Maintaining a Digital Music Collection

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/03/31/apples_streaming_music_service_could_arrive_in_july.html

It's inevitable, the question is what's the downside of cloud-based streaming of your music collection:

1) Sound quality will be further reduced
2) Not everything you own would be available via the cloud
3) You can't organize your music (e.g. singles) the way you might want to
4) You won't always be in a situation where you can access the wireless web

I don't know if any of these will be true but they're the first that come to mind.

1) right now the sound quality of streaming audio generally seems to be sub-CD, but that will inevitably change, and soon
2) this is a point i've ignored in the past, but it's definitely true. streaming from iTunes will not replace listening to music in other ways, especially for music nerds
3) i doubt this is true. can't you create Spotify playlists? i'm sure there'll be a way to organize the songs/albums you want to stream in a bunch of ways
4) Spotify mobile app already lets you listen to songs offline -- no doubt, iTunes will follow

no idea how a pricing scheme for an iTunes streaming service would work, but if it were a flat, monthly fee to listen to as much music as i wanted to, as long as the price wasn't too high, i'd be in. still can't imagine this'll be a good thing for a lot of artists, especially if they'll get paid per song streamed.

i think most artists realize by now that they only way to get paid is by touring/playing shows

you're totally right, but i also think there's a solid chance that mass adoption of a streaming service could mean that musicians will make even less from people listening to their records than the pittance a lot of them make now

warner bros. already rebuffed spotify's invitation to add the label's catalog to a US streaming service. fwiw, emusic is apparently considering adding a streaming service, too. no idea how they'll try to do it, but i have serious doubts about whether such a service can succeed.

this is another one of those things where whatever's left of the music industry is going to do all it can to maintain whatever small amount of control they still have over their product, even though it's pretty much inevitable that most of their shit will be streaming someday, in some form, from some service

Spotify also has zero traction in the US, since it's not available here. iTunes is huge

if it's cheaper than rhapsody and i don't have to use itunes it might be cool. or is it only gonna stream what you put there in the first place?

knowing Apple, any iTunes streaming functionality will be strictly controlled by them. you'll probably be able to stream via iTunes, your browser, and your iPad/iPod/iPhone, at least at the beginning. the possibility of their being, say, an Android app that would let you stream iTunes content probably won't happen anytime soon, if ever

it seems like the model for an iTunes streaming service will be that you'll buy tracks and albums as you have in the past, except instead of the program downloading local copies of that content to your computer, one-time only, you'll be able to stream it from iTunes at any computer you type your credentials into. this solves the problem of the user having to manage all those files, but it also locks you into iTunes, assuming that there is no way for you to keep a permanent, local copy of your files

ideally, i'd like to pay one flat fee to listen to as much music as i wanted to, but i don't see this happening anytime soon, and, as i said upthread, i can only imagine that, monetarily, that'd make the current situation even worse for some artists

> i'd like to pay one flat fee to listen to as much music as i wanted to, but i don't see this happening anytime soon

it's already here, has been for a while. i work for uk based company who supply music for vodafone uk, sweden, norway, vodacom SA, telenor, sky songs..., all of which, i believe, are subscription-based, unlimited streaming services, albeit with platform / region limitations. (i could be wrong, am tech side, not marketing. sky songs, looking at the website, appears to be £5 a month). i get to use it at work and, in answer to the points above 1) quality is ok. it's not cd quality but then people are happy enough to BUY things that aren't cd quality and 2) it doesn't have everything i own available (far from it) but it also has a shedload of good things that i don't own and 4) tracks are cached so you still have things to listen to if network goes down, but there is drm and you do lose things when your subscription lapses (i think some services give you a monthly quota of non-drmed tracks that you can keep)

(nothing in the US though)

I think you're right about sound quality, though there will always be a segment of us (myself included) that doesn't want to settle for less than we already get from ripping our own CDs and an iPod headphone out (which many feel is compromised to begin with).

Additionally, I suppose the appeal of such a service depends on how you listen to music in the first place. If you're not tied to your own collection, and/or can find most of what you want to listen to from a streaming service, then you're all set. But I suspect for the people like ILMers, it won't suffice. The obvious solution is a hybrid device, one that has on-board storage for your own music and can stream from a dedicated service.

The obvious solution is a hybrid device, one that has on-board storage for your own music and can stream from a dedicated service.

