Article: What does 2018 hold for Music Streaming Services?

Excellent article, great discussion.

I'm on Amazon Unlimited and really like it. What I'd like:

1 - The option of better quality. I don't see why this isn't there already. I can't imagine it's a space issue on Amazon's servers. And it'd be easy to structure prices to put off people who didn't really need it. Say mp3 for £10 a month, lossless for £12 or £13 ?

2 - More flexibility to download. Currently it's simply not possible to play my Amazon streamed music on my FiiO X3. Look Amazon, if I wanted to 'steal' this stuff I could. Just let me download everything I can stream for free.

3 - What about abroad? I do a lot of listening when I'm out and about (waking, public transport), but I spend a disproportionately large amount of time listening on the summer holidays. Why not introduce a 'fair usage' policy so I can stream in Spain or Greece?
 
Excellent article, great discussion.

I'm on Amazon Unlimited and really like it. What I'd like:

1 - The option of better quality. I don't see why this isn't there already. I can't imagine it's a space issue on Amazon's servers. And it'd be easy to structure prices to put off people who didn't really need it. Say mp3 for £10 a month, lossless for £12 or £13 ?

2 - More flexibility to download. Currently it's simply not possible to play my Amazon streamed music on my FiiO X3. Look Amazon, if I wanted to 'steal' this stuff I could. Just let me download everything I can stream for free.

3 - What about abroad? I do a lot of listening when I'm out and about (waking, public transport), but I spend a disproportionately large amount of time listening on the summer holidays. Why not introduce a 'fair usage' policy so I can stream in Spain or Greece?

Unfortunately, it is a little more complicated than that. Assuming that FLAC on streaming services will be toward the upper end of compression rates, it still requires double the bandwidth to store and stream than 320kbps MP3. The issue is compounded by the vastness of the catalogue. Whereas Amazon can devote considerable resources into ensuring that The Grand Tour is good to go in the knowledge that it is the most popular thing on their video offering, no such bunching exists with audio which increases the strain on servers. It's perfectly possible they'd take the hit but be under no illusions, it would be a hit.

Unencrypted downloads are never going to happen- sorry. Even if we accept that the effect on piracy would be debateable, record labels would never, ever go for it. There are players capable of handling the Amazon content though- the Pioneer XDP100R is available for buttons these days.

Use abroad is more about telecoms providers than streaming services- I can already do what you want to do because I am a Three customer with 10 gigs a month that I can use under UK T&Cs in multiple countries.
 
Really? A tenner gets you a 4K Netflix sub - I think 20 quid a month is way over priced.

When Netflix gives me access to the vast majority of films and tv released over the last 30 years in anywhere near that volume or quality I would agree. Fact is though the amount of material available at that quality is minute in comparison and you're still paying £10 for the privilege. (and no I'm not saying Netflix isn't worth it I'm just extending your comparison)

The catalogue size difference between *ANY* tv and music based service is VAST. I am not surprised none of them make money as I would suggest that a sub to any of the major streaming services will give most people access to most of the music they ever listen to. The same is no where near true for any of the TV streaming services at any quality or price.

Personally I find it quite staggering how cheap the music streaming services are at any price considering what you get. If I went back 30 or even 20 years and someone told me I could LEGALLY get access to the vast majority of English speaking popular music (not to mention world music, classical music and a lot or esoteric stuff) for £9.99 or extend that to the whole family for £15 I'd have laughed at them for being ridiculous. Yet here we are 20 years later with exactly that.

While I appreciate you might not see value in a £20 sub, calling it "way overpriced" in comparison to Netflix is a little silly.

G
 
When Netflix gives me access to the vast majority of films and tv released over the last 30 years in anywhere near that volume or quality I would agree. Fact is though the amount of material available at that quality is minute in comparison and you're still paying £10 for the privilege. (and no I'm not saying Netflix isn't worth it I'm just extending your comparison)

The catalogue size difference between *ANY* tv and music based service is VAST. I am not surprised none of them make money as I would suggest that a sub to any of the major streaming services will give most people access to most of the music they ever listen to. The same is no where near true for any of the TV streaming services at any quality or price.

Personally I find it quite staggering how cheap the music streaming services are at any price considering what you get. If I went back 30 or even 20 years and someone told me I could LEGALLY get access to the vast majority of English speaking popular music (not to mention world music, classical music and a lot or esoteric stuff) for £9.99 or extend that to the whole family for £15 I'd have laughed at them for being ridiculous. Yet here we are 20 years later with exactly that.

While I appreciate you might not see value in a £20 sub, calling it "way overpriced" in comparison to Netflix is a little silly.

G

The reason why I see it as a rip off as that it is double the premium cost. Premium is what 320Kbps? Raw uncompressed CD is 1.4Mbps (but streaming is probably lossless compressed, so less). A full HD TV service is 5-8Mbps, a 4K TV service is at least 15Mbps. So - so 3x bandwidth adds a few quid a month - which is fine - it doesn't double it.

Hence why I think its a rip off. 13 would have been fine - 20 relative to 10 is a rip off.
 
Really? A tenner gets you a 4K Netflix sub - I think 20 quid a month is way over priced.

Which is very good value for money (though I can't even stream 4k). I do prefer blurays, and will always buy a movie if it's something I really want to watch, but for general viewing and series it's worth it's weight in gold.

I don't see how 20/month is overpriced. For that money I'd have access to thousand of CD quality music for the price of 2 CDs a month (money I'd never notice missing). Staggeringly good value for money if you listen to a few hours of music a day. Some days I have spotify on from 6pm to 1am. I would get my monies worth.
 
Thanks Ed. Great article. I didn’t know the streaming services were in such a mess. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

I did try a trial of Spotify and found huge amounts of substandard music that sounded like it was copied from cassette! And yet some of the albums I searched for, admittedly not mainstream, were readily available on CD from just about everywhere.

I tried Tidal for a few months some time ago. I think it hasn’t improved no end since.

So, for someone who is looking to get back into a little more serious listening, a Sonos user, uses the Apple ecosystem, would listen via phone in the car and at home, which service would you recommend?
 
The reason why I see it as a rip off as that it is double the premium cost. Premium is what 320Kbps? Raw uncompressed CD is 1.4Mbps (but streaming is probably lossless compressed, so less). A full HD TV service is 5Mbps, a 4K TV service is at least 15Mbps. So - so 3x bandwidth adds a few quid a month - which is fine - it doesn't double it.

Hence why I think its a rip off. 13 would have been fine - 20 relative to 10 is a rip off.

Yep appreciate that but you're still avoiding the point and not comparing like with like. You're only comparing bandwidth use and ignoring the amount of actual content you're paying for. IF (and it's a huge if) absolutely everything that was available in HD was also available in UHD you might have a vague argument. That though completely ignores the relative amount of material available on the service in the first place. To TRULY compare cost you'd have to have a tv streaming service that allows you to stream the vast majority of films and tv series released over the past 30 years that is all available in UHD. Nothing even remotely like that exists not least as the amount of UHD content is tiny.

The other thing is pretty much EVERYONE can utilise CD quality music on just about any connection these days, even on mobile. If the entire catalogue is CD quality then many people will listen to every single track in CD quality. This MASSIVELY increases your overheads even if the streams are not all that much bigger it will turn out almost all of your streams are bigger. Only a tiny proportion can take advantage of UHD and then they only get access to a very small amount of it. It also ignores what someone else mentioned in that some people will listen to music all day. I doubt very much people watch 4k all day and even if they did, they'd run out of it pretty quickly.

G
 
Using the same analogy, for 95%?of listeners, listening to CD quality music on Bluetooth Speakers and cheap headphones would be like watching 4K streams on an SD TV, the media might improve but the playing device will be the limiting factor.
 
Yep appreciate that but you're still avoiding the point and not comparing like with like. You're only comparing bandwidth use and ignoring the amount of actual content you're paying for. IF (and it's a huge if) absolutely everything that was available in HD was also available in UHD you might have a vague argument. That though completely ignores the relative amount of material available on the service in the first place. To TRULY compare cost you'd have to have a tv streaming service that allows you to stream the vast majority of films and tv series released over the past 30 years that is all available in UHD. Nothing even remotely like that exists not least as the amount of UHD content is tiny.

The other thing is pretty much EVERYONE can utilise CD quality music on just about any connection these days, even on mobile. If the entire catalogue is CD quality then many people will listen to every single track in CD quality. This MASSIVELY increases your overheads even if the streams are not all that much bigger it will turn out almost all of your streams are bigger. Only a tiny proportion can take advantage of UHD and then they only get access to a very small amount of it. It also ignores what someone else mentioned in that some people will listen to music all day. I doubt very much people watch 4k all day and even if they did, they'd run out of it pretty quickly.

G

OK - you miss my point - for a tenner you seem to get access to exactly the catalog as for 20, the only difference being lossless at 20 quid, so storage and bandwidth are the only difference. Doubling the price for that seems to be a complete relative rip-off. If they think a tenner a month is right for 320k access to the entire catalog, then a few quid more would seem perfectly reasonable for lossless, but no, they double it instead. Unless of course they consider the music itself to have no value and the only value is their service. I'm sure the rest of the industry loves that. I doubt artists get twice as much for a lossless stream? Its a money grab.
 
