Jump to content

Lossless Streaming is about to go Mainstream


Will your listening habits change after lossless streaming goes mainstream?  

77 members voted

  1. 1. Will your listening habits change after lossless streaming goes mainstream?

    • I will UPGRADE to lossless streaming as my ONLY form of listening
    • I will UPGRADE to lossless streaming as my PRIMARY source of listening but will still buy physical copies for collecting
    • I will continue streaming in STANDARD quality
    • I do not stream now but will start with Lossless Streaming
    • I do not and will not stream music
    • I ALREADY stream in Lossless with another brand but will switch to either Spotify or Apple
    • I ALREADY stream in Lossless with another brand and will stay with them
  2. 2. Will this change your buying habits of physical copies?

    • Yes, I will NOT BUY physical copies anymore
    • Yes, I will ONLY BUY for collecting purposes
    • No, I will CONTINUE to buy physical copies
    • No, I DON'T BUY physical copies anyway


Recommended Posts

So... It's been discovered in one of the latest beta software versions for iOS that Apple is most likely about to release a lossless streaming option. Spotify also announced, somewhat recently, their version will be coming later this year. While this might seem like small news at first, I feel like this is going to be a major shift in the music industry. It might also explain the Singles Reissue Campaign her team is doing right now. 

Even though High Fidelity Streaming has been around through Tidal and Qobuz for a while, will you end up changing your music purchasing habits when major players like Spotify and Apple release their lossless streaming options?

 

If your situation falls in-between somehow, please choose the one closest to your situation and explain in the comments. I feel like I could have probably made 1,000 choices... but these seem like the basics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Prayer

Interesting topic.  You forgot one option: buying digital music. I know is a thing of the past but some still do it. I do with releases or artists I want to support, cause they get more money from it and I like to edit metadata and stuff. I think it's a good thing that HD audio arrives to Spotify and Apple Music so people who want that option have it available. They already have the option to do it, as they receive lossless files from the record companies. It's just a matter of offering the

Prayer

2 (or even 3 in some cases) CD singles back in the day was greed from the companies, yeah, but also because of the rules of the charts, especially in the UK. If I remember well, from 1997 or 1998, CD singles above 20 minutes in total were not considered for the UK singles charts. So if you have, let's say, 2 b-sides and 3 remixes, most artists released a b-sides single (CD 1) and a remixes single (CD 2) - and that way they managed to count 2 copies sold for the charts.  If the remixes

amscity

I think I'm an ET because I simply don't use streaming at all! And the reason is that basically I don't give up my personal library to replace it for something I don't have control over. I mean, I'm a perfectionist. I have every album, every single, every version, everything organized, in the best quality possible. Streaming make us limited to what they offer.  Madonna's discography available on streaming is a mess! They've changed the original tracks, they've changed the artworks

Posted Images

Interesting topic. :cute: You forgot one option: buying digital music. I know is a thing of the past but some still do it. I do with releases or artists I want to support, cause they get more money from it and I like to edit metadata and stuff.

I think it's a good thing that HD audio arrives to Spotify and Apple Music so people who want that option have it available. They already have the option to do it, as they receive lossless files from the record companies. It's just a matter of offering the option. TIDAL and them receive the same files.

Anyway, I don't think it's gonna be a mainstream thing. Lossless subscription will probably cost double the price of standard. And we know most people don't care that much about audio quality - it's hard to tell the difference between 256 AAC/320 MP3 and CD with regular equipment. I'm happy it's coming for all the audiophiles out there though, I don't know why it's taken them so long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PaperFaces said:

I still buy my music.

Ideally from an artist’s bandcamp.

Artists Dont make money off of streaming, so them going lossless wont change anything for me.

Streaming is practical, but it’s basically legitimized illegally downloading music.

Apple revealed they pay basically one cent per stream, more than any other company... The artist will then get their cut of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RUADJAI said:

Apple revealed they pay basically one cent per stream, more than any other company... The artist will then get their cut of that. 

Mmmm maybe they pay that to majors but independent labels and artists get around 0,005 € per stream. Still better than Spotify (0,001 €). It's all rubbish anyway.

Streaming needs to find a way to work too for artists, songwriters, etc. etc. but that's another topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RUADJAI said:

Tell me your situation baby! My brain is only so smart to think of every option. 

Apple Music person. My digital library is merged with their streaming library. So I enjoy the best of both worlds all on 1 device.  If there’s an option for lossless streaming, I’ll likely push the button that will allow for that. So my situation won’t be changing at all. And I still buy and play vinyl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm an ET because I simply don't use streaming at all!

And the reason is that basically I don't give up my personal library to replace it for something I don't have control over. I mean, I'm a perfectionist. I have every album, every single, every version, everything organized, in the best quality possible.

