It’s the time of year for saving money!
Streaming is now the primary way that music reaches most ears. The “net” has gone from an illegal source for stealing music to a legitimate business model. New formats for streaming have been created with big studios intimately involved. Major stars and music moguls have heavily invested in its outcome, and users range from really young kids with ear buds to more “dedicated” audiophiles.
Streaming’s business model is quite simple, deliver more music than could ever possibly be heard to a user for one affordably priced monthly fee. Their operational plan is not predicated on large profits from a small group of users, rather, small profits from a large group of users.
Anyone who uses streaming as their main music delivery system knows, or at least has opinions regarding the benefits of Internet based music. I wonder, however, what might be some contrary opinions on streaming as a method to play music?
One issue some may have is simply the number of streaming services. In addition to the less than CD quality services, the number of companies now offering streaming is growing. Amazon recently announced they are offering CD quality and high resolution music as part of their streaming services. Will Apple follow? Even today, one service is rumored to have better “this” than the others. A different one reportedly has more of “that” music. Is it therefore necessary to subscribe to more than one? Many people do, myself included and I really don’t stream much of anything. How much of my monthly fees are therefore wasted?
Another issue is how the music is delivered. This does not include the less than CD quality services – they are not what most audiophiles are using anyway. For CD quality or better, up to now users had two main choices – Tidal and more recently, Qobuz.
While the CD part is pretty much equal, one does MQA and the other does not, preferring instead to offer high rez files up to 192 / 24. Suppose you prefer one high rez service over the other? Are you therefore limited to which one you can use? No, not exactly but why subscribe to both if you DO prefer one high rez format over the other? And are you then missing out on any content you might like and enjoy? Given the enormity of musical variety, that would be a difficult question to answer.
Price is certainly an issue here. When we just had Tidal, it was a pretty simple thing. $20.00 a month. Pretty easy to afford. I spend that much or more for lunch most days. Now that we have Qobuz, not to mention Amazon, and of course less than CD quality services, subscribing to several of them, not to mention all of them, can be quite expensive. Just subscribing to Tidal, Qobuz and Amazon would cost $55.00 per month. How many people will subscribe to all three? Hard to say. Some will.
Also regarding price is how will the monthly fees shake out? Amazon set their monthly cost at basically $15.00 per month and slightly less for Prime members. Qobuz has hinted matching that price. What about Tidal? If you believe the many, many reports that Tidal is losing money faster than a sinking ship, how likely are they to enact a $5.00 per month price decrease? And if they do not, how many members will abandon that alleged sinking ship? If Tidal should fold, does that open the door for the remaining players to actually raise their prices due to less competition? This is, obviously, a question not yet answered.
Although it is somewhat of an intangible, there are those who prefer physical media because they enjoy looking at the cover art. They like holding an album cover or a CD case in their hand and reading the lyrics (if available), the thank you’s by the performer(s), where the work was recorded, who played what instrument and so on. I like doing that for sure. To some degree, we all enjoy reading the info on the inside. In its basic form, streaming doesn’t allow that. Roon helps, but it just doesn’t seem the same, not to me, anyway. Disclaimer: I use Roon almost exclusively and enjoy it very much. Still, I enjoy physical media. Even when I copy a CD to my server, I read the cover info first.
My one enduring reason to prefer physical media is one not everyone will share. Sound quality. On my system, a CD copied to my server simply sounds better than something I stream. That condition is very system dependent and for some, many perhaps, streaming has perfectly acceptable sonic qualities. Just not for me, and possibly, I’m guessing, others also.
For the most part, I use streaming to identify new music I want to purchase and copy to my server. And so far, I have not had any trouble whatsoever buying physical media. None. I realize there are not as many local record stores around anymore but that does not mean physical media is no longer being produced. To the same numbers as twenty years ago? Not at all. But CD’s are still available, easily available. That will remain the case until the record companies stop making them altogether.
Streaming is, for the most part, a complementary music delivery system. What it does very well is allows the record companies to have an alternative outlet for music sales beyond physical media. It provides a certain measure of cost containment for those on a music budget. It provides huge content accessibility not available in the physical realm. Acceptable, if not excellent sonics. Yes. Streaming does a lot of things right.
