Jump to content

Three Reasons Why We're not Getting the Most Out of Streaming Audio


Recommended Posts

Adrian Wall (better known to many of you by his HC screen name "gubu") has written an excellent and thought-provoking article on the subject of streaming audio - if you'd like to check it out, here's the link. I thought it would be cool to have a thread where everyone could voice their thoughts and opinions on the matter, ask Adrian questions, and so forth - so here it is. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A good article with many points well-observed.

 

I do have a few observations: I'm no golden-ears audiophile, and it's certainly true that even many inexpensive digital systems and portables overall provide better line signal than could be had from consumer phonos, cassettes, and tuners -- but the line signal quality of most mobiles, tablets, laptops and desktop computers is generally about the same quality as cheap CD players of the recent past. I've compared my computers, mobiles, and my Google tablet to my 'pro' converters (nothing special, 10 year old MOTU 828mkII) and the difference is fairly noticeable. (For a while I was switching back and forth between mobo converters and the MOTUs and I found it was generally easy to tell which was engaged simply by the sound -- even just walking into the room after being away. And I felt those converters sounded better than my phone and tablet.)

 

And a substantial part of that testing was using 320 kbps files, since my last 4 stream services used that rate. I was sort of hopping that my Google Nexus 7 tablet might be a worthwhile alternative to running my subscription service on the computer and good converters --- a tablet with good converters and a good app UI could be a great little media device - but the sound quality, even listening to 320 kbps files -- was noticeably inferior.

 

 

Also, being a certified old guy, I well remember the garbage speakers most folks had hooked up to their (sometimes quite decent -- at least in the 70s) receivers. Joe Sixpack would go to Leo's or Federated or Crazy Whoever's and come back with a nice Sansui receiver -- and a pair of garbage, sloppily designed, untuned port, house brand speakers (and a p-o-c BIC changer). Some sounded OK, but many were boomy, woofy, muddled midrange, buzzy treble. There was a lot of real crap out there and it went through the roof in the 80s when the industry decided to try to fool consumers into buying 'new' column speakers. And then there were the 'fake component' racks... It was the 80s when cheap robo-IC technology really overtook consumer stereos and the quality drop you could feel in your gut a half block away.

 

Some NFMs do, indeed, have a tight high-end focus, with the aim of reducing early/side reflections, but there seems to have been a moderating trend toward more relaxed, wider dispersion. (Better systems list the dispersion spec, of course.) Of course, many people use NFM's with quite small woofers that often drop away below 50, 60, even 70 Hz. (Some folks have bought into the false notion that small rooms must have small speakers. Of course, a poorly or un- treated small room with parallel surfaces will tend to have standing waves, the smaller the room the higher the fundamental of such waves. But if the room is treated properly, there is no such thing as a flat speaker with 'too much bass' for such a room.)

 

Another thing, while sticking speakers in corners will definitely 'couple' them to the room more efficiently (if the goal is to produce more SPL), such a placement can be problematic in terms of room acoustics, particularly the closer the speaker to the walls. That said, we are talking entertainment, not accuracy, here. So it's reasonable enough to at least try such a placement, particularly if one is less than satisfied with the apparent bass from his speakers. The result may not be 'accurate' but it might well be more satisfying, which I think is what Adrian is getting at.

 

 

Anyhow, overall, very worthwhile suggestions for most folks.

 

It always vexed me that so many people couldn't seem to figure out that hooking your computer to a stereo like a cassette deck was a quick, easy way to interface those two listening spheres. It was pretty much the first thing I did when I got my very first Sound Blaster at the end of the 80s (Actually the thing only did MONO 16 bit sound or stereo 8 bit, honest!). When proper 16 bit stereo converter add-in cards started coming out, it seemed like a no-brainer to me -- and yet I'd have to explain how and why to do it, not just to naive consumers, but even to some home-recording musicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for your kind words about the article, Blue!

 

I guess that the article was aimed more at this generation of kids, who listen to their music through some pretty crummy hardware, and also at older music fans who are mistrustful of streaming and mp3s, than at audio professionals and audiophiles.

 

Anyone who works with pro or audiophile gear knows that there is an appreciable difference between listening to full range 16 or 24 bit program material, and data-compressed audio, on a well spec'd system, in a nicely treated room. But, at the same time, for simply appreciating and enjoying our favourite music (which many of us don't do enough of, especially when spending days on end chasing arrangements and sonics down the studio rabbit hole!), many current consumer systems simply aren't doing a good enough job, for a lot of reasons.

 

From a consumer point of view, streaming is probably one of the best things to have ever happened to the music industry. The audio resolution provided by the market leaders isn't bad at all, and will only get better as bandwidth improvements allow, and the catalogues are pretty much exhaustive. It's a situation that's here to stay, and well worth taking advantage of.

 

I'm personally looking forward to taking advantage of the USB/OTG protocol in Android 5, which will allow the use of external DAC with smartphones, since I already do most of my listening from my smartphone anyway. I even use it at work, for preshow mood music, line testing, etc. With capable external DAC, that world will get even better, and it means that our desktops and laptops can be used exclusively for critical and professional applications.

 

And for consumers, maybe it will just take some manufacturer to include an OTG cable and discrete DAC in a reasonably priced hifi package, before the penny drops. idk.gif

 

I do know that the bulk of consumer systems these days are pretty disappointing, in sonic terms, no matter what media you play through them.

