Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
A Lark Ascending

Is streaming technology saving the music industry?

468 posts in this topic

It’s an app, so the browser part doesn’t apply. And as I stated before, I subcribe to it through my Apple account, so they already have any and all information that will be of any relevance to them. Spotify is app-bsed, too. Though they do have a browser version. 

So what I’m saying is that at best the assertion that streaming services are surveilance tools used for targeted market is very overblown hyperbole, and at worst Grade A bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phone, PC (or TV for that matter, hello Roku), it all goes through the Internet.

Hell, I use the free Panodra app on my Roku to fall asleep at night. The ads are hardly intrusive (I grew up on AM Top 40, remember, so I have a high tolerance for ads), but they're always local-specific. So if they don't know anything else, they know where I live. And if I paid for the ad-free service (as if...), they'd still know where I live and my ISP/IP.

And I might wonder how many people pay for the ad-free service of any of these things vs taking the ads and keeping it free. What's the %?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I have no idea. Pretty much everyone I know that uses Spotify pays for it. I don’t think Tidal has a free package, and know for a fact that Apple Music doesn’t. So if I had to guess I’d say at the very least it’d be north of 50%. 

*edit*

Hmmmm...I stand corrected. YouTube is blowing away all the paid streaming services. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2018/05/25/the-top-10-streaming-music-services-by-number-of-users/#789cfce65178

Another interesting piece. Yoots are more willing to spring for paid streaming. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2016/07/29/millennials-love-premium-streaming-music-but-are-they-the-ones-paying/

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

It’s an app, so the browser part doesn’t apply. And as I stated before, I subcribe to it through my Apple account, so they already have any and all information that will be of any relevance to them. Spotify is app-bsed, too. Though they do have a browser version. 

So what I’m saying is that at best the assertion that streaming services are surveilance tools used for targeted market is very overblown hyperbole, and at worst Grade A bullshit. 

No argument that the paid versions of streaming services as a rule don't have the intrusive ads of the free versions, but as Jim pointed out that doesn't preclude lots of data collection that can be used in plenty of other ways. And apps can and do access lots of data on phones, some of which most people would certainly object to if the scope and nature of such data collection were more transparent than it typically is. How many people really read the terms and conditions for use of a given app and actually understand what rights they are granting in terms of data access when they use that app? Those T&Cs damn sure aren't written to benefit the consumer.  

It would probably be a bit extreme to claim that every single streaming service is a sinister, monolithic data-hoovering colossus hell-bent on pushing ads directly into people's brains, but I also don't think a lot of their practices can necessarily be regarded as benign. At the end of the day, it's all about the money, and the currency of the online realm is user data, one way or another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.

So yet again my contention that the bullshit hyperbole of music streaming apps being used as surveilance to create targeted ads is confirmed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the exact phrase was " surveillance-based ad delivery system ". Seeing that it's not been disputed that data from the apps  is being captured and then sold/shared/used, I don't see where the original stand-alone phrase is in any way bullshit. It might be bullshit if the claim was that there was a direct, A-B, linear correlation between app use and ad appearance, but nobody's made that assertion that I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize how burden of proof works, right? It lies with the one making extraordinary claims. 

And I’ve been provided zero poof to support his claim. There is exactly no evidence proving paid streaming services are surveilance-based, NOR delivering ads. Ergo bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly see where the statement that apps gather data for further use is an extraordinary claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Focus.

”Surveilance-based ad delivery system”. 

Show me proof of one fucking ad that came from you using Spotify/Tidal/Apple Music. 

One. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I see, you're saying that your interpretation of that phrase to mean that is bullshit.

I'll not dare to be so presumptuous as to come between you and your personal thought process. Do carry on!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again. Proof, please. 

I’d stick with being presumptuous rather than simply believing something some nobody asserted on the internet without evidence.  It’ll get you into less trouble. 

Hitchen’s razor, baby! 

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Then for the sake of argument let's exclude premium paid services. You seem to think that Spotify has the only ad-supported streaming service out there, but off the top of my head there's also Pandora, Soundcloud, and Google Play Music (the latter of which recently introduced a free ad-supported service).

A bit less than half of Spotify users pay for the premium service; with Pandora, the number of paid users is far lower, under ten percent of the total user base. That's a lot of people that ads are being delivered to, somewhere in the neighborhood of 170 million users just for those two services alone. 

And it's pretty clear as to what the endgame is, even if the tools and processes are still being refined:

GDPR Data Exports Reveal Spotify Tracks Absolutely Everything About You

AD TECH STREAMS INTO AUDIO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

Just posted in the Bullshit Audio group on FB. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/08/05/hifi-music-streaming-services-people-cant-tell-it-when-they-hear-it.html

Still amazes me at how successful marketing departments have been at selling the “hi res” bullshit to the masses. 

A couple of problems with this article:

1) Tidal streaming at "CD quality" is not "Hi res". Tidal is regular res. CD is regular res.

2) Of course people won't be able to tell the difference between 320 kBps compressed audio and "CD quality". At that high of a bit rate, it's been scientifically proven that it *is* indistinguishable from the source i.e. the CD.

If they had compared real Hi Res streams with audio mastered at Hi Res, like Acoustic Sounds' Super HiRez or some of the real Hi Res at HD Tracks, to Spotify and Apple Music, then I'd be curious to see if people heard a difference.

EDIT: I'm guessing that they will still have some difficulty telling the difference, but I'd really like to find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming they meant the "MQA" offerings on Tidal, which are at the laughable 24/96. Numbers that awe the unsuspecting. 

As for HDTracks, and other such nonsense, if they are remastered, sure, they may sound a little different. But, they'd sound exactly the same if they were mixed down to 16/44.1, which already gives us more dynamic range than any recording known to exists contains (96dB), and a maximum frequency of 22.5kHz. Not only well beyond the range of human hearing, but also about 6kHz higher than frequencies produced by any musical instrument, the highest of which roll off sharply after 16kHz. 

The problem is that audio hucksters use the word "resolution" to describe this bullshit, which simply isn't true. Not even a little. I've had so many people tell me that "hi-res" is "filling in the gaps" left by the lower sampling rate of 44.1, which is so completely wrong that it's staggering that I still hear it regularly. 

This is all about a dying industry cheating people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to be a firm believer that higher resolution discs, SACD and DVD-Audio, produced superior quality audio. And then Fantasy came out with a batch of SACDs that sounded "Meh" and then UMG came out with those Peter Gabriel and Police SACDS that sounded worse than "Meh". The final straw was when the entire Genesis catalog was reissued on remastered SACDS that sounded like audio doo-doo.

It's all in the mastering. Digitized audio doo-doo sounds like analog audio doo-doo no matter the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and SACD kind of died a quick, and almost thorough death after the AES exposed it through their blind testing. 

The only reason it still exists as a ghost of itself is that some Classical labels release their albums in SACD format only. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.