It is not, however, the only game in town.
Re: “For the most part, I use streaming to identify new music I want to purchase and copy to my server.” One thing I like about being a Qobuz Sublime+ subscriber is that I can buy high-res downloads from the Qobuz store at a substantial discount over what I’d pay at HD Tracks (usually 50% or more off). Anyone who does what we do and buys the downloads after we find great albums, the top-tier Qobuz subscription virtually pays for itself.
There is a mass misinterpretation when someone says streaming sounds worse. Internet streaming is not like the streaming from a server at home but both are named streaming! So many people stick with CDplayers because they read “streaming is not good enough” …
Actually nowadays regarding sound quality i don’t see any reason to stick with CDs. But yes – it must be home streaming. The internet streaming is perhaps not quite there yet.
UPDATE:
Recently, Qobuz announced they are eliminating Mp3 from their service and will now only offer 16 bit and high rez platforms. And they have reduced the cost of service to a monthly fee of $14.99 USD or $12.50 per month with a yearly subscription. Where does this leave Tidal? Are we now at the beginning of even more streaming services? Going forward should be really interesting!
I still mostly buy CD’s and rip them to FLAC, put on my DAP and play thro my HiFi or listen with headphones, but also stream a LOT now via Amazon HD, thro my DAP still. Apart from quality, lack of album notes and that side of not physically owning the music my main worry on streaming music is in 10, 20 or 30 years time when that streaming service has gone or dropped some of your precious loved music, what are you left with…… nothing 🙁
I just, like literally just upgraded to Amazon Music HD from my Unlimited sub. First up the new Van Morrison album in 24/96. Umm, it sounds pretty damn good, lots more HF detail compared to 256K AAC, it’s not even a close call. Definitely worth the extra $5/mo. It would be nice if Amazon and SoundUnited could come to some agreement to let me access my digital library via the HEOS app instead of having to search for the albums I want to listen to. A man can dream, can’t he?
Amazon’s new pricing model for high quality online streaming is going to be big. Qobuz, by offering downloads might survive, but the others? IDK. With Amazon HD, now, I doubt I’ll ever buy or download a CD ever again.
i’ve never done streaming, and i suspect i never will. i guess i’m just not wired right for it. (no pun intended, lol!)
being an old fart, i was raised on radio. i enjoy(ed) letting someone else choose what was playing, and i enjoyed the low price. and w/a decent station or three, and a quality tuna, the sound actually rivals normal “audiophile” sources. and, i would use it to identify new music i’d want to purchase.
today, honestly, w/~2k vinyl discs and a few hundred cd’s, i really am not much interested in purchasing new software. altho there are a few random purchase i’ve made, because of what i’ve heard on the radio.
but today, because analog fm in my area has been basically reduced to 3 stations i can listen to, and only one where the sq and format is good enough for me to listen somewhat regularly (jazz/world music), most of my listening is now internet fm. the other two fm stations; one is classical, which i like, but i really don’t typically have much interest in purchasing. the other is a progressive new music station, but its from a small private college, and its sq is not the best.
so, with internet radio, the choices run the gamut, and i get what i used to get from analog fm – let someone else choose what’s playing. and while it’s not always the highest fidelity format, some stations actually are high bit rate. and if you use a good internet tuner, w/a digital output that you can route to a good dac, the sound is surprisingly good. i can easily plop myself down in the “sweet spot” of my main system and enjoy a serious listening session.
for those who might be interested, i’d suggest:
– ocean digital wr10 ($140 from amazon)
– denon dn-350ui (typically $300; one ebay vendor is now selling it for $250)
– grace gdi-irdt-200 (nla new; prices vary; the wr10 is almost identical)
(all three have digital outs for using an outboard dac.)
for stations:
http://radiobit.50webs.com
the best radio station on planet earth (no hyperbole):
https://www.fip.fr/comment-ecouter-fip
others i happen to like (progressive oriented):
https://radiostudent.si
https://www.naba.lv
fip-france is amazingly eclectic; i love this station! and, if you’re wanting to use it to identify new (and old) music, you can just note the time; it saves its playlist on line for two weeks.
happy listening!
doug s.