 

But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss streaming and mp3s, just because some of us have proper hifi systems wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Adrian, you're right, of course, about most consumers; any of your suggestions would probably give a leg up on everyday fidelity. I didn't even address the 'soundbar' (basically a boombox without a content system wink.png ) issue because you'd already handled it well -- but that 'handy' solution to the problem of amplifying (and perhaps docking -- let's not forget that some smart phones suck batteries pretty fast) does, indeed sell out fidelity.

 

And that's one of the reasons that when Deezer announced a few years back they'd be bringing 320 kbps streaming to the US but only available via some stream box/stream bar partners, I rolled my eyes, because I strongly suspect and have no reason to believe otherwise than that such boxes continue the 'tradition' of mediocre consumer conversion from other consumer devices like laptops, mobiles, etc.

 

I was excited by Android OTG audio -- but once again buying a Google branded device seems to have screwed me.*

 

 

 

* OTG audio is available via Android 5.x -- but NOT on my 2012 Nexus 7 tablet. (2013, yes.) The 2012 Nexus tablet has been served VERY poorly by Google, every other update seems to bring it to its knees. It can take as much as a half minute or more switching between apps! (And other times, it's near-instantaneous.) The tablet worked quite well with its original Android early 4.x versions -- but the last few 4.x versions were disastrous and 5 has been a terrible ride. I can't imagine why I would ever buy Google hardware again. And I was once kind of a Google fanboi.Excited to get their first self-branded hardware. BIG mistake.

 

I mentioned above I think that I generally like Google's subscription service -- on the desktop -- but have some serious qualms about their mobile app at least as it runs on my devices -- and that's because even though the app allows users to store music on SD add-in memory -- it INSISTS on storing ALL your 'library' graphics in the mobile's limited internal memory. Since I have a large favorites library -- that graphics cache can take up as much as a HALF GB or more of much-needed internal storage. (And my idiotic Nexus 7 tablet doesn't even allow add-in SD memory; Google took a page from the Apple book and made the device non-upgradeable; you can't even replace the battery. Yes, I should have known. I was an idiot because I thought Google was somehow different. Ha. So, anyhow, running Google Play Music is virtually impossible on my phone -- even though it's got 32 GB of SD memory that works great -- because the app is such an incredible memory and CPU hog -- with it installed, you can't even edit or update a contact or add a new phone number. Seriously. Messed up. That phone is old and modest -- but it runs all the other apps I need great. GPM at least runs on my Nexus 7 tablet -- but its performance is dog-ass slow, cripplingly slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've always had decent Hi Fi systems ever since I was around 12 years old when I had a relative donate an old Mono Bogen Hi Fi system and have been hooked ever since.

.

I still have three complete systems in the house with a variety of decent cabs and Hi Fi heads. The best is probably my Cerwin Vega cabs Followed by two pairs of Jensen 2 and 3 way cabs. My latest edition was a set of Dynaco Speakers I found being thrown out. The cabs work perfectly even after 40 years.

 

Back in the day I'd practice guitar to a Good Hi Fi system to learn songs. The system had to be pretty good to keep up with a guitar amp.

The thing is you'd feel the music as well as hear it. You don't get any of that with ear buds plus you loose all sense of distance. The whole idea of using distance between your ears and speakers listening to music seems to have become a lost art form.

 

I think you can blame Sony with the invention of the Walkman for that trend. In my generation you'd use that stuff in a pinch but few people I know would prefer that over a great sounding Hi Fi system you could crank up and groove to untethered.

 

There are other factors though. Much of it is cultural. Parent bought kids the small playback devices and ear buds so they didn't have to listen to that "dam music" 24/7. In the process they lost control over censorship, (which is another topic).

 

Walkmans turned into MP3 players, Cell Phones, Computer streaming. In essence playback systems for "Shut in's". There has been this shift during my lifetime where music has become less of a shared experience to a solo experience. Much of that is because these portable devices are so inexpensive. Kids in my day would get together and listen to music over at the kids house who had the Best HiFi system, where it could be cranked up and not bother anyone. This lead to becoming musicians and doing the same thing listening to music in a shared environment.

 

Streaming is just an extension of that closed loop of listening circles. I'm kind of mixed on how great it is. Yes you can get access to all the songs you always wanted to hear but introducing yourself to all the music types out there takes great effort. Its easy to get lost navigating through all the music out there.

 

This is one area I still think Radio has these services beat. They introduce you to new music you may have never thought of listening to before. I thought satellite radio would be the big revolution but so far its been a huge flop. The prices are "way" too high and the sound quality is horrible. MP3 quality sound with the added losses of being beamed in via satellite is as poor as it gets in my book.

 

I can say I'm not a fan of streaming much either. I do most of my listening in a car and unless I download the music and stick it on a thumb drive or CD I don't have time to listen to it. I work on a computer on my day job and the last thing I want to do is sit in front of the screen in my free time.

 

When I listen to commercial music I want to hear it in the entire room and be doing other things at the same time. Some love cellphones for the portability. To me its all been a bad experience involving loss of freedom. As a tech it began when you used to have to carry a beeper, then a cellphone, and now GPS targets your every move. There are of course some benefits, but the gradual loss of individual freedom and trust continues to erode as you become strapped to the net. I think there are many in my generation who feel the same way as I do about technology. They use it but they aren't stupid when it comes down to how it can be perverted. You cant even watch television without them collecting metadata on you, and if you aren't wary of this invasive use of technology you will be enslaved by it in one way or another.