OK - you miss my point - for a tenner you seem to get access to exactly the catalog as for 20, the only difference being lossless at 20 quid, so storage and bandwidth are the only difference. Doubling the price for that seems to be a complete relative rip-off. If they think a tenner a month is right for 320k access to the entire catalog, then a few quid more would seem perfectly reasonable for lossless, but no, they double it instead. Unless of course they consider the music itself to have no value and the only value is their service. I'm sure the rest of the industry loves that. I doubt artists get twice as much for a lossless stream? Its a money grab.

I do get your point. I suggest you missed the bit where I suggest £10 is ridiculously cheap for what you get from streaming music services. I'm not sure that anyone other than the consumers think £10 is a "fair" price for what we get from a music streaming service but it is what the industry seems to have settled at which I think was the whole point of the article wasn't it? No one is making money at £10 so while as consumers we may like it, it's in no way what the service SHOULD cost. Considering "real" CD's average about £10 each getting (as good as) unlimited access to CD quality music for £20 a month is ridiculously cheap in comparison to how it used to be. I't's not that £20 is expensive it's that £10 is insanely cheap so how you can suggest it's a money grab or a rip off is completely beyond me.

Also since when has what the artists get been relevant to anything? They've NEVER got a fair share throughout the whole of popular music history, why would that change now?

I don't see trying to get a very reasonable amount of money from people who want a premium service when you're not even making a profit as being a money grab. More just trying to break even and stay afloat.

G
 
Using the same analogy, for 95%?of listeners, listening to CD quality music on Bluetooth Speakers and cheap headphones would be like watching 4K streams on an SD TV, the media might improve but the playing device will be the limiting factor.

Yes but 4k takes effort - you need to have the bandwidth and download allowance to play it and neither of those are trivial or common. The vast majority have neither of those things and those that do it's almost exclusively limited to you TV/projector via a fibre connection. You also need the right equipment (does anything actually transcode from 4k to SD?) as I know Sky doesn't (or didn't anyway) even allow you access to 4k unless the Q box detects a 4k capable device plugged into it.

On the other hand, users seeing "highest CD quality sound" as an option on a streaming service will see many of them turn it on. Everyone's internet and mobile will support it (well most) and the industry did a great job advertising that CD = best quality. It doesn't matter to most people that their equipment means they'd never tell the difference.

G
 
Guys, can you just agree to disagree and move on please?

I’d like to hear more about experiences with streaming music services and why one would be chosen above another within their own use cases.
 
Funny, I know 10x more people with 4K TVs than with HiFi capable audio equipment. But I don’t disagree with your statement
 
I’d like to hear more about experiences with streaming music services and why one would be chosen above another within their own use cases.

My take on streaming service is they are fine if what you are into is mainstream enough or traditional enough.

I actually subscribe to and mostly listen to the premium services of a .net radio station rather than any of the major streamers simply because NONE of the big streamers have any real comprehension of the sub genres of dance music and insist on try to stuff nasty pop down your speaker when you want to relax to something fairly specific genre wise.

Amazon playlists in particular seem to be truly awful from this perspective (and not just because they don't understand different sub-genres of house, buy they even manage to fill in jazz and soul with unbelievable pop crap as well). Various quick trials of others have not suggested to me they are significantly better. OTOH DI.FM (specialize in dance music) and their sister stations that specific in other genres like jazz/soul etc have obvious taken a lot of effort to match their channels really well.

So, they get my background listening subscription (for 320kbps mp3 radio channels) and I use amazon music only when I want to listen to something specific, and when I want to have something permanently (and at high quality), then I buy the CD and rip it and have it safely stored on a system that no outside party can mess with / hike the price of etc - ie my NAS.
This is part why I refuse to pay double the price for the lossless services - I can live with 320Kbps for casual listening. I can sample an album I might buy at 320kbps as well and if the album/song is good enough to me to be worth buying, then that is the point at which I want good quality for actively listening to it and ironically, the CD is typically much cheaper than a download.
 
where movies gained from advances in technology, such as 1080p and 4k media and displays, I feel that the reverse has happened for music. We have gone from Hi-Fi systems (even midi systems) with separate components and full range speakers to mobile phones, crappy bass inducing headphones and tiny, tinny Blu-tooth speakers. Even with the rise of HQ Audio streaming services I guess much of this material will be consumed on some fairly low grade (audio) equipment.

Not everyone, depends on the person as usual. With Movies I've reached my peak of an LG 55" 4K HRD OLED TV (+Netflix with DolbyVision etc.) and for the last couple of years been pursuing the best portable audio.

After using expensive external DAC's or DAP's (Dragonfly Red/HA2SE/Mojo/ZX2/Fiio X5III etc.) I've finally hit my perfect system with the awesome sounding LG V30+ with built-in QUAD DAC coupled with my high end Shure SE846 IEM'S while out & about and Sen HD660S headphones at home.

To get the best out of this I have a range of hi-def DSD/FLAC files but also still use Tidal for lossless FLAC & MQA Masters for streamed music (with UAPP app). As for Bluetooth, listen to quality Sony BT headphones via LDAC or even AptxHD and its rather decent.
 
If the entire catalogue is CD quality then many people will listen to every single track in CD quality.

The fact that people are happy with mp3 suggests otherwise.

If the pricing is right, most people will be happy with mp3, but CD quality would be available for a little more.
 
Not everyone, depends on the person as usual. With Movies I've reached my peak of an LG 55" 4K HRD OLED TV (+Netflix with DolbyVision etc.) and for the last couple of years been pursuing the best portable audio.

After using expensive external DAC's or DAP's (Dragonfly Red/HA2SE/Mojo/ZX2/Fiio X5III etc.) I've finally hit my perfect system with the awesome sounding LG V30+ with built-in QUAD DAC coupled with my high end Shure SE846 IEM'S while out & about and Sen HD660S headphones at home.

To get the best out of this I have a range of hi-def DSD/FLAC files but also still use Tidal for lossless FLAC & MQA Masters for streamed music (with UAPP app). As for Bluetooth, listen to quality Sony BT headphones via LDAC or even AptxHD and its rather decent.
I would say based on your response, you are one of the 5%ers. You sit outside of the normal distribution of music consumers as indicated by your investment in HiFi Audio equipment and evidently do place value on the music that you purchase and consume.
 
The fact that people are happy with mp3 suggests otherwise.

If the pricing is right, most people will be happy with mp3, but CD quality would be available for a little more.

For access to nearly every piece of music in the world at touch of your fingers I think £9.99 is perfectly acceptable but I'd be much happier if lossless/hi-def/MQA was at £15 rather than £20.

Its the record labels that will be demanding the higher license fees, plus Tidal does supposedly pay higher royalties to the artists. With the Tidal update that only came out last week for the V30 you can now even store MQA Masters offline and Video in HD (Tidal has music videos too).
 
Last edited:
@Khazul I had the same thing with Apple's Genius. If I pick a song from a really heavy metal band, I don't expect to hear something from Airbourne! Tidal playlists seemed to wonder off on a quest to change the theme to anything other than that I was looking for. That was some time ago though.

Interesting about the premium radio stations. Perhaps that deserves some more in-depth discussion in another thread, unless there already is one. I'm listening to PRM (Prog Rock & Metal) at the moment (not premium). I've found a couple of bands on there that had a very different and interesting sound, and I'm now searching for the right albums to buy. My biggest problem actually is that I might be in the garage with messy hands on not in a position to make notes on who an artist is and the song title, and then it vanishes forever because I can't get to a track list. Totalrock used to be really good for that, recording their playlists from even days past.

Still, this isn't very good for the streaming services is it! I was looking to get back on board with one, and now I seem to be steering in another direction.
 
I am an Amazon Prime subscriber and I only want the full music service to one device, an Echo. 'Echo Plan' is the best option as it gives access to the full 40M package and only costs £3.99 a month. Remaining devices just access the basic 2M package. I think that's a bargain.
 
What has not happened yet and might not ever, is Music Label offering a Streaming Service. As the Music Label owns their Music content, they could afford to offer high res at £9.99. This is like Netflix model and soon to be launched Disney Streaming Service. As there is no Middle Man the Music label could pay the Artists more.
 
What has not happened yet and might not ever, is Music Label offering a Streaming Service. As the Music Label owns their Music content, they could afford to offer high res at £9.99. This is like Netflix model and soon to be launched Disney Streaming Service. As there is no Middle Man the Music label could pay the Artists more.

The problem is many individual labels tends to be too specific / carry too few artists. It could work at the level of the publishing companies which would be more comparable to what is starting to happen with movie company's new streaming services, but really who is going to subscribe to 20 different music or movie stream services at a tenner each?

I know amazon are trying to push this on the movie side (studio services as extra subscription channels), but for me the most likely long term effect of this will be eventual cancellation of amazon and not bothering with the studio services at all as combined it all gets far too expensive, and thus back to buying physical media from the bargain bin.

I know Netflix are going down the route of more and more of their own production and less buy ins, but at least their breadth of content is sufficient to get away with it (just about). In the end I think the more they all try to do their own thing and each independently try to extract a tenner a month out of people, the more they are all collectively shooting themselves in the foot. People are just not going to pay for dozens of subscriptions whether it be music or movies.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom