Is streaming technology saving the music industry?

[Scott Dolan]

Right.

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

[JSngry]

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.

[Scott Dolan]

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. 

[JSngry]

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

[Scott Dolan]

Focus.

”Surveilance-based ad delivery system”. 

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

One. 

[JSngry]

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!

 

[Scott Dolan]

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 November 22, 2018 by Scott Dolan

[Dave Garrett]

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

[Scott Dolan]

I can live with all that. 

[Scott Dolan]

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. 

[Kevin Bresnahan]

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.

[Scott Dolan]

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. 

[Kevin Bresnahan]

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.

[Scott Dolan]

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.