 

This is ramble I know. It may seem a bit paranoid to some but not if you know what's really going on. As a manager for a tech company I use allot of this tracking data to know where my employees are via GPS and to check their internet usage. People think they have complete freedom and they do to a great extent so long as the data isn't being used improperly.

 

Companies know what your internet and television viewing habits are and many don't mind that. The data began to be collected to target advertising only, but that was decades ago. Allot has changed. Its much more invasive then most can guess and when you have different political parties clamoring for power, its much too easy to pervert technology to gain advantages. Watergate is kids stuff in comparison to what can be done now legally. There are entire companies that make millions off of doing nothing but profiling. People buy the data to target customers and government uses it to target voters.

 

Music is only a small part of that but you can tell a whole lot about people through their listening habits. I don't object to streaming, but I prefer to keep them guessing who and what I am. I'd rather get my streaming off a radio vs the net or purchase music on line. At leas with that there's no real time line clocking my listening habits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
[...]

 

Streaming is just an extension of that closed loop of listening circles. I'm kind of mixed on how great it is. Yes you can get access to all the songs you always wanted to hear but introducing yourself to all the music types out there takes great effort. Its easy to get lost navigating through all the music out there.

 

This is one area I still think Radio has these services beat. They introduce you to new music you may have never thought of listening to before. I thought satellite radio would be the big revolution but so far its been a huge flop. The prices are "way" too high and the sound quality is horrible. MP3 quality sound with the added losses of being beamed in via satellite is as poor as it gets in my book.

 

I can say I'm not a fan of streaming much either. I do most of my listening in a car and unless I download the music and stick it on a thumb drive or CD I don't have time to listen to it. I work on a computer on my day job and the last thing I want to do is sit in front of the screen in my free time. [...]

 

With regard to the very last bit (not quoted immediately above), I guess I'm cool with the NSA knowing I'm a big Dillards fan. But, on more serious topics, they already know how I feel about their spying, assuming they've glanced at my Facebook page. Yet they haven't marked me for liquidation. Yet. wink.png

 

 

Me, I love getting lost in all the music out there. biggrin.gif

 

Now, my tastes are, genre-wise, very broad -- but artist-wise, tend to be very narrow... I like 95% of the genres out there but think 95% of the artists are pretty negligible. At best.

 

Combine that with my voracious appetite for music, that means I avail myself of a lot of discovery mechanisms, briefly sampling a variety of artists and 'saving' the 'handful' that intrigue or excite me. I slap air quotes around handful, because in the year and a half I've been on Google's Play Music All Access (not a great name), I've accumulated nearly 2200 albums in my 'favorites' library. Not each is really a 'favorite' but they're all stuff I want to hear more of. [For background, I have about 1900 LPs and CDs and a couple hundred singles and 78s.]

 

I discovered non-profit radio early on (when I was 12 in the early 60s), the first day I sat down with my mom's FM radio portable (a Craig with an early but excellent transistor superhet tuner that could pull in hundreds of AM stations!) and my new Koss Stereophones, being perplexed and amazed by LA's KPFK and, specifically, Uncle Ruthie. But that same weekend I also discovered the legendary John Davis folk show (long a fixture in LA and one of the main sources of my early infatuation with folk -- filtered by host Davis's love-hate relationship with Dylan that saw him play buckets of Dylan tunes by folk artists -- but not by the 'traitorous' Dylan, himself. Davis had a very hard time getting over Dylan going electric; really never did, I'd say.

 

But LA commercial radio sucked and sucked hard and by the time I got involved directly in the music biz in the 80s, was a cesspit of payola, drugs, and prostitutes. (Now pretty well documented thanks to tell-all bios from a number of personalities and a few exposes of hypocrites like 'Dr Drew,' the 'Loveline' advice doc.) I was already listening to a lot of jazz and world music on public radio. Around '86-'87, I pretty much completely stopped listening to commercial radio as I had decided to stick to straight recording and production, not wanting to get involved with any more labels. (There are good labels out there. I'm sure. You'd think. I don't remember every having dealt with good ones any that weren't owned by their primary artist.) So, with no more 'need' to listen to the garbage that drugs and payola got onto the commercial radio, I was more than happy to stop.

 

Still, it's hard for me to listen to today's LA public music radio. To be sure, it's not anywhere as good as it was 15 or 20 years ago. The former-800 pound public radio station in LA that owned both public affairs and music in the public sector has been saddled with several terrible MD's in a row and the once extremely influential station (there was even a brief TV sitcom loosely based on the station) is now more or less a backwater for a handful of 90s-era would-be hipsters playing tepid club music. (And another station has knocked the pins out from under them on the public affairs content, as well.)

 

 

I've been using subscription streaming for around a decade, maybe a little more. At first, selections were sketchy, but over the years they've filled in very well -- although a lot of older out-of-print stuff is still, bizarrely, not in syndication. One thing to hold back a hot album trying to gin up physical sales but if you have classic old albums and tracks in your control but not in release, why not get them out where they can be heard -- and make money?

