|
Speaking of on-line services, last.fm doesn't seem to work with 64-bit Windows 7 any more. Oh well 
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Spotify is great for people who only listen to music that is on Spotify. +1 It's a problem common to all streaming services. If a band you like happens to change record companies at some point during their career, it's a complete crapshoot which albums will be available, and which versions of those albums. And if it's not a label that's at least semi-mainstream, it won't be available at all. A lot of the music I listen to is self-published through services like Bandcamp, or only available directly through a tiny record company in Finland or something. Good luck finding that stuff on Spotify. I guess I'm kinda old-fashioned, but I prefer to own stuff rather than rent it. E: I guess I could just get that Google Play subscription and use it to complement the music I've uploaded to the music locker, for music I'll only listen to once in a while or something. KozmoNaut has a new favorite as of 11:16 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
Well poo poo I dunno what you people are listening to. Even if I'm wanting to listen to obscure poo poo from tiny little Canadian bands in 2003 or a mid 90s emo band from Wichita or whatever 99% of it is there. The times I can't find something (that isn't just incredibly underground or unavailable like the first GY!BE cassette record) are memorable because they're so rare. I own about 1500 records as well but Spotify is just the flat out best for convenience and breadth.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
I'll admit that I haven't used Spotify (or any other streaming service) much. The thing that really bothers me is that the music can just disappear if the record company and Spotify decide that they don't want to work together anymore. I don't like the idea of music just disappearing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I'll admit that I haven't used Spotify (or any other streaming service) much. The thing that really bothers me is that the music can just disappear if the record company and Spotify decide that they don't want to work together anymore. I don't like the idea of music just disappearing. Same. Maybe the concept of owning physical property is obsolete, soon everything will be licensed to you.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 13:35
|
|
|
Buttcoin purse posted:Same. Maybe the concept of owning physical property is obsolete, soon everything will be licensed to you. If corporations have their way; it will.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
I think if you put a song in a Spotify playlist, it'll remain even if the album gets pulled. I had an artist whose music was pulled due to contract bullshit and I could still listen to his music on a playlist I made. The albums were only just reinstated.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Clamps McGraw posted:The times I can't find something (that isn't just incredibly underground or unavailable like the first GY!BE cassette record) are memorable because they're so rare. Their catalog is getting better, no question, but there are and always will be enormous gaps.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
i can't wait until audiophiles are an obsolete technology *listens to streamed music using "good" quality on his $20 earbuds*
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
robodex posted:i can't wait until audiophiles are an obsolete technology Audiophiles will never die. As long as humans exist, so will rubes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think if you put a song in a Spotify playlist, it'll remain even if the album gets pulled. I had an artist whose music was pulled due to contract bullshit and I could still listen to his music on a playlist I made. The albums were only just reinstated. I'm pretty sure I've seen stuff from playlists disappear after Spotify lost the streaming rights, but if the app is caching your music you may still be able to listen to it. I wish the options for loading your own music onto Spotify were easier. When it works it's great, but it's very picky with how the songs are named and any special characters in the titles. Still, that's one way to put non-Spotify music on there and listen to it in the same playlists.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
spog posted:If corporations have their way; it will. Nah, the government will license you to other corporations.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:I can't wait for nerds to become obsolete. Never going to happen. Besides, why would you be suicidal?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:
Like if your favorite song by a band appears only on the deluxe version of an album, and Spotify only licenses the standard version. Or you can get weird situations like the Reservoir Dogs soundtrack, where they didn't get the rights to "Fool for Love". The song appears in the playlist, it just won't loving play!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