OTM

ie a mobile phone.

re: reduced sound quality, i kind of assume everything will go lossless eventually, right? i can't see record companies getting bent out of shape about it when most consumers of digital music files don't care about the difference between 192 & lossless anyway.

i'm actually seeing more lossless digital music for sale - boomkat have done flacs for ages but now bleep and several other dj-centric sites have started selling wavs* (all at a premium and, laughably, often more expensive than buying the actual cds but...)

but streaming services, yes, will always be lossy because of the bandwidth issues. some of the phones use he-aac v2 which has very listenable sound in *tiny* filesizes, 24kbps or so. but is patent encumbered and requires a licence.

* new autechre available as 24bit wavs ie better than cd quality

re: reduced sound quality, i kind of assume everything will go lossless eventually, right? i can't see record companies getting bent out of shape about it when most consumers of digital music files don't care about the difference between 192 & lossless anyway.

― hobbes, Monday, April 5, 2010 5:50 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark

wait, why? I don't get the logic

For most people, sound quality isn't as big of an issue. As long as it sounds OK, it's fine.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ie a mobile phone.

Haha, yes of course, I should've mentioned that but I just don't think of mobile phones as having sufficient fidelity. But that's my problem. You all are right, "sounds OK" is sufficient for 95% of the population - I mean, iPod earbuds are godawful to me but most people are fine with them. I'll just crawl back into my log cabin...

it's not even the earbuds - most music is being played back on computers and ipods both of which have shitty line out jacks. you wouldn't be able to tell a FLAC from a 128kbps using what most people have these days.

I know it's been talked about before (probably on this thread!) but what's the best solution to the lineout jack problem? For instance, I have my MacMini chugging along well enough otherwise, so what can be done with it?

get an external DAC - they are (relatively) expensive but if you want to use your computer as a source for your stereo system they're a worthwhile investment. I splurged and got an iBasso one with two DACs, one for each channel:

http://ibasso.com/en/products/show.asp?ID=44

ie a mobile phone.

― koogs, Monday, April 5, 2010 4:44 AM (6 hours ago)

yeah, at least when they're out and about, everyone will be listening to music on something like an iPhone soon enough

Perhaps that's true regarding computer/latop speakers but the iPod headphone out isn't so terrible. I can certainly tell the different between 128 and 192+ when lower bitrate tracks pop up on shuffle. But then I've also been to so many concerts that, frankly, I can't tell the different between high-bit VBR and WAV anymore.

Ned - the best solution for lineout -> headphone is a headphone amp.

to expand a little...an external DAC moves the digital-to-analog signal conversion outside of your computer. the inside your computer is very noisy elecronically speaking - lots of electromagnetic radiation &c. as a test, try plugging in a pair of earbuds into your computer and turning the volume all the way up - that hissing you hear is all the interference.

All good, dyao, will consider it! (Gerald -- don't need a headphone amp, this is for actual speaker listening.)

IIRC the mac mini has an optical out line built into its headphone jack - a cheaper solution would be to connect that to your receiver (if your receiver takes optical, that is!)

also sorry to get all headphone nerdy but a good headphone amp can serve as a decent pre-amp if you already have a power amp

I was actually planning on updating my receiver anyway -- might do that first. (Given the placement of everything in the apartment there are a couple of things I'd want to consider there...)

really want to invest in an high-performance soundcard now but also thinking about one of these Brennan JB7 jobs:

http://media.audiojunkies.com/brennan-cambridge-jb7-jukebox-digital-music-player-home-mp3-player-cd.jpg

anyone have any experience with these? advantages are the quickness/ease of use, detachment from PC...um, it has a clock...

What's the point of those? Larger capacity than an iPod I suppose. Otherwise, I just have cables to plug my iPod into a stereo on every floor in my house. (I'm too lazy to set up a media server)

But then I've also been to so many concerts that, frankly, I can't tell the different between high-bit VBR and WAV anymore.

OTM, and as far as i'm concerned this is a blessing in disguise.

Though my ears are nowhere near wrecked enough to accept 128kbps.

^^

Larger capacity than an iPod I suppose

also better sound than ipod, no pissing about with itunes or usb transfer via pc, rips CDs directly (tho i probably wouldn't use it for this), and i think i still like the idea of a home-based unit that isn't actually wearable/loseable.

also better sound than ipod, no pissing about with itunes or usb transfer via pc, rips CDs directly (tho i probably wouldn't use it for this), and i think i still like the idea of a home-based unit that isn't actually wearable/loseable.