 

Anyhow, I've apparently become totally spoiled by being able to hear what I want.

 

I've heard some pretty reasonable playlists and 'stations' on the various services I've been on (Google bought and folded in the popular Songza online radio service) but it's rare I can listen to one for more than 20 minutes without skipping. So I don't listen much to 'curated' lists or robo-radio much -- but it can be a reasonable discovery mechanism. As long as you got the skips. wink.png

 

This is still much better than my luck with Pandora. I'd run out of skips in 20 minutes on Pandora free. And don't even start me on the utterly crappy Pandora sound quality but whaddya want for ad-driven?

 

Well, actually, Spot ad-driven sounds much better, though still noticeably inferior to full 320 kbps. The funny thing is that I've read more than a couple of people kvetch about the sound quality of Spotify Premium who, when pressed, admit that they didn't realize you have to specifically set it to 'maximum' fidelity -- the Spotify bozos call 320 one thing in mobile and another on the desktop, but neither defaults to full quality streams, even in the premium, paid tier -- not the only bozo move from Spotify -- I think if more people were more a) aware and b) inquisitive and c) demanding, that Spotify would lose customers to other services with better players (like Google; that said, like I said, I have misgivings about their app -- and MOST folks at this point seem to see streaming as something to do over a phone... to take it full circle, many folks just can't seem to figure out that 320kbps or better streaming works very nicely on the desktop hooked up to high quality PB.

 

 

PS... I almost always listen over my main rig (Event 20/20bas and NS10's, typically the former except during hot spells when their BTU output forces them to the sidelines; 200 w/ch... way, way too much power for sane people). No claustrophobia. wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Adrian: GREAT article.

 

And to your point about this generation of listeners.

 

I thought you and others would also find this article by Chris Marion a nice tie-in (if you hadn't already seen it) He talks about a multi million dollar studio using $18,000 mics to record music that will be listened to by people wearing $10 earbuds.

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/articles/making-a-big-bang-in-an-ear-bud-business

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

I'm personally looking forward to taking advantage of the USB/OTG protocol in Android 5, which will allow the use of external DAC with smartphones, since I already do most of my listening from my smartphone anyway. I even use it at work, for preshow mood music, line testing, etc. With capable external DAC, that world will get even better, and it means that our desktops and laptops can be used exclusively for critical and professional applications.

 

 

I'm not a normal consumer, either, like most of us here, but for the normal consumer, wouldn't using an external D/A converter defeat the convenience of using a phone as a music source? It's another box plus a cable that you need to carry, and of course you have to have the right device. Apple has the ability to connect to specialized converters for a long time, but we Android users are out of luck.

 

For those who really care about quality (and I think more people selling playback devices and premium streams do, more than the listeners), we're starting to see players that have better converters and better analog output stages, at much higher prices than what the technology would dictate, but then that's the way it goes for early adopoters. D/A converters aren't all that bad, the worst part is the analog output stage that's designed to drive low impedance headphones and conserve power.

 

Eventually every phone will change, the price won't change enough to worry about, and then the listeners can brag about high resolution streams, files, and playback and feel better about what they're listening to. As for me, the conditions under which I listen to music from my phone greatly obscure any improvement in fidelity - like when riding in a car or airplane.

 

I'm all for progress, but I don't get the hype.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Me, I love getting lost in all the music out there. biggrin.gif

 

Now, my tastes are, genre-wise, very broad -- but artist-wise, tend to be very narrow... I like 95% of the genres out there but think 95% of the artists are pretty negligible. At best.

 

Combine that with my voracious appetite for music, that means I avail myself of a lot of discovery mechanisms, briefly sampling a variety of artists and 'saving' the 'handful' that intrigue or excite me. I slap air quotes around handful, because in the year and a half I've been on Google's Play Music All Access (not a great name), I've accumulated nearly 2200 albums in my 'favorites' library. Not each is really a 'favorite' but they're all stuff I want to hear more of. [For background, I have about 1900 LPs and CDs and a couple hundred singles and 78s.]

 

I discovered non-profit radio early on (when I was 12 in the early 60s), the first day I sat down with my mom's FM radio portable (a Craig with an early but excellent transistor superhet tuner that could pull in hundreds of AM stations!) and my new Koss Stereophones, being perplexed and amazed by LA's KPFK and, specifically, Uncle Ruthie. But that same weekend I also discovered the legendary John Davis folk show (long a fixture in LA and one of the main sources of my early infatuation with folk -- filtered by host Davis's love-hate relationship with Dylan that saw him play buckets of Dylan tunes by folk artists -- but not by the 'traitorous' Dylan, himself. Davis had a very hard time getting over Dylan going electric; really never did, I'd say.

 

But LA commercial radio sucked and sucked hard and by the time I got involved directly in the music biz in the 80s, was a cesspit of payola, drugs, and prostitutes. (Now pretty well documented thanks to tell-all bios from a number of personalities and a few exposes of hypocrites like 'Dr Drew,' the 'Loveline' advice doc.) I was already listening to a lot of jazz and world music on public radio. Around '86-'87, I pretty much completely stopped listening to commercial radio as I had decided to stick to straight recording and production, not wanting to get involved with any more labels. (There are good labels out there. I'm sure. You'd think. I don't remember every having dealt with good ones any that weren't owned by their primary artist.) So, with no more 'need' to listen to the garbage that drugs and payola got onto the commercial radio, I was more than happy to stop.