The main strength of Spotify is for things you haven't known or cared enough about to buy - it's a good place to start if you're idly curious about an artist or genre, or to find things you vaguely remember liking in highschool. Besides, browsing viral top50 for other countries is entertaining. (Denmark has a thing for extremely vulgar lyrics, and Finland has the highest amount of native-language music I've found. Finnish has about three times the ideal amount of syllables/word for rap, but that doesn't stop them from trying. And no, I don't speak a word of Finnish.) Computer viking has a new favorite as of 17:25 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:The main strength of Spotify is for things you haven't known or cared enough about to buy - it's a good place to start if you're idly curious about an artist or genre, or to find things you vaguely remember liking in highschool. I used Spotify for something like this when my mom suddenly remembered that the BoDeans existed and wanted to know what happened to them. We played one of their latest slow, mournful soft rock songs and then forgot about them again.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Last Chance posted:Audiophiles will never die. As long as humans exist, so will tubes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
I'm an old, and I actively avoid buying software, video or music on physical media, and have for years. All my music & movies have been purchased through iTunes or simply rented on demand via cable. When I move, I don't have to move anything with me; its automatic. As long as Apple stays in business, I don't have to do anything to preserve my entertainment media. And this relates to the "long-term storage" conversation from earlier: someone else stores all my poo poo on some HD somewhere and backs it up repeatedly. I'm self-employed, so I Carbonite my whole business, but I have them back up my personal stuff too. Vacation photos, personal correspondence, everything. Physical media for Joe Schmo is obsolete. Everything is backed up for you by someone else, even stuff you originally bought on physical media a long time ago. All you have to do is transfer to digital & you're good to go. (Which I never actually did...the first music I bought via iTunes forever ago was Sign O The Times by Prince, which I still had on CD. $9.99 was worth the pain in the rear end of ripping it.) THAT SAID... a vinyl album played on good speakers is vastly superior to an MP3 played through earbuds. I'm on my phone so I don't know how to add the can-of-worms emote.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Ah, but how does vinyl through earbuds compare to mp3 through speakers?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
my way is better
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Samizdata posted:Never going to happen. Besides, why would you be suicidal? I read your posts.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
I sing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Edit: Not the place to start an argument about the merits of streaming music services.
Imagined has a new favorite as of 20:10 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Imagined posted:But at least Spotify isn't deleting the music on your harddrive. I noticed something similarly slimy when I downloaded an album that I bought as a physical CD onto iTunes. Before the advent of Apple Music, I could just cloud sync my phone and download the music. When Apple Music hit, however, it suddenly blocked that off via subscription. I had the music already downloaded and stored on my phone, but it refused to let me play it unless I paid for a subscription. The only way to get it back was to plug my phone into my computer and manually add the music to my phone via iTunes. Looks like it's a good thing I bought the physical album, because who knows whether Apple would have just deleted the stuff I paid for at random?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:Ah, but how does vinyl through earbuds compare to mp3 through speakers? The speakers will sound better. It's basically output, quality of the reader, quality of the input in that order until you get to *really* crappy encodes or scratched up records. That said vinyl is great because it has physicality, the trend of digital for most people and vinyl+digital for collectors is one I whole-heartedly approve of.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
ON the subject of disc storage and tech: What is the status on the 100-200-300+ CD disc changers for homes? Looking on Amazon, it seems like almost every model I look at is discontinued.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Mercy killed because of the inconvenience of trying to organize 300 CDs must've been a nightmare. Now the answer is just: Spotify. The bigger question is: Why would you ever want one?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I'm probably a little old-school, I prefer to preserve the wholeness of the album even if I only really like one or two tracks. It probably depends a lot on genres too, I have a bunch of concept albums. But if you primarily listen to genres where albums tend more towards single collections, I can see why you'd only keep the tracks you really like. Mostly when I listen to music I do it while also doing something else, like working or driving or playing a video game, so I tend to go for things with energy to them, if that makes sense at all. Basically when I'm driving I don't want to listen to a ballad or soft instrumental. So I just keep the "fun" tracks, for the most part. Absolete tech / CD related dumb complaint: I keep seeing 5 disc CD changers at the thrift store and being disappointed they're not LD players.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:The bigger question is: Why would you ever want one? This is probably the second worst thread to ask "Why would you want that?" in regards to old music playing methods.