to buy music anymore unless you just have that collector's mindset. To my mind, righteously maintaining an allegiance to "owning" your music is like taking a stand against automatic transmissions or escalators. If this were 1972 and Hewlett Packard came out with a music streaming service every single record player in America would have been tossed into the nearest dumpster. (And I say that as someone who own four turntables.)
     
  22. OnTheRoad

    OnTheRoad Not of this world

    Your opinion.

    Of which I completely disagree on.

    By the way...I only drive a standard transmission vehicle, much better control. Yep...a lot of it has to do with control. You don't always control what you don't 'own'.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  23. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    Thanks for info.

    The gaps in the artist catalog is like the gaps in bluray movie license to smaller companies agreeing on which will get the higher quality.

    As for not noticing a difference, that is the problem. How do you really know if it is "CD quality"? You have no good way of checking and that includes what is streamed to you at any given moment.

    In the long term, if everyone streamed at 50 mbps, even with fiber optic with all catalogs available the systems would crash....which comes back to, why would I ever rely on a system to deliver what I can more efficiently control myself?

    I appreciate your info though. I haven't looked into it before.

    Xxxxx

    Except streaming delivers inferior quality in a thousand different ways. Not following the logic at all. No reason..how about accuracy and accountability?

    Nothing wrong with clutch by the way. I love it.
     
    Plectrum Electrum likes this.
  24. HotelYorba101

    HotelYorba101 Senior Member

    Location:
    California
    Crappy sound? Even through streaming services like Tidal where it streams lossless audio?

    I myself still collect CD's, but I do think you are underselling the concept of streaming quite a bit here! It is convenient, the quality isn't crappy if you know what is up, you have access to millions of artists and songs for a decent price, etc.

    To me personal listening preferences are all about the individual. But I am not sure where the visceral hate for streaming is coming from lol


    I personally download mostly, or import CDs, because I can control the masterings and versions of albums. But streaming is a god send and I am glad it exists
     
    bherbert likes this.
  25. KenJ

    KenJ Forum Resident

    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    I use Apple Music, have a monster flac library from cds and buy records and cds.

    Streaming is good for mobility and checking things out. If I read a review I can often instantly listen to the album. I can also drop a few albums into my iPad for mobile listening easily--- even things I own are often easier to enjoy on the go with streaming.

    I enjoy collecting and owning the most. I. Ever listen to streaming on my HiFi
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine