Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[flac.rules]

This idea has merit. That's why it gets regular air time here on Interact. The same explanations are posted every time. To my reading, those explanations are both sensible and reasonable.

The end point is the same. The proponents of these streaming services want to protect their IP and the associated value stream, so they make it costly and difficult for commercial outfits to join in. Scope exists for an individual to invest their own time to code up a means of bridging the gap but it hasn't happened.

Put the call for help to the community not JRiver corporate. To date, I've not seen a capable and motivated individual(s) prepared to roll up their sleeves. No resentment from me on that score, just stating the facts as I see them.

Personally I think JRiver has done their best as far as their scope for action extends by developing the WDM driver. I know it's not perfect but at least it provides a work around. This scores kudos in my book.

So, unless there's a game changer out there to talk about can we move on?

I think more can be done, I think it might be important to do more, and I am not ready to move on The WDM driver is very nice, but I think there could be potential for more.

IMHO people who are looking to stream everything and "throw out their collection", probably won't be using MC anyway, but there is a middle ground here, namely having bot local files AND using streaming. Besides, i think people should be careful about calling people who like streaming naive, especially in light of what blind testing actually shows about lossy compression and expensive DACs.

[BillT]

My use of naive referred to knowledge of corporate behaviour not technical standards!

I occasionally stream the BBC radio feeds (they are technically better than the broadcast feeds), so I have no objection to the technology. It's the implementation that's dodgy.

[Vocalpoint]

IMO, it is good if JRiver crew wish to add a streaming plugin, but for the class of devoted JRiver users, the majority of us might like to be able to turn the streaming functionality off if possible... 

+1

The industry reputation of JRiver rests squarely on being the best sounding "audiophile" apps available today. And they did not get that rep by worrying about how "streaming" is going to sound.

I believe JRiver's core audience is not the 20 something smartphone crowd that could not give a crap about audio quality. And as such - there is little point to placing tons of dev time towards streaming when there is nothing JRiver can do to improve upon the sound. a 256k stream is still a 256k stream whether it runs through JRiver or not.

That said - if a MC plugin showed up one day - I am sure a few would dig it. But as suggested -  I agree that the bulk of the MC base probably can't be bothered.

For me personally - IF I did feel the need to stream Spotify (For example) - their apps are free, easy to use and the sound is fine. Even if MC had a plugin - I really have no desire to even bother with it in this case.

VP

 

[flac.rules]

+1

The industry reputation of JRiver rests squarely on being the best sounding "audiophile" apps available today. And they did not get that rep by worrying about how "streaming" is going to sound.

I believe JRiver's core audience is not the 20 something smartphone crowd that could not give a crap about audio quality. And as such - there is little point to placing tons of dev time towards streaming when there is nothing JRiver can do to improve upon the sound. a 256k stream is still a 256k stream whether it runs through JRiver or not.

That said - if a MC plugin showed up one day - I am sure a few would dig it. But as suggested -  I agree that the bulk of the MC base probably can't be bothered.

For me personally - IF I did feel the need to stream Spotify (For example) - their apps are free, easy to use and the sound is fine. Even if MC had a plugin - I really have no desire to even bother with it in this case.

VP

 

I hope it doesn't as long as decoding and all that is done properly, and no particualr filtering is done, there is no difference in how programs sounds.

You don't have to be 20 something, nor be a person "who don't give a crap about sound quality", to use streaming. You are continuing to pretend everything is black and white when it comes to this, it is not.

[Vocalpoint]

I hope it doesn't as long as decoding and all that is done properly, and no particualr filtering is done, there is no difference in how programs sounds. You don't have to be 20 something, nor be a person "who don't give a crap about sound quality", to use streaming. You are continuing to pretend everything is black and white when it comes to this, it is not.

I am not implying that you don't have to care about sound quality to use streaming.

Why I am saying quite clearly is the millions of other 20 somethings, 30 somethings or 80 somethings out there that  "live by streaming" or treat it as their defacto way to listen to music these days - don't (and never will) do it using MC. They will never pay 50 dollars to ever be tied down to a software app on a PC at home.  They get their fix using a free app on a lowest common denominator cellphone where audio quality is truly non-existent.

Jeez - even me - a devoted MC fan if there even was one - can't be bothered with using MC to stream anything.

My only streaming service right now is Spotify and while I enjoy it when I do use it - I wouldn't go out of my way to use it in MC even if there was a way to do it.

Given the low grade sound quality - it's easier to just fire up the desktop app or mobile app and leave it at that.

VP

[AndyU]

Those companies are not interested in cooperation. We have tried.

But haven't the likes of Spotify, Qobuz, Deezer and Tidal cooperated with companies like Sonos, Linn, Meridian and Naim? So the streaming companies clearly are interested in cooperating with some people at least. It would be fantastic if you guys could bring your tremendous expertise with playback, searching and viewing to these tremendous sources of content. It's only a matter of time before I go with either Tidal, roon or Qobuz and it will be so, so sad to not be able to integrate their content into my carefully built MC library.

[)p(]

I hope it doesn't as long as decoding and all that is done properly, and no particualr filtering is done, there is no difference in how programs sounds.

You don't have to be 20 something, nor be a person "who don't give a crap about sound quality", to use streaming. You are continuing to pretend everything is black and white when it comes to this, it is not.

I agree it's not that black and white. I for one would love to integrate my local library with a streaming service. Also blind tests show imho that 320kbs MP3 is good enough most of the time. And in my own personal experience  the benefits of lossless and or high res are minor at best.

[Vocalpoint]

But haven't the likes of Spotify, Qobuz, Deezer and Tidal cooperated with companies like Sonos, Linn, Meridian and Naim? So the streaming companies clearly are interested in cooperating with some people at least.

By the looks of this list - and the fact that I have Spotify on my new Marantz AVR as well - seems that if you are a high end hardware manufacturer (with deep pockets) - the "spotifys" of the world do want to meet with you.

It's probably the "cost" of doing this kind of business is the key limiting factor for a JRiver et al. Plus the fact that "hardware" is more of a static environment where the streaming vendor can get their way on the plugin and how it looks on the hardware.

It's like my Oppo BDP-105. Has a killer Netflix interface built-in - but it's not something anyone can mess with or even access.

VP

[Vocalpoint]

And in my own personal experience  the benefits of lossless and or high res are minor at best.

But in my environment with the hardware and resource at much higher levels - the differences are major. There is no way any streaming service (at least the ones I can get in Canada) is going to stand up quality wise to MC delivering hi-res lossless from our media server into 10K worth of high end gear.

VP

[flac.rules]

I am not implying that you don't have to care about sound quality to use streaming.

Why I am saying quite clearly is the millions of other 20 somethings, 30 somethings or 80 somethings out there that  "live by streaming" or treat it as their defacto way to listen to music these days - don't (and never will) do it using MC. They will never pay 50 dollars to ever be tied down to a software app on a PC at home.  They get their fix using a free app on a lowest common denominator cellphone where audio quality is truly non-existent.

Jeez - even me - a devoted MC fan if there even was one - can't be bothered with using MC to stream anything.

My only streaming service right now is Spotify and while I enjoy it when I do use it - I wouldn't go out of my way to use it in MC even if there was a way to do it.

Given the low grade sound quality - it's easier to just fire up the desktop app or mobile app and leave it at that.

VP

There are clearly millions that are not possible customers to MC, but there are also clearly a lot of customers or potential customers that are interested in streaming.

Even you don't use it you say, I personally use the WDM-driver and send the music through there, and I am sure that I am not alone. It would be even better if the support was better.

It is impossible for any of us to say just how big the group of people who are interested in both MC and streaming are, I think it is a sizable amount though.

[flac.rules]

But in my environment with the hardware and resource at much higher levels - the differences are major. There is no way any streaming service (at least the ones I can get in Canada) is going to stand up quality wise to MC delivering hi-res lossless from our media server into 10K worth of high end gear.

VP

No, the differences between proper lossy and lossless are not major, no matter the gear. But this is a bit on the side of the discussion, you don't like streaming, fine, but please try to look at the big picture, not just what you and I like.

[kstuart]

But the difference between lossless and lossey is far from the biggest difference in sound quality.

The biggest difference is which release of the album.

The most famous difference is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

You can absolutely bet that all the "remastered" versions with heavy clipping (and "bonus tracks" that only the Estate of dead artists would agree to release) are what are streaming.

The big labels do not acknowledge the widespread problem with the more recent "remastered" versions.

But even if you "let the artist decide which version", you can still get into problems.

Iggy and the Stooges were a relatively obscure hard rock band until they arranged for David Bowie to mix their third album "Raw Power".  Bowie created a brilliant mix that emphasized the unique brash and dark quality of the band's sound.  The result was a giant classic that Chrissie Hynde used to carry under her arm while wandering about London looking for musicians to form a band.   Certainly it is the most influential Punk album of all time.

Years later, Iggy decided to personally remix the album, and ended up with something which balanced all the instruments evenly, resulting perhaps in what Iggy might have heard live from the stage monitors.  The result totally removed all the evocative qualities of Bowie's mix, and ended up sounding like a very average garage band.

This is the version you get in U.S. stores and when streaming.

Only when you collect the music yourself and use JRiver MediaCenter, can you hear the best version of each album.

[)p(]

But the difference between lossless and lossey is far from the biggest difference in sound quality.

The biggest difference is which release of the album.

The most famous difference is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

You can absolutely bet that all the "remastered" versions with heavy clipping (and "bonus tracks" that only the Estate of dead artists would agree to release) are what are streaming.

The big labels do not acknowledge the widespread problem with the more recent "remastered" versions.

But even if you "let the artist decide which version", you can still get into problems.

Iggy and the Stooges were a relatively obscure hard rock band until they arranged for David Bowie to mix their third album "Raw Power".  Bowie created a brilliant mix that emphasized the unique brash and dark quality of the band's sound.  The result was a giant classic that Chrissie Hynde used to carry under her arm while wandering about London looking for musicians to form a band.   Certainly it is the most influential Punk album of all time.

Years later, Iggy decided to personally remix the album, and ended up with something which balanced all the instruments evenly, resulting perhaps in what Iggy might have heard live from the stage monitors.  The result totally removed all the evocative qualities of Bowie's mix, and ended up sounding like a very average garage band.

This is the version you get in U.S. stores and when streaming.

Only when you collect the music yourself and use JRiver MediaCenter, can you hear the best version of each album.

This is true and that is why I want an integrated library of my local and streamed music.

I am a diehard Stooges fan and have seen him live numerous times and I am still baffled by that remaster...
The first cd release was a major letdown too because it sounded so thin compared to the lp version. And I am a firm believer in the supiority of the cd format...it just was bad mastering. When I listen to Raw Power I still use a digitized version of the lp  

[Vocalpoint]

No, the differences between proper lossy and lossless are not major, no matter the gear.

Apologies but you are in no position to advise me or anyone else on the differences of lossy to lossless. Let's just agree to disagree.

Anyhoo - back on the track of this thread - and the "consequence" of JRiver and the so called impending "doom" of Apple Music:

1. I do not think JRiver has anything to worry about. They own the audiophile market and no amount of Apple Music is going to change that. The 20 something 'iSheep" will drift over to Apple music and those of us who take a bit more "pride of ownership" or whatever you want to call when it comes to enjoying our audio will continue to enjoy JRiver.

2. With regards to more streaming "support" - I thought that's what the WDM driver was intended to service? If one can now use an entire instance of MC as an audio driver - just direct the Spotify or RDIO or whatever streaming app you choose to that "driver" and there you go. I still fail to see the need for any more "support" or plugins more fancy than that. And given the fact that JRiver is clearly pursuing their own streaming project - any further potential for better "support" for the "other guys" has probably already been decided.

3. Finally - kstuart nailed it. Streaming gives you zero choice - you get what they feed you. For me personally - there is no room in my life for any "remaster" of any track that a streaming source decides to stick out there. Apple Music will be the same - with 100% of the tracks being goosed with dynamic range compression and a brickwall of noise pounding at you.

I will stick with MC and my pristine library of original first pressings and enjoy the best version of any given album at any given time.

And for those times that I need to check out a new release to see if it's worth the effort - I will pop over to Spotify for that.

VP

[mwillems]

For the Stooges fans in this thread, they re-released the original Bowie master of Raw Power on CD last year.  I picked it up and it sounds (to me) pretty close to my vinyl copy, so if anyone wants a "lossless" version of the original master it's floating around now.

[ssands]

Even when we get to the point of super-wide bandwidth (because we are way behind in the U.S., like behind Vietnam even), and super-reliable service, I *still* wouldn't pay for streaming.
It's not my music and I would be at the complete whim of all sorts of business decisions that have nothing to do with me or my interests.
When I own an LP, a CD, or digital download (no DRM!), I can play it when and where I want (pretty much).
I have records I bought 40+ years ago and CDs from whenever they came out.
How many of these services will be around in 10 years? or 20?
Streaming is flushing money down the toilet as far as I'm concerned.

[Vocalpoint]

Streaming is flushing money down the toilet as far as I'm concerned.

Have to agree. There is no guarantees on anything there and they could cut you off immediately and indefinitely. I can't see myself ever investing in any service even in the short term.

VP

[sjhilton]

Hi Everyone, I thought I'd make a contribution to this topic as I have quite a few streaming apps that I run/launch through theater view using the remote and I think it works passably, but there are improvements to MC that could be made to make this process easier for users (it required hours of configuring/fiddling to get this working, which I accept the average user will not want to do). All of this has been made much easier by the new WDM feature. At the outset I should say that like others I run the majority of my content locally (mostly audio) so streaming is not the main reason I use MC. The main reason I have set MC up to use these services is so that I don't have to get off the couch and go near the computer if I want to watch netflix, use spotify etc.

I currently have a number of streaming services set up to run through a browser (Netflix and various catchup TV sites). I use chrome in 'kiosk' mode for this and have set up my remote to emulate a mouse to enable navigation through Eventghost. MC minimises on launch and my stop button on the remote is configured to run taskkill on chrome, which bounces it back to MC theater view. The only issue that I have had with this setup is if I take too long to select something to watch MC will pop back up (this hasn't happened for a while, so perhaps something has changed in MC to fix this).

I also run software called AirServer in the background, which allows anyone with an iDevice to stream content (subject to any DRM issues of course).

I launch spotify and use spotify connect to control it on my phone. Again, I just press stop on the remote to kill it.

Suggestions:

- In my view I don't think J River should be making any effort to integrate with proprietary streaming services or applications. For the reasons others have given on this thread, it's just too hard to maintain compatibility and would require too much work. To the extent that there is any integration it should rely on standard windows/OS functionality.

- I think it would be possible to develop a wizard to configure launching of external applications such as browsers, the Windows 8.1/10 Netflix App (or similar Apps) using standard windows functionality. Such a wizard would need to ask a few questions to set up the button in theatre view - What is the name of the app?/What is the internet address?/Do you want the app to be fullscreen or minimised behind J River?/Do you want J River to process the audio for this App? (ie to direct playback to the WDM driver). I appreciate this would require users to use their mouse/keyboard to control the app that is launched or use eventghost like I am currently. I assume it would involve too much work to integrate basic mouse emulation into J River (ie where J River is minimised and an external application is in focus)?

- For audio only streams to the WDM driver would it be possible to show the name of the application where the audio is being streamed from (rather than just IPC)?

- Would it be possible to configure the 'jump on play' option on a per zone basis? (Currently when you launch an external application and have this set to jump to playing now it brings J River back into focus rather than continuing to display the external app. For audio I now have this set to 'do nothing' for this reason.)

Re Apple Music, I assume this will be implemented in such a way that you can 'airplay' the stream to compatible devices or run it through iTunes. I acknowledge it's possible that DRM may be implemented that prevents use of AirServer (or something similar). The other option might be to have iTunes running in the background and control that with the iDevice. I don't think that's currently possible?

[)p(]

Actually jrmc already has its build in streaming service, the performer store. If I remember correctly it even lets you virtually add song and albums to your own library so they are presented as one. It only needs a good radio and playlist feature. And of course a higher bitrate then the current 128kbs to make it useful for regular listening.

[flac.rules]

Apologies but you are in no position to advise me or anyone else on the differences of lossy to lossless. Let's just agree to disagree.

Anyhoo - back on the track of this thread - and the "consequence" of JRiver and the so called impending "doom" of Apple Music:

1. I do not think JRiver has anything to worry about. They own the audiophile market and no amount of Apple Music is going to change that. The 20 something 'iSheep" will drift over to Apple music and those of us who take a bit more "pride of ownership" or whatever you want to call when it comes to enjoying our audio will continue to enjoy JRiver.

2. With regards to more streaming "support" - I thought that's what the WDM driver was intended to service? If one can now use an entire instance of MC as an audio driver - just direct the Spotify or RDIO or whatever streaming app you choose to that "driver" and there you go. I still fail to see the need for any more "support" or plugins more fancy than that. And given the fact that JRiver is clearly pursuing their own streaming project - any further potential for better "support" for the "other guys" has probably already been decided.

3. Finally - kstuart nailed it. Streaming gives you zero choice - you get what they feed you. For me personally - there is no room in my life for any "remaster" of any track that a streaming source decides to stick out there. Apple Music will be the same - with 100% of the tracks being goosed with dynamic range compression and a brickwall of noise pounding at you.

I will stick with MC and my pristine library of original first pressings and enjoy the best version of any given album at any given time.

And for those times that I need to check out a new release to see if it's worth the effort - I will pop over to Spotify for that.

VP

1. JRMCs marked and potential marked does not contain only "Audiophiles", and people eho are streaming are not only "isheep", you insist on this over-simplifications of the marked, it is not very helpful

2. You fail to see the need, but you are not really a part of that marked are you? You don't like streaming.

3. There is nothing wrong with not liking streaming, but a lot of people do like it, and I think many of them are customers or potential customers of jriver, this is not a poll of what is best. JRiver can support both.

[flac.rules]

Actually jrmc already has its build in streaming service, the performer store. If I remember correctly it even lets you virtually add song and albums to your own library so they are presented as one. It only needs a good radio and playlist feature. And of course a higher bitrate then the current 128kbs to make it useful for regular listening.

The performer store is worse than several other streaming services, is only music, and doesn't support most of the customer base, I don't see that as a particularly good solution.

[flac.rules]

Hi Everyone, I thought I'd make a contribution to this topic as I have quite a few streaming apps that I run/launch through theater view using the remote and I think it works passably, but there are improvements to MC that could be made to make this process easier for users (it required hours of configuring/fiddling to get this working, which I accept the average user will not want to do). All of this has been made much easier by the new WDM feature. At the outset I should say that like others I run the majority of my content locally (mostly audio) so streaming is not the main reason I use MC. The main reason I have set MC up to use these services is so that I don't have to get off the couch and go near the computer if I want to watch netflix, use spotify etc.

I currently have a number of streaming services set up to run through a browser (Netflix and various catchup TV sites). I use chrome in 'kiosk' mode for this and have set up my remote to emulate a mouse to enable navigation through Eventghost. MC minimises on launch and my stop button on the remote is configured to run taskkill on chrome, which bounces it back to MC theater view. The only issue that I have had with this setup is if I take too long to select something to watch MC will pop back up (this hasn't happened for a while, so perhaps something has changed in MC to fix this).

I also run software called AirServer in the background, which allows anyone with an iDevice to stream content (subject to any DRM issues of course).

I launch spotify and use spotify connect to control it on my phone. Again, I just press stop on the remote to kill it.

Suggestions:

- In my view I don't think J River should be making any effort to integrate with proprietary streaming services or applications. For the reasons others have given on this thread, it's just too hard to maintain compatibility and would require too much work. To the extent that there is any integration it should rely on standard windows/OS functionality.

- I think it would be possible to develop a wizard to configure launching of external applications such as browsers, the Windows 8.1/10 Netflix App (or similar Apps) using standard windows functionality. Such a wizard would need to ask a few questions to set up the button in theatre view - What is the name of the app?/What is the internet address?/Do you want the app to be fullscreen or minimised behind J River?/Do you want J River to process the audio for this App? (ie to direct playback to the WDM driver). I appreciate this would require users to use their mouse/keyboard to control the app that is launched or use eventghost like I am currently. I assume it would involve too much work to integrate basic mouse emulation into J River (ie where J River is minimised and an external application is in focus)?

- For audio only streams to the WDM driver would it be possible to show the name of the application where the audio is being streamed from (rather than just IPC)?

- Would it be possible to configure the 'jump on play' option on a per zone basis? (Currently when you launch an external application and have this set to jump to playing now it brings J River back into focus rather than continuing to display the external app. For audio I now have this set to 'do nothing' for this reason.)

Re Apple Music, I assume this will be implemented in such a way that you can 'airplay' the stream to compatible devices or run it through iTunes. I acknowledge it's possible that DRM may be implemented that prevents use of AirServer (or something similar). The other option might be to have iTunes running in the background and control that with the iDevice. I don't think that's currently possible?

These are great suggestions, these are the kind of things I am talking about, stuff that are not based on the goodwill of some random streaming company but are as general as possible and can make streaming work better with the program.

[Vocalpoint]

The performer store is worse than several other streaming services, is only music, and doesn't support most of the customer base, I don't see that as a particularly good solution.

Now that's what I call supporting JRiver on their latest venture.

VP

[flac.rules]

Now that's what I call supporting JRiver on their latest venture.

VP

I don't see "fake positivity" as support. Quite the opposite, it makes it easier to do wrong decisions.

[MrHaugen]

I'm not young. Neither am I naive. I use Streaming exclusively now. Two years ago it was local playback and MC all the way. Times change, and so does the music, television and movie industry.

If nothing changes here, JRiver will loose costumers. You don't see this yet, because you keep improving much in the on field that are the most resistant to these changes (high quality local music playback). I think that JRiver will maintain a rather strong base of local playback only people for a while. Perhaps even grow the user base a while. But in time this group will probably also shrink. I would hate to see that!

It's frustrating that all the major players refuse to play nicely with other companies for alternative playback methods. I think that both would benefit from it. The only way I see that JRiver will ever get any decent ability to stream from such services is if the users them self provide plugins for it. Unfortunately, Theater view is pretty much out of the question here. As the plugin model here are rather limited. But standard view on the other hand are a viable option. I think that both of these options needs to be addressed to do something with this problem. But it won't be easy.

[6233638]

Honestly, I don't really see this changing much at all.
The stage demos for their new radio show were examples of exactly why I stopped listening to radio.
 
At this point I think most people know whether they want to use a streaming service or not.
For me, I just don't see the value in paying for a service which streams lossy music. I'd use a service like that if it were free - or perhaps significantly cheaper, but I'm not going to pay a subscription.

The only exception to that is that I might pay for the minimum term (typically a month) if I'm going to be hosting a party and I know that it's going to be the type of event where people will want to queue up music they want to play, rather than putting on a selection of music from my own library.
A few months back we were planning a birthday party for someone and we all collaborated to a couple of different playlists on Spotify which worked out perfectly.
It was good party music, but I only had maybe 10-20% of the songs in my own collection - and though it was fitting, there was certainly a lot that I wouldn't want to own a copy of.
At the same time, it did get me to purchase a couple of new albums as well, after really liking a few of the tracks.
 
All I see Apple Music doing is taking people away from Spotify, especially with that $15 family plan.
That seems like quite good value, if you don't mind paying for lossy quality. (and I know most people don't)
 
 
For the rest of us who are concerned about music quality, I think we'll continue to purchase music and use software like Media Center to manage our own libraries.
It starts to become a threat once they're streaming lossless CD-quality music at reasonable prices (i.e. not twice what everyone else is charging right now) and we can create our own "local library" from the selection, rather than browsing an infinitely large collection.
 
But I don't really see that happening any time soon.
 
 
What I actually think would be the best "solution" for now is setting up TuneAero (or similar) to forward AirPlay music to the WDM Driver, so that you can play to Media Center via Apple Music, Spotify, Qobuz, Tidal, or any other preferred streaming service.
After all, aren't most people that want to use streaming services doing so through their phones?
For me, Apple Music wouldn't replace Media Center as the "server" it would replace JRemote as the "remote".

[Vocalpoint]

For me, I just don't see the value in paying for a service which streams lossy music. I'd use a service like that if it were free - or perhaps significantly cheaper, but I'm not going to pay a subscription.

Lossy aside for a moment (which is a huge issue for me as well) I think a lot of folks here are also forgetting the actual "real" cost of these streaming services if one actually used them as intended. I have Spotify right now - but I used Spotify like Spotify wants me to - on my phone, iPad etc not only is one kicking out 10 or 12 bucks a month for a subscription but then you tack the data rate on top of that - I am afraid this model suddenly becomes unsustainable from a "wallet" perspective.

Here in Canada - due to the data gouging (and crappy network service) that is prevalent via the "big 3" telecoms - a few hours of Spotify here and there (per month!) on the ole iPhone and a guy could be heading into who knows how many $$$ for data overages.

And I expect this charge to grow out of control if lossless streaming becomes the norm in a few years - where it's 40 or 80 or 100MB per file. Without an unlimited data plan - I can't see how anyone will be able to listen to a streaming service daily on a mobile device (or even at home) without killing their plan in just a few days.

So in reality (for now) - one is trapped at home with these services accessing them via using the "relative" safety of my 500GB per month on the home internet plan.

May as well just fire up MC and listen to my lossless for free

VP

[flac.rules]

Aren't you forgetting that not everyone lives in canada?

However, this is not a thread about "streaming, yay or nay", it is about that streaming is getting more popular, whether people like it or not, and the consequences or lack of thereof this has on the MC-software, and eventually what can be done about it.

[Vocalpoint]

Aren't you forgetting that not everyone lives in canada?

Of course not. If data caps do not impact you - you can easily ignore this thread reply.

However, this is not a thread about "streaming, yay or nay", it is about that streaming is getting more popular, whether people like it or not, and the consequences or lack of thereof this has on the MC-software, and eventually what can be done about it.

Hmmm - I thought this thread was about "Apple Music" specifically and how it's specific introduction will impact MC - either positively or negatively.

It somehow morphed into something else.

VP

[JimH]

I'm not young. Neither am I naive. I use Streaming exclusively now. Two years ago it was local playback and MC all the way. Times change, and so does the music, television and movie industry.

If nothing changes here, JRiver will loose costumers. You don't see this yet, because you keep improving much in the on field that are the most resistant to these changes (high quality local music playback). I think that JRiver will maintain a rather strong base of local playback only people for a while. Perhaps even grow the user base a while. But in time this group will probably also shrink. I would hate to see that!

It's frustrating that all the major players refuse to play nicely with other companies for alternative playback methods. I think that both would benefit from it. The only way I see that JRiver will ever get any decent ability to stream from such services is if the users them self provide plugins for it. Unfortunately, Theater view is pretty much out of the question here. As the plugin model here are rather limited. But standard view on the other hand are a viable option. I think that both of these options needs to be addressed to do something with this problem. But it won't be easy.

MrHaugen / Carl,
You've been gloomy about JRiver's future for 4 or 5 years.  Give it a rest.  We're doing fine.  Our sales have more than doubled in that time.  We're steadily improving the software and making it available on other platforms.  Sometimes other companies will do parts better, but I believe we have the best overall solution now, and that includes competitors like Apple, Microsoft, and Google.

I know quite a lot about streaming and the economics are poor.  

[William-NM]

We live in interesting times. I expect that Apple Music will do well, given their large ecoystem. After all, they've just invented internet radio

Streaming is interesting, particularly as a vehicle for discovering new music. I do like the idea of curated stations and sharing playlists, though I still find trying to 'keep up' a bit overwhelming. I use Google Music and like it pretty well, though I might switch to Spotify because their new Wayback Machine idea is pretty cool. [of course, I was there, so why would I need it, heh??] No doubt, streaming will continue to increase, though the services aren't making much, if any, money.

At the same time, new audiophiles are being converted every day. I've been upgrading my library and have to say that I love the Hi-Res 24/96 upgrades to old favorites and have developed a new appreciation for lots of music that I just 'liked' before. I especially like the Japanese SHM's. There most certainly IS a difference in musicality.

So, many of us will enjoy both options and will continue to enjoy MC for it's excellent audio quality and organizational tools.

[flac.rules]

MrHaugen / Carl,
You've been gloomy about JRiver's future for 4 or 5 years.  Give it a rest.  We're doing fine.  Our sales have more than doubled in that time.  We're steadily improving the software and making it available on other platforms.  Sometimes other companies will do parts better, but I believe we have the best overall solution now, and that includes competitors like Apple, Microsoft, and Google.

I know quite a lot about streaming and the economics are poor.  

Economics are obviously not poor enough to prevent streaming-services having a massive increase in market share, and that is a new reality MC has to operate in. Good to hear JRiver is doing well, I hope it continues.

[flac.rules]

So, many of us will enjoy both options and will continue to enjoy MC for it's excellent audio quality and organizational tools.

Exactly, and I think more people will enjoy both with better tools that works with streaming services in MC, however finding the tools is not trivial.

[MrHaugen]

MrHaugen / Carl,
You've been gloomy about JRiver's future for 4 or 5 years.  Give it a rest.  We're doing fine.  Our sales have more than doubled in that time.  We're steadily improving the software and making it available on other platforms.  Sometimes other companies will do parts better, but I believe we have the best overall solution now, and that includes competitors like Apple, Microsoft, and Google.

I know quite a lot about streaming and the economics are poor.  

I love your software and I love this company. That's why I'm still on the forum, even though I don't use the software any more. This is my honest opinion. My beliefs. If you can't take the advice you're given in this forums, then leave them. It might be a bit gloomy, but I think it's written in a logical and reasonable way. So I don't see why I should need to give it a rest.

The economics in streaming are poor, yes. But it's also because of rather outdated and old models in the industry. I hope this will change in time. People, and especially JRiver people are willing to pay for good quality. We know that. So, there is hope.

I know some about trends and the market my self. I spend much of my time with technology and media. I do know a bit about what's popular. I look at all options, even though I think I have found the right thing. You do well in a small niche now, with excellent audio and video playback. And I'm very happy for you. But that might change fast the day streaming services provide real lossless streaming and good quality HD streaming. That's all I'm saying. I am FAR from a negative type. Normally I look at the bright side of almost anything. Heck. When I wrecked my car the other day, I took it with a smile and thought my self lucky that I learned a lesson at a slow speed.  In these threads though, there are a real concerns that's outed. And I think it's THAT important, that I choose to spend my time and throw in my two cents. Not that those cents are worth ANYTHING more than any one else'. But it's my two cents non the less.

I believe you can grow in numbers even more for a while. But there are a chance that this might turn in time. You should be very aware of that. And if the day comes, I hope you have considered all the suggestions and have a plan.

[JimH]

Economics are obviously not poor enough to prevent streaming-services having a massive increase in market share, and that is a new reality MC has to operate in.

Market share is nice if you can also make money.  Pandora, arguably the leader in streaming at this time, just lost $48 million in their most recent quarter:

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AP&fstype=ii&ei=eCmBVbDvKdW6U5PGgOgE

For every dollar in sales, they lost 20 cents.  I could do better than that by selling $100 bills for $85.

JRiver is a business.  We must earn our way in the world.  Other companies have created illusions of success, raised millions, and even gone public doing so.  That's not our style.

I'm not opposed to streaming.  I just don't think it's the Holy Grail.

[JimH]

MrHaugen,
You said something similar five years ago.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=53694.msg366080;topicseen#msg366080

I still like my answer just below your post.  We do what we do because we love it.

[Vocalpoint]

I just don't think it's the Holy Grail.

Agreed.

Let's not forget that the very concept of "streaming" exists because record companies and artists currently allow it. If that balance is suddenly upset (and more than one big company dislikes this entire concept) - there goes your "rental" material.

The power in this equation rests with artist (Taylor Swift is a great example) and label (s). Us (as listeners) have no position whatsoever. If either decides to pull a catalog instantly - the listener is SOL.

So while the illusion of streaming seems to growing/prevalent "today - enjoy. But as Jim points out - as a long term "business" model (and currently a huge money losing one at that) especially for artists and even providers (Pandora) - I do not see a happy future unless there is a bigger revenue source to be had.

Royalty rates and other considerations WILL need to be tipped massively in favor of the artist or their material disappears. Vendors like Pandora or Spotify etc etc will be forced to raise their rates and who is going to pay for that? Most "millennials" right now - want a service of some sort but they want it for next to free.

It's an unsustainable business model - because it takes money to make quality music - and that money has to come from somewhere.

Like every other rock and roll battle - it's all about the money - and streaming can only lose money (or cost money if you are a big artist) for so long before someone pulls the plug.

VP

[csimon]

Remember that Apple is not doing this for the good of the performance industry nor for the good of the customer. It is doing it to increase their profits, lock people into their eco-system, and make it acceptable to pay over the odds for a "trendy" product while minimising what they pay other people.

See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/16/apple_nopayforplays_streaming_risks_indie_boycott/

Summary: they are not paying royalites for the 3-month free tri\l period, and the idea is to convert people from actual purchased downloads into on-demand streaming, which pay performers at a fraction of the rate.

You can either play along with this scheme to make Apple even richer at the expense of the smaller musician (I think U2 will survive...), or not.

[Vocalpoint]

See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/16/apple_nopayforplays_streaming_risks_indie_boycott/

Summary: they are not paying royalites for the 3-month free tri\l period, and the idea is to convert people from actual purchased downloads into on-demand streaming, which pay performers at a fraction of the rate.

Wow. I cannot see why any artist (big or small) would bother offering any of their music until October. Sounds like the digital shelves will be sparse at ole Apple Music at launch time.

VP

[csimon]

It depends how effective the juggernaut will be in persuading the biggies to sign up in advance. They're all like sheep falling over themselves trying to get in on the latest Apple thing right from the start and they could afford to do so. They can't really afford not to.

[flac.rules]

Market share is nice if you can also make money.  Pandora, arguably the leader in streaming at this time, just lost $48 million in their most recent quarter:

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AP&fstype=ii&ei=eCmBVbDvKdW6U5PGgOgE

For every dollar in sales, they lost 20 cents.  I could do better than that by selling $100 bills for $85.

JRiver is a business.  We must earn our way in the world.  Other companies have created illusions of success, raised millions, and even gone public doing so.  That's not our style.

I'm not opposed to streaming.  I just don't think it's the Holy Grail.

I am not saying JRiver should be a streaming company. But spotify, google, apple music, these aren't going away anytime soon, and if they are, everything indicates a new streaming company will take over, whether they make money or not. It is in this reality MC must operate, the reality where streaming is popular amoung the music-listening and video-watching public.

[flac.rules]

Agreed.

Let's not forget that the very concept of "streaming" exists because record companies and artists currently allow it. If that balance is suddenly upset (and more than one big company dislikes this entire concept) - there goes your "rental" material.

The power in this equation rests with artist (Taylor Swift is a great example) and label (s). Us (as listeners) have no position whatsoever. If either decides to pull a catalog instantly - the listener is SOL

The whole reason streaming started in the first place is that you can easily copy anything you want, and the record companies aren't in control anymore, they had to make a competing product that was actually convenient for people. This threat is still there. Besides there is almost an unlimited amount of music being given away for free by the artist, an its easier than ever to get (and cheaper than ever to produce).

[Vocalpoint]

The whole reason streaming started in the first place is that you can easily copy anything you want, and the record companies aren't in control anymore, they had to make a competing product that was actually convenient for people. This threat is still there. Besides there is almost an unlimited amount of music being given away for free by the artist, an its easier than ever to get (and cheaper than ever to produce).

Any record company operating today would still rather sell you a $10 CD, a $20 hi res download or $30 LP - anything that is priced higher than any streaming membership.

I do not know of too many "name" artists that give anything away. Except for that ridiculous U2 experiment last year. Indies - that's another story. But the only reason they have to give it away is because everyone on the planet now believes music should be free and no one will take a chance and actually buy a new album from a new artist.

Not sure where you got your info on how suddenly "cheap" music is to produce. Recording a commercial grade album in 2015 (for a band of any stature) remains a very expensive and labor intensive process. Only huge cash makes this possible.

I was reading a recent article on Rush - and they pretty much stated that it costs so much now (in time, talent and tech) to take a album project from start to finish that they really can't see themselves bothering with the traditional "album" anymore. Touring is really the only thing that cannot be digitally stolen yet - and represents their last bastion of earning a "rock star" sized living. (While they still can)

And since streaming doesn't help put any meaningful cash back in the artists pocket - so they can create a decent record AND doesn't represent a significant revenue stream for any label - in the end it really becoming a race to zero. Basically stream everything at the lowest possible price so no one makes any money at all. How can any artist possibly create or survive if this is where the business is headed?

"Renting" music via "streaming" - when that model clearly pays the artist nothing - cannot (and will not) last.

In the music business - cash remains king baby. And artists want as much as they can get as fast as they can get it - and good on them.

VP

[glynor]

Except for that ridiculous U2 experiment last year.

U2 didn't give anything away.

Apple paid them for the copies.

[Vocalpoint]

U2 didn't give anything away. Apple paid them for the copies.

But of course. They sure did everything they could to make it look like they were giving it away tho

VP

[csimon]

Twas a good deal that. U2 got a vast amount of money upfront, unconditionally, regardless of how many people wanted it or would have bought it anyway. If only that route was open to smaller artists.

[Vocalpoint]

U2 got a vast amount of money upfront, unconditionally, regardless of how many people wanted it or would have bought it anyway.

Which plays exactly to my point about streaming being unsustainable. Granted U2 managed to cut themselves a killer deal - because they are U2. But if they want/need/require that "vast" amount for just a single record - what does everyone else want?

As soon as enough midsize and super star acts start warming up their calculators and putting their numbers to their new projects - you can see how streaming services will easily be cut loose. Taylor Swift yanking her catalog from Spotify is just the start.

While I certainly am no Taylor Swift fan - you have to admit - she's a smart cookie. I am guessing she warmed up her calculator and did the math on "streaming payments" on 1989. And the math for streaming that hot album simply did not make any sense. If you want the record - go buy it.

I do not blame her one bit.

VP

[csimon]

I put thison my Facebook today, lol!

My suggestion, if you like music, is: buy the CD, buy the vinyl, from the artist's own shop if possible, and rip it for your portable device, it'll be the highest possible quality and it is yours to keep forever. Read the sleeve notes, admire the artwork on the cover and in 20 or 30 years time have many fond memories as you explore the old boxes hidden away that you've found...

[Vocalpoint]

My suggestion, if you like music, is: buy the CD, buy the vinyl, from the artist's own shop if possible, and rip it for your portable device, it'll be the highest possible quality and it is yours to keep forever. Read the sleeve notes, admire the artwork on the cover and in 20 or 30 years time have many fond memories as you explore the old boxes hidden away that you've found...

Perfect!

VP

[flac.rules]

Any record company operating today would still rather sell you a $10 CD, a $20 hi res download or $30 LP - anything that is priced higher than any streaming membership.

I do not know of too many "name" artists that give anything away. Except for that ridiculous U2 experiment last year. Indies - that's another story. But the only reason they have to give it away is because everyone on the planet now believes music should be free and no one will take a chance and actually buy a new album from a new artist.

Not sure where you got your info on how suddenly "cheap" music is to produce. Recording a commercial grade album in 2015 (for a band of any stature) remains a very expensive and labor intensive process. Only huge cash makes this possible.

I was reading a recent article on Rush - and they pretty much stated that it costs so much now (in time, talent and tech) to take a album project from start to finish that they really can't see themselves bothering with the traditional "album" anymore. Touring is really the only thing that cannot be digitally stolen yet - and represents their last bastion of earning a "rock star" sized living. (While they still can)

And since streaming doesn't help put any meaningful cash back in the artists pocket - so they can create a decent record AND doesn't represent a significant revenue stream for any label - in the end it really becoming a race to zero. Basically stream everything at the lowest possible price so no one makes any money at all. How can any artist possibly create or survive if this is where the business is headed?

"Renting" music via "streaming" - when that model clearly pays the artist nothing - cannot (and will not) last.

In the music business - cash remains king baby. And artists want as much as they can get as fast as they can get it - and good on them.

VP

So? I am sure they would like even more that a single song costs 100 dollars, but thats not the reality they live in.

Again, so? Indies give away tens of thousands of albums, a lot of high quality music is free, whatever the reason. This changes the marketplace.

It's cheaper than ever to get good equipment for making an album.

There is music available, and more music beeing produced than ever before, despite the doom and gloom predictions, its obviously possible to produce music without it being a high paid full time job, and people have done this at all times in history. There is no actual data supporting the prediction that it is not sustainable when you see the actual amount of music being produces, instead of just believing that only people who get rich by it will bother to produce music.