 

Still, it's hard for me to listen to today's LA public music radio. To be sure, it's not anywhere as good as it was 15 or 20 years ago. The former-800 pound public radio station in LA that owned both public affairs and music in the public sector has been saddled with several terrible MD's in a row and the once extremely influential station (there was even a brief TV sitcom loosely based on the station) is now more or less a backwater for a handful of 90s-era would-be hipsters playing tepid club music. (And another station has knocked the pins out from under them on the public affairs content, as well.)

 

 

Blue, I believe I read you were semi retired or something? If so you'd likely have allot more free time for then a guy like me that works a 40+ hour a week job. Most of my studio work gets done on the weekends. When I was a field tech on the road all day long I listened to music all day long for about 30 years or so. Its the repetition of songs in the rotation that gets old the fastest. You figure most people may only listen for short periods of time and hear the latest hits.

 

I'd seek out all the stations for variety. I even installed a short wave adaptor so I could hear what was being played around the world.

 

The PBS stations would put on some good music at different times of the day. I just did a road trip from Houston to NJ and back and spent a good deal of time listening to public radio. The funny thing is, this time as I drove state to state, you'd simply change stations to the strongest PBS station and you'd hear the same programing on all of them.

 

I guess the worst areas for reception were in parts of the south where you had maybe one a single station playing bluegrass or church preacher going. I guess there are still some radio stations being run out of some back woods barns. I'd switch over to canned music for a few hours. I guess satellite radio would be a much better option for truckers who travel long distance.

 

Where you really catch the cool stuff is driving late at night. I've caught some weird stuff during those hours. This last trip I heard Elvin Bishop do some live Blues tunes. I also hear a song called Reading my Mind. The fog was treacherous that night and this song came on things started getting really wierded out.

 

I had to wait till I got back and Google who the artist was. I come to find out it was John Cale who used to play in the Velvet Underground. No wonder that song spaced me out. I didn't know much about him by name nor how prolific his performances and writing was. He did some punk stuff too which you likely ran into. I always liked finding artists that made music that weren't your every day hits.

 

Problem with half the stations out there today is they don't identify the artist or song title. I think this hurts artists a lot. I cant count the times I heard something cool and had no clue to who the artist was. If I'm lucky I may find a chorus line I can Google like I did with the Cale song then pay to download it. Stations used to announce all the artists they played which lead to album sales. Without that name recognition weather it be internet or airwaves, I can see why half the bands cant sell their songs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Streaming is here to stay. And let's face it, we love it! Having access to pretty much every recording ever made, on a device like a smartphone that fits in the palm of your hand (or on a desktop computer) is a really cool development, whether you're a musician, engineer, or fan.

Most streaming services use bit rates of 256 kbps or above, and many smartphones, laptops, tablets and computers have decent built-in headphone outputs and Bluetooth interfacing. Yet very few of us take advantage of the sound quality on offer—it seems most people don’t bother to listen to their streamed services and MP3 collections through decent systems, and instead stream through low-quality devices that aren’t up to the task.

So, what are we doing wrong?"

 

What are we doing wrong? We are saying we love streaming...

 

I hate it. Any hope of any musician earning any money for recorded music is lost. Even Joe Walsh on Daryl Hall's Palladia tv show said that nobody is making money in music anymore. Computer technology has destroyed the financial potential of the recording industry. How many of us actually record clients anymore? They all have Garage Band and do it themselves. Then they flood the bandwidth with garbage and you can't differentiate from the quality content anymore. I do more polishing of Garage Band turds lately than recording musicians. I have learned that you can't polish a turd, but you can sure compress the hell out of it. That always makes them happy.

 

Major studios are folding left and right. Musicians are now waiters and fast food employees who will soon get $15 an hour which is more than they make as musicians. 50 cent went bankrupt. He said his lifestyle is an illusion. He gets things for a day and then returns them to the stores. It is all because of free downloading. Now streaming is the final nail in the industry's coffin.

 

All I can say is I am glad that I am a doctor and don't have to depend on being a recording engineer. When I had my studio up in Vermont, I was glad to have sold it when I still could in 2002. I do miss the C7 Fll though...

 

Sorry for the rant. I just can't accept the idea that we love streaming. It has resulted in the destruction of the music industry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Blue, I believe I read you were semi retired or something? If so you'd likely have allot more free time for then a guy like me that works a 40+ hour a week job. Most of my studio work gets done on the weekends. When I was a field tech on the road all day long I listened to music all day long for about 30 years or so. Its the repetition of songs in the rotation that gets old the fastest. You figure most people may only listen for short periods of time and hear the latest hits.

 

I'd seek out all the stations for variety. I even installed a short wave adaptor so I could hear what was being played around the world.

 

The PBS stations would put on some good music at different times of the day. I just did a road trip from Houston to NJ and back and spent a good deal of time listening to public radio. The funny thing is, this time as I drove state to state, you'd simply change stations to the strongest PBS station and you'd hear the same programing on all of them.

 

I guess the worst areas for reception were in parts of the south where you had maybe one a single station playing bluegrass or church preacher going. I guess there are still some radio stations being run out of some back woods barns. I'd switch over to canned music for a few hours. I guess satellite radio would be a much better option for truckers who travel long distance.

 

Where you really catch the cool stuff is driving late at night. I've caught some weird stuff during those hours. This last trip I heard Elvin Bishop do some live Blues tunes. I also hear a song called Reading my Mind. The fog was treacherous that night and this song came on things started getting really wierded out.

 

I had to wait till I got back and Google who the artist was. I come to find out it was John Cale who used to play in the Velvet Underground. No wonder that song spaced me out. I didn't know much about him by name nor how prolific his performances and writing was. He did some punk stuff too which you likely ran into. I always liked finding artists that made music that weren't your every day hits.

 

Problem with half the stations out there today is they don't identify the artist or song title. I think this hurts artists a lot. I cant count the times I heard something cool and had no clue to who the artist was. If I'm lucky I may find a chorus line I can Google like I did with the Cale song then pay to download it. Stations used to announce all the artists they played which lead to album sales. Without that name recognition weather it be internet or airwaves, I can see why half the bands cant sell their songs.

Semi-retired and work at home. wink.png So, yeah, I'm right here in the sweet spot of my trusty NS10/Event 20/20bas setup.

 

 

I don't actually spend much time actively looking for stuff -- I'm more interested in hearing something I know I like -- but when there's an unfamiliar outfit listed as an 'associated' or similar-styled act, I'll throw them into my queue (in shuffle mode) and see how I like them when I come up (or just take a second and 'drop the needle' on a few tracks -- like an old label A&R guy, I can tell whether or not it's for me in a couple of needle drops... wink.png

 

Mostly it's elements I know I don't want to hear that are my early warning indicators: corporate rock guitars/production/singing, tweedle guitar/shredding, rock revival stuff, anything with evident vocal tuning, anything with a 'little,' minor intro that opens into a big, major-key go-big..

 

Other stuff I know I almost instantly I don't like, but it's harder to articulate why -- like the Mumfords. On paper, I wouldn't think I'd like them -- but I wouldn't think it would revolt me as it does. And the Punch Brothers... they can play and pretty good. I keep trying to like them. I put them on... after a couple songs I take them off. Can't tell you why. Meanwhile, stuff that likely strikes others as too precious (Crooked Still) or too 'mournful' or sad sack (Everybodyfields), I'm all over.

 

 

By the way, I've been a longtime fan of John Cale. I saw him a couple of times in the 1980s, in fact. You listen to some of the crazed electric viola on the VU's and you figure he's just a proto-punk noise guy -- but he's actually a trained musician whose own music has often been complex and usually hard to pin down, some of it quaintly old-fashioned, others, well, pretty out there. wink.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
"Streaming is here to stay. And let's face it, we love it! Having access to pretty much every recording ever made, on a device like a smartphone that fits in the palm of your hand (or on a desktop computer) is a really cool development, whether you're a musician, engineer, or fan.

Most streaming services use bit rates of 256 kbps or above, and many smartphones, laptops, tablets and computers have decent built-in headphone outputs and Bluetooth interfacing. Yet very few of us take advantage of the sound quality on offer—it seems most people don’t bother to listen to their streamed services and MP3 collections through decent systems, and instead stream through low-quality devices that aren’t up to the task.

So, what are we doing wrong?"

 

What are we doing wrong? We are saying we love streaming...

 

I hate it. Any hope of any musician earning any money for recorded music is lost. Even Joe Walsh on Daryl Hall's Palladia tv show said that nobody is making money in music anymore. Computer technology has destroyed the financial potential of the recording industry. How many of us actually record clients anymore? They all have Garage Band and do it themselves. Then they flood the bandwidth with garbage and you can't differentiate from the quality content anymore. I do more polishing of Garage Band turds lately than recording musicians. I have learned that you can't polish a turd, but you can sure compress the hell out of it. That always makes them happy.

 

Major studios are folding left and right. Musicians are now waiters and fast food employees who will soon get $15 an hour which is more than they make as musicians. 50 cent went bankrupt. He said his lifestyle is an illusion. He gets things for a day and then returns them to the stores. It is all because of free downloading. Now streaming is the final nail in the industry's coffin.

 

All I can say is I am glad that I am a doctor and don't have to depend on being a recording engineer. When I had my studio up in Vermont, I was glad to have sold it when I still could in 2002. I do miss the C7 Fll though...

 

Sorry for the rant. I just can't accept the idea that we love streaming. It has resulted in the destruction of the music industry.

 

It's really not true that artists aren't making money from on-demand music streaming. Could they be paid more? Sure. That's always true.

 

But rights holders get paid between .6 cent per stream to as much a cent and a half per stream (the low end of that is Spotify's combined ad-driven and subscription, most, like Google Play are around a penny per stream, with a handful of outliers paying a bit more). Maybe it doesn't sound like a lot, but it adds up as I noted above. If I play a fifteen track album 30 times, that's $4.50 of revenue to rights holders. With more presumably coming.

 

 

Now, are some artists only receiving a tiny fraction of that? Yes, to be sure -- because many artists give up from 50% to 90% (and sometimes more, apparently) of the revenue from their music to their labels and distributors.

 

And some labels have taken particular advantage of naive artists in contract negotiations -- seeing the coming era of streaming and 'sneaking' abusive clauses into the contracts -- but typically simply able to use standard industry contract features to separate large amounts of 'spillage' and the like from what would otherwise go to artists.