Streaming make us limited to what they offer. 

Madonna's discography available on streaming is a mess! They've changed the original tracks, they've changed the artworks, they've changed the masters, it's not great at all.

My favorite music is not current music, from 20's to 90's, some of 00's, current music from current artists generally sucks (only my taste). I only like what the artists who started before keep doing. Like Madonna.

The problem is: streaming gives us remasters, loud, compressed, horrible music (talking, specially about 70's and 80's), so I don't care if it's lossless or not, the master already sucks.

I prefer CD quality with DR than a High Res file remastered and compressed. 

Example: Diana Ross, The Boss. You only find a horrible remaster online, not only on streaming but also to download. I'd NEVER replace my personal digital and physical copy to stream it and lose quality. (If someone wants the original mastering, please let me know so I can share it). Michael Jackson's albums were killed on remasters. And there're zillion examples.

I prefer to pay VOX premium and create my own "streaming" than paying Spotify, Deezer, Tidal and etc...

I know I sound like an "old mind" but I don't care. Quality comes first, that's the way I think.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ayham said:

Same here... 🤔

Lossless is basically the highest quality audio of the album or single, with no loss, as the artist created it. It can be the original master with no loss. Some formats such as FLAC or WAV are considered lossless. CD can be too if the original master is 16 bits (if the master is 24 bits it's not).

Most digital platforms use compressed files cause that's the way it all started in the early 00s: quality was sacrificed to get small, convenient files. At first it was quite bad, 128 kbps quality, which is not good at all. Around 2008-2009 with better storage options on mobile devices and MP3 players, it changed to a 320 kbps MP3/256 kbps AAC standard which is much better and closer to CD quality (but worse than CD quality in the end).

In most A/B tests with CD quality vs Spotify/Apple Music quality, most people can't tell the difference. But there is a difference, of course.

Audiophiles have been asking for years for a lossless option on Spotify and Apple Music, so it's good that they're finally offering it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you @Prayer ♥️♥️♥️

Still, what dose loss / lossless means regarding music files?!?! Yes I remember the 320 thing... so our files from Apple are all 320??? I have a lot of AAC & WAV files but seriously I don’t know what it stand for or how they do it... the question is what the hell is kbps???? & Audiophiles??? 🤔😅

I remember back in the days I used to download some music which happens to be 128 what I used to do is rip the file to blank CD & then rip the CD with 320 believing that the file is now HQ. 😬😄😂😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ayham said:

Thank you @Prayer ♥️♥️♥️

Still, what dose loss / lossless means regarding music files?!?! Yes I remember the 320 thing... so our files from Apple are all 320??? I have a lot of AAC & WAV files but seriously I don’t know what it stand for or how they do it... the question is what the hell is kbps???? & Audiophiles??? 🤔😅

I remember back in the days I used to download some music which happens to be 128 what I used to do is rip the file to blank CD & then rip the CD with 320 believing that the file is now HQ. 😬😄😂😅

Files bought on the iTunes Store or ripped as iTunes Plus are 256 kbps AAC which is equivalent to 320 kbps MP3. Both are compressed = there's audio info lost in the conversion. A regular, let's say 3:00 song would mean a 7-8 MB file in 256 kbps AAC/320 kbps MP3. A lossless digital file (FLAC, WAV) would be around 35 MB in this case and there wouldn't be audio info lost in the process, the file is the same as the original master. But larger in size than AAC and MP3, of course.

In the old days of limited bandwidth and storage such a larger files were out of the question, of course. But now with a 5G speeds and larger storage, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PaperFaces said:

I never use streaming either. I buy my music. Id like artists to make as much money off of their stuff as possible.

I believe these days streaming equals buying. But coz it requires connection all the time I hate it. 🌚

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Prayer said:

Files bought on the iTunes Store or ripped as iTunes Plus are 256 kbps AAC which is equivalent to 320 kbps MP3. Both are compressed = there's audio info lost in the conversion. A regular, let's say 3:00 song would mean a 7-8 MB file in 256 kbps AAC/320 kbps MP3. A lossless digital file (FLAC, WAV) would be around 35 MB in this case and there wouldn't be audio info lost in the process, the file is the same as the original master. But larger in size than AAC and MP3, of course.

In the old days of limited bandwidth and storage such a larger files were out of the question, of course. But now with a 5G speeds and larger storage, why not?

Hummm very interesting. Yes I think it’s better to have HQ music however regular listeners won’t bother. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wtg1987 said:

I sound like an old fart but I don’t see the point in streaming when i have all her music in wav on my laptop already ( from CDs , downloaded etc) and I can listen to it on my iPod - shoot me 😂🥰

Not at all, that’s what I do, I have all my favorite music in my iPod purchased directly from iTunes. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...