Again, I can see the appeal for most folks, but I'm very particular about my digital library - I want to be able to organize it in a way that works best FOR ME. I want to group certain artist side-projects under that artists, combine singles, live tracks, etc. Also, by pulling everything onto my PC I can normalize the volume between albums - very handy. Basically I love the control I have and a single device like that would require I cede almost all control.

That Brennan site does a hand-wave regarding compression levels which probably means lower bitrate than I'd like.

Regarding the Brennan, it's £469 ($717 USD) for the 500GB jukebox. That seems like a lot of money for something that's not expandable, doesn't have digital out, and doesn't even accept lossless files. Seems kind of 2004 to me.

You can buy a 1TB hard drive for $60. For those who want to try wireless to different rooms, you can get a Squeezebox receiver for $150, which has it's own DAC that's pretty good. If your receiver has a better DAC, just connect via coax or optical. You can run it without a PC via a NAS, or get the upcoming Squeezebox Touch.

If you want to keep it simple, just have a cheap small laptop and external drive near the receiver, play music with MusicMonkey or, bla, iTunes.

With a separate firewire or USB converter you're not only removing the processing from the electronically noisy computer, you're also getting a better soundcard (how many dollars is your computer's manufacturer devoting to the conversion chip?), a volume knob (which is kinda nice), and probably some audio inputs as well.

Can be as cheap as $50, or as much as $5000. M-Audio makes some decent ones from $100 to $200. Even the cheapest ones should do the Digital to Analog conversion just fine, but the better ones will come into their own with the Analog to Digital, especially if you're ever converting at better-than-cd rates. Of course, this is mostly if you're very serious about vinyl transfers and are up for something like an Apogee or Metric Halo unit (and in which case you know all this already).

Some will come bundled with cheap audio editors, too.

Something like a cheap M-audio converter running out to the cheapest M-audio monitors, will sound vastly better than going out the headphone jack to computer speakers. (though by "vastly better" I mean "more revealing"--you can end up hearing defects, too.)

re: reduced sound quality, i kind of assume everything will go lossless eventually, right? i can't see record companies getting bent out of shape about it when most consumers of digital music files don't care about the difference between 192 & lossless anyway.

― hobbes, Monday, April 5, 2010 5:50 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark

wait, why? I don't get the logic

― ain't no thang but a chicken ㅋ (dyao), Monday, April 5, 2010 3:09 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark

yeah i wasn't reading closely enough, i thought this revive was about The Future Of Music Consumption in general, not just apple's streaming service. what i meant is that if everything inevitably ends up going into "the cloud", what sense does it make for an artist to record in 44khz or whatever only to have the sound quality reduced when it's released? bandwith restrictions was the obvious answer i hadn't thought of.

Although you do get slightly better sounding compressed audio files if you start from files that were at higher than cd quality initially. Though the real reason, I assume, would be that nobody knows what technology is coming, so it'd be better to have the maximum fidelity now. And, of course, the more you're going to process the material (various effects, mastering, and so on) the better it is to have more bits to play with from the get-go. Generally best to record at 24 bits, and at least an 88.2 sampling rate, then do your tinkering, then knock everything down to cd quality (16 bits, 44.1 sampling rate) at the end.

Yeah, the cloud will come eventually, but I think it will take a few years for it to be consistently reliable and high bandwidth enough to sound good. I mean, how many people still have trouble with cell phone connections in their own apartment? Plenty, and they've been working on that problem for 15 years. Anything that involves people climbing poles and messing around with wires is going to take a lot longer to get right than something that just involves software.

hobbes - yeah I can see that the master servers (itunes, lala, last.fm) will preserve everything at CD quality or higher. that's how Apple was able to roll out the 256 kbps upgrade so fast - I assume it was just a simple job of transcoding their master apple lossless files or whatever. but I don't see anybody streaming lossless files any time soon! xxp

Regarding the Brennan, it's £469 ($717 USD) for the 500GB jukebox.

for this money you can buy a mac mini and set it up to be a booming media server.

BTW if you're setting up your computer as a music server and you're running windows and you're using an external soundcard or using digital out, your sound quality is getting degraded - basically windows has a kernel service thingy that remixes everything to 32khz. you need to install something called 'asio4all' to bypass this - google it.

macs, as usual, don't have this problem.

Read mixed things on this, but what's the general consensus on sound quality of AirPort thing.

Fine for me.