 

Others artists who have been careful about contracts and/or own their own labels are making good money from streaming.

 

But one thing: if one's act is the sort of act that sells records that people listen to a few times and then put in the back of the stacks -- streaming will not work out.

 

Others, though, should continue to receive revenue on music as long as people keep listening.

 

 

But, whether you or I like it or not, the fact is that the record industry is turning to streaming as its preferred method of music distribution. And streaming services are growing at rapid rates -- Spotify's paid tier grew 33% in just the first three months of 2015 -- as consumers discover the joy of variety and not having obnoxious DJ's picking what they listen to.

 

 

Something to consider, the average music consumer (someone who spends money on music -- since many do not) spends less than $5 on music per month -- that's all music expenditures combined, live, records, etc.

 

Streaming services tend to cost about double that average -- $10 a month -- and give about 70% of that to rights holders -- if an artist owns his product, that's all to him (if he's smart). If there was a widespread adoption of streaming among consumers, it could signify a big increase in revenue for rights holders.

 

And if musicians are smarter this time around and take advantage of the disintermediation possibilities offered by new music marketing and distribution options, there might just be fewer greedy, grasping middle men to divvy up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
50 cent went bankrupt. He said his lifestyle is an illusion. He gets things for a day and then returns them to the stores. It is all because of free downloading.

 

For 50 Cent it's also because he was ordered to pay $5 million to a woman for releasing a sex tape of the two of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The chief of the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry -- the main global record industry trade group) says streaming is helping fuel an increase in payouts to artists relative to the revenues for the labels.

 

The IFPI is clearly concerned about the emerging realization that many labels keep anywhere from 50 to 90% of revenue from their releases [and even more due to things like 'spillage' and 'the black hole'] -- and she points out that IFPI surveys indicate 70% of unsigned artists would still like to be on a label, despite changing attitudes among musicians.

 

In line with the IFPI's previously stated position on declining revenue, she blames user-upload sites like YouTube and Soundcloud -- despite -- or perhaps because of? -- the fact that many fully independent artists primarily use YouTube and Soundcloud for the promotion they might otherwise have to go to a label for.

 

A rather uncritical write up: IFPI chief defends labels' pay outs to artists for streaming

 

And a rather different slant: IFPI reaffirms its position on digital pie debate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
What are we doing wrong? We are saying we love streaming...

 

It's easy to love streaming, but not the various business models based on it.

 

15 years ago, when Napster was first happening, I proposed that record companies put their entire catalogs online - using 8-bit resolution. My theory was that 8 bits was good enough to decide if you were interested in something, but not good enough for "real" listening which would induce them to buy the download. I also felt that being able to audition anything would cause people to find music they would not have heard otherwise, and buy the high-fidelity version.

 

Eventually I saw this evolving into a "celestial jukebox" where people could pay to hear a song on demand, or buy an unlimited subscription like cable TV, or purchase a download. I was hoping was this would start a model where people budgeted for music, like they budgeted for TV or season tickets to events or whatever.

 

It didn't quite turn out that way :)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Major studios are folding left and right. Musicians are now waiters and fast food employees who will soon get $15 an hour which is more than they make as musicians. 50 cent went bankrupt. He said his lifestyle is an illusion. He gets things for a day and then returns them to the stores. It is all because of free downloading. Now streaming is the final nail in the industry's coffin.

 

Sorry for the rant. I just can't accept the idea that we love streaming. It has resulted in the destruction of the music industry.

 

I'm not sure it's that simple...,many factors contributed to kill the music industry. Bear in mind that most musicians didn't make any real money off music. It was an illusion from record companies taking the money from the top 10% of acts and investing in studio time and touring for new acts, most of which stiffed. But, they got a ride in a studio to make an album or two and opened a couple tours. Then they became waiters and fast food employees :)

 

Where this really started to go south was when record companies adopted the blockbuster mentality from movies, where they poured all their money into a "sure thing," with the most famous example probably being Michael Jackson's "History." As companies were acquired by multinational corporations, the emphasis became tomorrow's bottom line, not investing in a band because some producer's instincts said "this band is gonna be big someday." Someday was not good enough any more.

 

Then the US missed the opportunity for a resurgence of music from the performing DJ culture because of draconian drug laws that made it too risky to open a club. No venues, no places to play...the only strain of DJs that could survive were the mobile DJs playing Barbra Streisand songs at weddings.

 

Apple, intentionally or not, devalued music even further when they introduced the iPod. Sure, it could hold thousands and thousands of tracks. Were people going to pay for thousands and thousands of tracks? Of course not.

 

Digital technology is a big problem, and it's one the record companies gleefully embraced because they could repackage music released on vinyl, preferably from someone dead, and get a huge profit margin. Granted, digital technology was inevitable...but it was driven by greed initially, and remains set on that course today.

 

Ultimately, there's a chance streaming will be a solution. But it's going to take a while for a model to solidify.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As the MBAs and numbers guys flooded the industry in the 1970s, they appear to have quickly realized that sophisticated, adult music lovers simply don't respond much at all to the sorts of promotion that do work with teen and dance pop markets, which are much more responsive to paid media promotions, TV and other co-promotions, and orchestrated hype campaigns -- some of the very things that drive more independently-minded listeners away.

