Gregory's Server@nazokiyoubinbou @mono There is little incentive to do so right now at least because everyone pretty much has the same catalogs. Until things go exclusive like video streaming its way more convenient and sounds the same as purchased music files and you get access to nearly everything. Spotify is terrible for many reasons yes but there are alternative services.
|
10 comments
@nazokiyoubinbou @mono Most music streaming services are offering lossless CD 44.1 kHz levels at minimum for all of their tracks. One of the big reasons Spotify sucks for consumers is they do not but nearly everyone else does. I usually put about 2 albums per week on my playlist which is over $1000 usd per year if purchased individually. Instead I can spend $120 usd a year for the same albums via streaming.  @johnglass @mono I haven't looked around a lot recently, but I had a darned hard time finding lossless in anything last I looked not *that* long ago. You also have to take into consideration that not everyone listens to the same things you do. Some things are easier to find than others. This still doesn't bypass the other issues I mentioned. @nazokiyoubinbou @mono its rare that an artist i want to listen to isn't available to stream. Here is an article 6 months old discussing the many lossless streaming platforms. โคต๏ธ https://www.gearpatrol.com/audio/best-lossless-streaming-services/ @johnglass @mono And now we've circled back to DRM/locked down services and see the above discussion. @johnglass @mono See the above conversation that you replied to for a discussion of why it is not moot. @nazokiyoubinbou @mono read 3 times. Physical track ownership is a niche demand. For the masses it is not needed....until like i said music services engage in exclusivity. @johnglass @nazokiyoubinbou I get you and if it works for you, that's great! but for me the main reason is album availability. for example one of my favourite track from an artist is missing on everything but apple music. I've also seen some albums get removed temporarily or permanently from them. which all reminds me how little control I have over my own collection. I don't have to worry about these with curating my own collection. @mono @nazokiyoubinbou I see your point and if my listening was a small sample I'd be right there with you but $900 US dollars per year is a lot of money. I used to do that years ago with CDs. I have around 1000. That is like $12,000 usd. Streaming is just too nice to pass up for someone with a voracious appetite. |
@johnglass @mono I'm not quite 100% clear what you're saying, but I do have to kind of disagree with "it sounds the same." This part is tricky. It *CAN* sound the same. More often than not, however, quality is reduced with streaming. Whether by choice (less bandwidth,) quality of connection (will reduce automatically upon drops/signal loss,) or even just availability (not all thing has a high quality version available in streaming services.
Of course, purchased copies can vary too. It's easy to rip a CD to full quality, but if you purchase MP3s or whatever you may well get low grade (kind of makes you want to sue those people who once said that 128Kbps MP3 was "CD quality." It is not.) I wish more services sold FLAC or other lossless formats.
@johnglass @mono I'm not quite 100% clear what you're saying, but I do have to kind of disagree with "it sounds the same." This part is tricky. It *CAN* sound the same. More often than not, however, quality is reduced with streaming. Whether by choice (less bandwidth,) quality of connection (will reduce automatically upon drops/signal loss,) or even just availability (not all thing has a high quality version available in streaming services.