It’s not just music lovers realizing that streaming has a long way to go to match physical media.
Film lovers see the same issues: degraded quality, no extras, no ownership, unknown/ temporary access.
We give up a lot for the convenience of streaming. #SaveTheAudio ? #SaveTheVideo
Recording allows us to store and replay something. It is the first time-shifting. It’s been around for ~ 200 years but it wasn’t until the last 100 that they really started making tangible progress for commercial applications.
Images were first. Then sound. Then moving images. By 1930 they were all combined into “talkies” – narrative moving pictures with synced sound.
These independent technologies progressed through the 20th century: Phonograph was invented and perfected to bring recorded music into the home; TV was invented to bring moving pictures into the home. The march of progress was obvious. Each new era brought better tech with better specs.
Today we are going to look at the advancement of the TV set over 70 years.
[infogram id=”aHKoRm07UAUDaUs5″ prefix=”Yry” format=”interactive” title=”TV Set Historical Averages”]
You can see that overall screen size has risen linearly while pixel size has grown exponentially. Weight has come down and price, after adjusted for inflation, has come way down.
How do you think TV set history will compare with music playing equipment? Stay tuned to this series to find out.
Lossless data on the left. The right side is a visual representation of what we’ve been listening to for 20 years now.
Deets on Youtube’s audio handling:
Audio is streamed at either 128k or 320k mp3.
Everything defaults to 128k. You can only get the 320k audio stream by selecting the HD video quality. Some videos start in HD but most don’t. It’s also hard to embed HD youtube into other sites since it seems to default to the basic stream.
It appears there’s no FLAC streaming allowed and no lossy streaming of any kind.
The 320k mp3’s can sound decent, especially coming from 128k, but once you go lossless you won’t want to listen to lossy anymore.
Which is better? Neither. The compression on the left appears to have slightly fewer artifacts but neither is close to the original.
If everyone got their music from streaming? That’s a big problem.
- has no cross promotion with local events or the local economy.
- has no cross promotion with local unsigned bands.
- has no direct connection back to the artist.
- completely ignores the purchasing power of the listener.
- has a limited and unstable (ever changing) catalog.
- pays a lower royalty per listener than other performance licenses.
- is the worst sound quality of all distribution platforms.
- has no production credits or copyright information.
- has no writer, composer, or publishing credits.
- has no human interaction for discovery of new music.
- assumes genre and style over all else when mixing music.
- assumes what you liked yesterday morning is what you will like Friday night.
- avoids selecting album/deep cuts and non-hits nearly as bad as top 40.
- requires multiple subscriptions (network and provider) to be active and paid up.
- cannot be rewound and reviewed for additional enjoyment.
- cannot easily be recorded or mixed into playlists and sets.
- contains only a low-resolution cover image, not complete artwork.
- contains no lyrics or artist notes.
- just got The Beatles in 2016.
- requires almost no paid humans to get it to your ears.
I’ve been around streaming for literally 20 years now, and have programmed it and listened to it since the beginning. If it truly is taking over the music industry we have to be honest about it’s shortcomings. That’s the only way we can start to address them.
Another internet casualty
The music industry, ever pro-active and cutting edge, has finally decided to try and sell music in a digital file format.
I have heard some good and many bad things about this new scheme (mainly that it won’t do much to stop digital bootlegging, which has already won) that they are calling “Echo”.
What do you think, would you pay $18 for a couple hundred megs of a downloadable music with full copy-protection and other big-brother tactics? Read more at Rolling Stone.
[including original comment from Wonder B, posted 02-02-2003:
|Hell no!!!!!!! (Score: 1)
by WonderB (FunkMeUp@damnyourspam.com) on Feb 02, 2003 – 05:11 AM
(User info | Send a message) http://
|I really must be an old fart because I can’t imagine paying for virtual music…
I have been raised on vinyl and buying something that is not real, meaning that if you will have to burn the CD yourself, is something that I just cannot even understand…!
I don’t even buy the CDR’s that are for sale by a lot of artists who do not have a recording contract so I won’t buy the stuff especially if it’s money to be given to the record industry which denies the funk so much…
By not signing any of the artists I love I cannot see myself giving them more money for them to put out more American Idol and stuff of the same ilk (note that I am being very polite on the subject, a thing that would totally change if we had this conversation live in the open! LOL)
NO sincerely I think that the record industry is trying to jump on the bandwagon which left years ago so their try to catch it up is just plain ridiculous I think.
Imagine how much more profit the industry could get from this way of selling???????? No CD’s to be made? no artwork to be printed? No jewel case to put everything in, and more than that, no costly distributors… Hell I think they still would have the better end of the stick!!!