 

But in the market that centers around the top of the pops, hype and notoriety alone can drive sales. Cue H.L. Mencken quote. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bear in mind that most musicians didn't make any real money off music. It was an illusion from record companies taking the money from the top 10% of acts and investing in studio time and touring for new acts, most of which stiffed. But, they got a ride in a studio to make an album or two and opened a couple tours. Then they became waiters and fast food employees smile.png

 

The odds have always been against musicians "making it" in the traditional sense of the word - even for those who had recording contracts.

 

Where this really started to go south was when record companies adopted the blockbuster mentality from movies, where they poured all their money into a "sure thing," with the most famous example probably being Michael Jackson's "History." As companies were acquired by multinational corporations, the emphasis became tomorrow's bottom line, not investing in a band because some producer's instincts said "this band is gonna be big someday." Someday was not good enough any more.

 

The Suits sometimes don't understand that art must be nurtured if the goose is to continue laying the golden eggs... A little R&D investment today can sometimes pay off big tomorrow.

 

For many artists, it's probably better to go it alone rather than to rely on a big multinational corporation to help them get their art out to the world - especially if they want to maintain artistic control. The problem is, it's harder to break an act without their huge promotional resources.

 

Then the US missed the opportunity for a resurgence of music from the performing DJ culture because of draconian drug laws that made it too risky to open a club. No venues, no places to play...the only strain of DJs that could survive were the mobile DJs playing Barbra Streisand songs at weddings.

 

Which leads to the question - is this an example of survival of the fittest, or a rare exception to the rule? eekphil.gifwink.pngbiggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What did I end up doing while on holiday last week?

 

Splicing a pair of proprietary Samsung speaker connections onto speaker cables, so a friend could use his old Sony bookshelf speakers with his Samsung HD surround receiver. It's still not the best, but at least he can enjoy TV and music without it all sounding like a thick blanket of unintelligible bass, with 5 kazoos on top.

 

They're not making this gear like they used to.

 

That Samsung unit could play every digital format we threw at it. Including mp3s from the SD card in my buddy's Samsung phone, but the sound it puts out in the room is actually pretty disgraceful for a system of that price, even for movies/talkies.

 

I suppose it's always a bad sign when the sound of a subwoofer makes you laugh facepalm.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Adrian: GREAT article.

 

And to your point about this generation of listeners.

 

I thought you and others would also find this article by Chris Marion a nice tie-in (if you hadn't already seen it) He talks about a multi million dollar studio using $18,000 mics to record music that will be listened to by people wearing $10 earbuds.

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/articl...r-bud-business

 

 

Thanks Dendy. Actually, the argument in my article for using old hifi systems was definitely informed by CM's article. Inspired by it, in fact. smile.png

 

 

All of us who work with audio have bemoaned streaming and other data compressed formats at one time or another. But the fact is, that in addition to sourcing and using the best possible gear, often at great expense, the best studio engineers have really figured out how to represent their recordings through digital media since everything went pocketshaped. This century has seen really exciting innovations in the integration of analogue signal paths with digital dsp for music recording. There is some really cool recording gear out there these days, being backed up by insanely powerful and beautifully engineered software and DSP, and a lot of stellar sounding music is being produced in these formats as a result of all of that.

 

But you can't hear that through many modern consumer systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Convenience trumps sound quality every time for the average consumer. Always has; always will. My wife loves using Pandora and uses the Bluetooth to play it off her phone into her car when driving. Lately she's taken to just listening to it off her phone while in the kitchen. Which, of course, sounds nightmarish.

 

I asked her why she doesn't just turn on the Pandora on the sound system in the living room and she says "it's too much trouble to deal with all the remotes". I ask her "yeah, but how can you like the way that sounds off the phone?" She says she doesn't like it much, really, but it's easier.

 

So I go out to buy her a little Bluetooth speaker at Best Buy. Wow. They've only got what seems like 1,000 different models to choose from. Some sound horrid. Some sound pretty darn good. Not wanting to spend a fortune on something I won't likely use much myself and for which my wife only has limited concern about sound quality, I decide on a $120 Bose speaker that I thought sounded the best at that price point.

 

Not great, but sounds a million times better than the kitchen radio my parents had when I was a kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'm not sure it's that simple...,many factors contributed to kill the music industry. Bear in mind that most musicians didn't make any real money off music. It was an illusion from record companies taking the money from the top 10% of acts and investing in studio time and touring for new acts, most of which stiffed. But, they got a ride in a studio to make an album or two and opened a couple tours. Then they became waiters and fast food employees :)

 

 

Yep. I'm sure it's true that Joe Walsh isn't collecting as many royalties from "Rocky Mountain Way" as he used to under the new paradigm of streaming. And of course record sales are just a fraction of what they were during the peak years in the 70s and 80s.

 

But you're right that even back then, only a few artists at the very top ever made any real money in the business anyway. And even without things like downloading and streaming, I suspect the record industry still wouldn't be what it once was. Young people's connection to music and music artists peaked during those years and today seems to have receded back to more of what it was during the earlier parts of the 20th century. It's a cultural shift that the technological changes certainly have played into, but I can't blame it on streaming and downloading alone for the fact that there is no modern equivalent of The Beatles or Led Zeppelin.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...