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:ON the subject of disc storage and tech: What is the status on the 100-200-300+ CD disc changers for homes? Looking on Amazon, it seems like almost every model I look at is discontinued. I bought a Sony 200CD unit for my shop and filled it with CD's set on "random song" in -1995. It was great, kinda like my own radio station. Clunky and limited, but still great. Now I do the same thing with a fully loaded 64gig thumbdrive. There's a reason nobody wants them anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:ON the subject of disc storage and tech: What is the status on the 100-200-300+ CD disc changers for homes? Looking on Amazon, it seems like almost every model I look at is discontinued. I had a Sony 200 CD changer back around '99-'00. Used it for a few years after that until I got an iPod and enough hard drive space to make it impractical. It took forever to make a list of the discs in there. The upscale model had a keyboard input so you could enter in song titles and poo poo but gently caress all that. Been said better by a bunch of people now but with Google music I've got 90% of what is like to listen to available at all times. I've got enough space on every device that isn't connected to my home computer that I'm very, very seldom wanting for something to listen to. I definitely do not miss the bad old days of gigantic CD suitcases.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Are you seriously trying to say CDs are heavy now? Vinyl is a loving pain in the loving arse. CDs are merely a loving pain in the arse. So there's that. Anyway I got all my CDs and digitised them and now I have shelves. Shelves are cool.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:I read your posts.  Havem't seen that one in a while. Does that make it obsolete?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Someone who is good at design should invent a bulky physical object that just has some flash memory inside and a proprietary plug. Something that you can cover with good "album art", partially made of wood, that's a pain to carry around but not that much of a pain.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Someone who is good at design should invent a bulky physical object that just has some flash memory inside and a proprietary plug. Something that you can cover with good "album art", partially made of wood, that's a pain to carry around but not that much of a pain. I'm thinking NES cartridge in nicer materials?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:I'm thinking NES cartridge in nicer materials? Its shape could be reminiscent of an NES cartridge, in a subtle way that appeals to the lizard brain.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Dumb (potentially audiophile-y) question: At what point did we just decide that CD quality was going to be the best we'd ever strive for in non-disc based audio quality? It's been a long time since I cared that much about it (or had an audio system good enough), but anyone who has heard the "Hell Freezes Over" DVD by The Eagles and compared the DTS mix to the normal mix would say it's a night and day difference. Back when Tidal was first announced I was actually excited that someone had moved technology on - but it turns out that they were simply pusing "indistinguishable to a CD" as though it were some kind of holy grail. I thought I might have had an excuse to go find my old Sennheiser cans tldr yada yada mellows warmth and all that poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
sarcastx posted:At what point did we just decide that CD quality was going to be the best we'd ever strive for in non-disc based audio quality? My understanding is that higher sampling rates are only useful in production. For a competently mastered product, 44.1 kHz is as good as it gets. Same for bits∕sample: 16 is sufficient if you don’t do something dumb like apply dynamic range compression. If you want more channels, okay fine. That brings us to a possible answer: headphones/earbuds don’t need more than two channels. That’s why the music industry stopped bothering, I’d venture. Platystemon has a new favorite as of 06:51 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
"Most people don't give a poo poo" is the best answer to the audio quality argument. I'm not an audiophile by most standards but I do want my music to sound the best it can under whatever circumstances. Given that the majority of people aren't going to be sitting down in a nice sound proof room with high quality audio gear CDs and high quality files/streaming is perfectly fine. And I tend to agree for the most part. One thing I wish was more popular is multi channel recordings of some stuff. The flaming lips yoshimi album in 5.1 is really loving cool to hear. I realize not a lot of music would benefit from the surround experience but that's an option I'd like to have for certain things. There was SACD but it didn't really catch on. I'm guessing that most people didn't want to buy the player or yet another copy of their albums. Not to mention you would have to have some pretty decent stereo gear to even be able to tell the difference. It's a shame because I've heard some SACDs on good gear and they really do sound loving amazing. Grumbletron 4000 has a new favorite as of 06:36 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
So far, absolutely no one has been able to conclusively hear any difference between CD quality and "high resolution" of the same mastered audio. CD quality exceeds the capabilities of human hearing, so there's absolutely no reason to go beyond that for playback quality. Hell, most people can't reliably distinguish between CD quality and 128kbps MP3.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 06:39
|
|