# I've started streaming music for the first time in my life



## gHeadphone

I downloaded Qobuz 3 weeks ago (i'm on week 3 of a 4 week trial from a code off Gramophone magazine, there usual is a 2 week trial). I tried it out as i wanted to hear the Murray Perahia French Suites and wasn't going to be close to a shop in weeks.

I've traditionally avoided streaming for a couple of reasons:

The sound quality is lower than CD. People have differing opinions of this, as i have good headphones, Dac and Amp I choose to put the best version of music through.
It was difficult to find specific version of classical recordings in Spotify (the only other service id ever tried), the metadata isn't very good. 
I liked going to music shops and browsing

However ive now totally changed my mind. Even though the CD quality version of Qobuz is 19 Euro per month im signing up.

Ive been listening to a massive amount of music in the 3 weeks, so much so that ive not been on here once. I thought the novelty would wear off but its not at all, the opposite is true. If i find something i've liked recently (Brahms Violin Concerto, The Goldberg Variations, Beethoven Symphonies) i can listen to as many versions as i like.

The classical catalog is phenomenal, there is very little i cant find on it, it has everything i own except from the label Hyperion. There is an added bonus that I don't need to wait until i get into Dublin to physically purchase anything.

I may change my mind on this (and ive not tried Primephonic or Idagio which are both classical streaming services), but i cant see it.

Now for more Bach!!

Anybody else tried streaming as their main source for music?


----------



## jegreenwood

Tidal - CD quality (plus MQA - and I don't want to get into a discussion of its merits) is a major source. And I use it for non-classical as well as classical.

I still have a large library of ripped CDs, but my purchases have decreased significantly over the past several years. 


Yes:

1) The Tidal interface isn't great.
2) The search engine for classical is no better than Spotify (maybe worse - I haven't used Spotify in a while).
3) There are bugs and imperfectly digitized recordings on Tidal. (I may have found a new bug today.)

But having this huge library as ancillary to my own is great. And Qobuz is not available for streaming in the U.S.


----------



## Granate

I use Spotify. In free mode the extensive catalogue pays off. That Quobuz looks really tempting, but the streaming service is not available in Spain yet. Did you even find Testament?


----------



## Mandryka

gHeadphone said:


> I downloaded Qobuz 3 weeks ago (i'm on week 3 of a 4 week trial from a code off Gramophone magazine, there usual is a 2 week trial). I tried it out as i wanted to hear the Murray Perahia French Suites and wasn't going to be close to a shop in weeks.
> 
> I've traditionally avoided streaming for a couple of reasons:
> 
> The sound quality is lower than CD. People have differing opinions of this, as i have good headphones, Dac and Amp I choose to put the best version of music through.
> It was difficult to find specific version of classical recordings in Spotify (the only other service id ever tried), the metadata isn't very good.
> I liked going to music shops and browsing
> 
> However ive now totally changed my mind. Even though the CD quality version of Qobuz is 19 Euro per month im signing up.
> 
> Ive been listening to a massive amount of music in the 3 weeks, so much so that ive not been on here once. I thought the novelty would wear off but its not at all, the opposite is true. If i find something i've liked recently (Brahms Violin Concerto, The Goldberg Variations, Beethoven Symphonies) i can listen to as many versions as i like.
> 
> The classical catalog is phenomenal, there is very little i cant find on it, it has everything i own except from the label Hyperion. There is an added bonus that I don't need to wait until i get into Dublin to physically purchase anything.
> 
> I may change my mind on this (and ive not tried Primephonic or Idagio which are both classical streaming services), but i cant see it.
> 
> Now for more Bach!!
> 
> Anybody else tried streaming as their main source for music?


One of the special things about Qobuz is that their search facility has become very flexible. So if you type in something and then look under albums you get a list of every recording where that appears, intelligently ordered. I can assure you this is very helpful and makes them now my preferred supplier, over spotify (poor sound but a good catalogue) and Tidal ( good sound but tracks too often incorrectly ordered, and a small catalogue. )

I am now convinced that you are right to go for the better quality -- people who can't hear the difference may not be listening through good equipment, or they may be a bit deaf.


----------



## Krummhorn

Paid subscribers of IMSLP have access to the entire Naxos library for streaming music. 

I also have a paid subscription to Pandora and have that playing classical or popular selections while I am working at the PC.


----------



## marshanp

I am one of those who believed for years that ownership of a CD or download was essential. Now, having tried Qobuz for two weeks, I'm a streaming convert - insofar as Qobuz represents streaming, anyway. I'm astonished by the range of recordings on offer at CD quality for £20/month.

Verdi Requiem? 50 or more versions - more than I'll ever listen to, for sure. Zweers' 3rd symphony? Yes, it's there... As are Dora Pejacevic, Daniel Jones, Sgambati, Mayuzumi...

If there are one or two labels missing it doesn't really matter when such musical riches are available. Despite my lifelong collecting habit, I have made a looong list of music new to me, and I shall be able to hear it all for less than my CD budget


----------



## ClassicalListener

Very bad decision. It leaves you at the mercy of perverse technology companies that look for every way to manipulate and control you.

It is much better to own the music you love in physical format and be free and independent. Still have and play the first classical CDs I bought back in 1994.


----------



## JeffD

ClassicalListener said:


> It leaves you at the mercy of perverse technology companies that look for every way to manipulate and control you.


I have this very same feeling. I don't know how legitimate a fear it is, but for sure some robot software is keeping track of what I like and don't like.

I have always liked owning and being able to play what I want when I want, be it music or movies or books, and I have always hated it when some service suddenly burps and ruins my evening. I am snuggling into my comfy overstuffed chair, lighting my pipe, and suddenly "Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused."


----------



## jegreenwood

ClassicalListener said:


> Very bad decision. It leaves you at the mercy of perverse technology companies that look for every way to manipulate and control you.
> 
> It is much better to own the music you love in physical format and be free and independent. Still have and play the first classical CDs I bought back in 1994.





JeffD said:


> I have this very same feeling. I don't know how legitimate a fear it is, but for sure some robot software is keeping track of what I like and don't like.
> 
> I have always liked owning and being able to play what I want when I want, be it music or movies or books, and I have always hated it when some service suddenly burps and ruins my evening. I am snuggling into my comfy overstuffed chair, lighting my pipe, and suddenly "Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused."


Guess you don't like the public library either.

I don't see this as an either/or situation. I have a substantial book collection. But there are titles I know I want to read, but don't feel the need to own - a thrilller to bring on an airplane for instance. I borrow those (hard copy or e-book) from my library.

Similarly, I have a substantial collection of music. But I also like to explore some more obscure works - perhaps something I read about on this forum. Or an alternative version of a Beethoven symphony. Most of the time, it's something I only want to listen to once or twice. A new Beethoven recording has to be somewhat spectacular to inspire me to add it to the 10 or so recordings I have of each symphony. Or - to pick a different type of example - I was intrigued by a pop song by St. Vincent that I heard on the indie radio station WFUV, and wanted to check out more by her.. In most cases I might play a few tracks I like by an artist with whom I was unfamiliar and add those to my favorites on Tidal, expecting that I will enjoy them from time to time, but ultimately tire of them. (In the case of St. Vincent, I heard enough that I liked that I would buy the album but for the seemingly inevitable dynamic range compression. I may pick it up from iTunes.).

If Tidal shut down tomorrow, I would still have my own music library, which will satisfy me for the rest of my lifetime. If not, I will use Tidal to supplement my library with music that that has merit but that I don't need to own.

Oh, and have I mentioned that in my NYC apartment I have limited space . . .


----------



## ClassicalListener

As someone that loves knowledge and music and owns thousands of books in many different languages and CDs, I can confidently state that 'digital' is the greatest threat culture has faced since the Holy Inquisition. It leaves you at the mercy of all-powerful central entities that have complete control over everything you do, and severely restricts what culture and knowledge you have access to.

Companies like Google and Facebook already ban people at their whim without warning or explanation, robbing them at a second's notice of years' or decades' worth of emails, files and postings. What would you do in a future where CDs are no longer made, a couple of behemoths have acquired all streaming companies, and they decide to ban you because they didn't like a political comment you made? You would be deprived of your ability to listen to any music at all!

Short of banning, there are many, many ways in which they'll restrict your access to culture. Regional blocking is one of them. Instead of facilitating access to foreign sources, 'digital' makes it harder than ever. I can order paper books in French, German and Italian with complete freedom, but I'm totally blocked from purchasing 'ebooks' from Amazon.fr, Amazon.de or Amazon.it. In the absence of a used marketplace for CDs, what will you do when your favorite interpretation of a work is removed from the catalogue of the streaming site? It's irretrievably lost. Access to old editions of books or textbooks, which often are much better than the latest one? Gone forever too.

Pricing is another issue. Without used books or CDs to compete with and enjoying an absolute monopoly, prices will shoot through the roof.

*'Digital' is pure evil.* Any conscientious individual should reject it. *Buy only physical.*


----------



## JeffD

ClassicalListener said:


> *'Digital' is pure evil.* Any conscientious individual should reject it. *Buy only physical.*


:lol: I know what you mean.

Thing is, when dating someone new, I have to be careful timing when I tell of the stacks and stacks of CDs and OMG books in my house, not to mention all the mandolins. Its a bit like explaining you have 23 cats. You don't reveal on the first date, but you don't want her to be surprised with it first time she comes over.


----------



## ClassicalListener

JeffD said:


> :lol: I know what you mean.
> 
> Thing is, when dating someone new, I have to be careful timing when I tell of the stacks and stacks of CDs and OMG books in my house, not to mention all the mandolins. Its a bit like explaining you have 23 cats. You don't reveal on the first date, but you don't want her to be surprised with it first time she comes over.


The woman I love got me when she told me the size of my library mattered to her.


----------



## Merl

It does not matter how you access your music. Whatever way it fits your lifestyle, pocket, etc is all up to you. No one can dictate that. I just think it's great we all have so many options these days. I like to "own" music but if I don't have it I'll track a piece down and sample it online before I make the decision to buy or i may just download part of it. Thankfully gone are the days of getting lumbered with terrible albums that only have one good track on them. Vive le revolution! One day soon I hope to get all my music uploaded to cloud so I can access it whenever and wherever I want. If some dinosaurs want to go back then by all means carry around pockets of CDs and a portable cd player or even a hissy old Walkman with batteries. I'll be smiling, Sat with Terrabytes of music in cloud storage that I can access at home, via my phone, in my car (when I get a more up to date car), on holiday and anywhere I can get to it without lugging around stacks of gear.


----------



## Becca

ClassicalListener said:


> As someone that loves knowledge and music and owns thousands of books in many different languages and CDs, I can confidently state that 'digital' is the greatest threat culture has faced since the Holy Inquisition. It leaves you at the mercy of all-powerful central entities that have complete control over everything you do, and severely restricts what culture and knowledge you have access to.
> 
> Companies like Google and Facebook already ban people at their whim without warning or explanation, robbing them at a second's notice of years' or decades' worth of emails, files and postings. What would you do in a future where CDs are no longer made, a couple of behemoths have acquired all streaming companies, and they decide to ban you because they didn't like a political comment you made? You would be deprived of your ability to listen to any music at all!
> 
> Short of banning, there are many, many ways in which they'll restrict your access to culture. Regional blocking is one of them. Instead of facilitating access to foreign sources, 'digital' makes it harder than ever. I can order paper books in French, German and Italian with complete freedom, but I'm totally blocked from purchasing 'ebooks' from Amazon.fr, Amazon.de or Amazon.it. In the absence of a used marketplace for CDs, what will you do when your favorite interpretation of a work is removed from the catalogue of the streaming site? It's irretrievably lost. Access to old editions of books or textbooks, which often are much better than the latest one? Gone forever too.
> 
> Pricing is another issue. Without used books or CDs to compete with and enjoying an absolute monopoly, prices will shoot through the roof.
> 
> *'Digital' is pure evil.* Any conscientious individual should reject it. *Buy only physical.*


I have seen many outlandish statements on this forum but this one is so over-wrought that it goes to the top of the pile.

First, the statement that 'digital is pure evil' - that is preposterous, digital is a coding and delivery mechanism and is inherently neither good nor bad (despite what analog/vinyl groupies say). I presume that what is really being said is digital delivery via such services as iTunes, Spotify etc. is the problem, so...

What seems to be ignored is that online services are a way of selling you a *license *to listen product at a fraction of the price that would pay to actually purchase the product. The fact that iTunes allows you to download a copy is not a purchase, it is a mechanism to (a) make money for Apple and the artists, and (b) to provide a more convenient way of accessing the material. You are NOT buying product, if you want to 'own' the product, you can purchase a disk from many sources, or you can go to sites like Amazon and download an MP3 copy of the product.

As someone noted above, these services are little different from libraries, be they public or private, i.e. you have the right to borrow the material for a specified period of time. The library can, at any time, demand their material back - how is that different from online services?

As to 'what would you do in a future' that is a classic 'strawman' argument. Of course you can always come up with some apocalyptic scenario but that doesn't make it a meaningful.

Now let's get back to some semblance of reality, please.


----------



## Merl

Bring back 78s, I say.


----------



## Becca

Merl said:


> Bring back 78s, I say.


But then the big, evil corporate record companies will start using cheap, fragile shellac so that your records will break after a few playings. Then where will you be? Without culture!


----------



## Merl

Becca said:


> But then the big, evil corporate record companies will start using cheap, fragile shellac so that your records will break after a few playings. Then where will you be? Without culture!


Damn you and your wisdom Becca! Right I'm going back to unlicensed recordings on wax cylinders or investing in a barrel organ.


----------



## ClassicalListener

Becca said:


> I have seen many outlandish statements on this forum but this one is so over-wrought that it goes to the top of the pile.
> 
> First, the statement that 'digital is pure evil' - that is preposterous, digital is a coding and delivery mechanism and is inherently neither good nor bad (despite what analog/vinyl groupies say). I presume that what is really being said is digital delivery via such services as iTunes, Spotify etc. is the problem, so...
> 
> What seems to be ignored is that online services are a way of selling you a *license *to listen product at a fraction of the price that would pay to actually purchase the product. The fact that iTunes allows you to download a copy is not a purchase, it is a mechanism to (a) make money for Apple and the artists, and (b) to provide a more convenient way of accessing the material. You are NOT buying product, if you want to 'own' the product, you can purchase a disk from many sources, or you can go to sites like Amazon and download an MP3 copy of the product.
> 
> As someone noted above, these services are little different from libraries, be they public or private, i.e. you have the right to borrow the material for a specified period of time. The library can, at any time, demand their material back - how is that different from online services?
> 
> As to 'what would you do in a future' that is a classic 'strawman' argument. Of course you can always come up with some apocalyptic scenario but that doesn't make it a meaningful.
> 
> Now let's get back to some semblance of reality, please.


Following up on your form of address, I haven't seen a reply so stupid and ignorant in a long time, a prime example of the reason why internet discussion can be so useless.

I presented very specific examples of ways in which 'digital' threatens our access to culture, yet despite calling my claims outlandish, you addressed *none* of them. Your generalities about licensing and public libraries bear no relevance to someone looking for specific works of music or literature. The shutting out alone from the editorial world of the main European languages by means of regional blocking is unprecedented. At no point in the past was access to books in French or German as restricted as it is today in the marketplace for 'ebooks'. If that were ever to replace real books, it would be a catastrophe.

You also don't seem to have a problem with dependence on omnipotent corporations run by liberal fanatics who censor and ban anything and anyone they don't like.

'Digital' is the gravest challenge to freedom and openness in a very long time. I understand however some people feel comfortable under serfdom.


----------



## Becca

ClassicalListener said:


> You also don't seem to have a problem with dependence on omnipotent corporations* run by liberal fanatics* who censor and ban anything and anyone they don't like.


I see that we have gotten down to the core of the argument. Clearly absolutely nothing I say will be relevant or useful so why bother.


----------



## jegreenwood

I share a concern with some other posters about how much Google, Amazon et al "know" about me. I only use a few of Gooole's services, and my Facebook page is a blank sheet. But as to whether a company knows what my taste in music is . . . that's pretty far down on my worry list.

Edit - the two prior posts were added as I was writing mine.


----------



## ClassicalListener

Becca said:


> I see that we have gotten down to the core of the argument. Clearly absolutely nothing I say will be relevant or useful so why bother.


My concern is not being able to obtain a work because I live in the wrong country or because it has been removed from the catalogue or replaced by a newer edition and a market for out-of-print items does not exist.

But of course, you now let me see why freedom and openness to pursue avenues of though independently matter nothing to you. And why instead of arguments you offer disrespect and brashness.

Also, that this forum, like the rest of the internet, is trash.

Have a good day.


----------



## KenOC

ClassicalListener said:


> My concern is not being able to obtain a work because I live in the wrong country or because it has been removed from the catalogue or replaced by a newer edition and a market for out-of-print items does not exist.


When something is freely available anytime and anywhere, there's not much point in private ownership. But we're not there yet! A few years ago Amazon found it had made some mistakes in assigning rights to books, and some had been downloaded by customers in areas where the rights to do so weren't available. So Amazon reached out via Whispernet (turned on by default in Kindles) and deleted those books directly from customers' Kindles without so much as a by-your-leave. I don't believe refunds were made unless asked for. A mini-scandal ensued.

So there may be grounds for nervousness.


----------



## jegreenwood

KenOC said:


> When something is freely available anytime and anywhere, there's not much point in private ownership. But we're not there yet! A few years ago Amazon found it had made some mistakes in assigning rights to books, and some had been downloaded by customers in areas where the rights to do so weren't available. So Amazon reached out via Whispernet (turned on by default in Kindles) and deleted those books directly from customers' Kindles without so much as a by-your-leave. I don't believe refunds were made unless asked for. A mini-scandal ensued.
> 
> So there may be grounds for nervousness.


To my knowledge that happened with one book - "1984," believe it or not. I thought Amazon automatically refunded the purchase price. I'm sure there's an article about it. You could use Google to find it on the internet.

Edit: the NY Times on line says they also pulled "Animal Farm."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html


----------



## KenOC

jegreenwood said:


> To my knowledge that happened with one book - "1984," believe it or not. I thought Amazon automatically refunded the purchase price. I'm sure there's an article about it. You could use Google to find it on the internet.
> 
> Edit: the NY Times on line says they also pulled "Animal Farm."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html


Thanks for refreshing my memory! Amazon says (per the article) that it did refund the purchases prices automatically. However, the article also says other books were apparently removed from customers' Kindles in the same way - digital editions of the Harry Potter books and Ayn Rand's novels. A snippet from the article:
--------------------------------------------
"It illustrates how few rights you have when you buy an e-book from Amazon," said Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer for British Telecom and an expert on computer security and commerce. "As a Kindle owner, I'm frustrated. I can't lend people books and I can't sell books that I've already read, and now it turns out that I can't even count on still having my books tomorrow."


----------



## JeffD

ClassicalListener said:


> The woman I love got me when she told me the size of my library mattered to her.


Does she have any sisters?


----------



## JeffD

jegreenwood said:


> Guess you don't like the public library either. . . .


I don't mind the library. But after reading a really amazing book, I like to own it, refer to it, read it again perhaps, dust it off and remind myself about it.


----------



## JeffD

Becca said:


> As to 'what would you do in a future' that is a classic 'strawman' argument. Of course you can always come up with some apocalyptic scenario but that doesn't make it a meaningful..


No, not apocalyptic, pretty mundane actually.

I love movies. When Netflix came out you could get access to seemingly everything. Everything you ever heard of and many things you never heard of. (I especially liked this because I didn't have to subject myself to movie rental personnel who said things like "huh, never heard of it." and figured if they never heard of it how important could it be.)

I was in heaven. I fell in love with a lot of obscure movies, a lot of old movies I had loved growing up, a treasure trove. And I made a conscious effort to be modern and not own them, but just rent them or stream them when I wanted.

Now Netflix has (for all kinds of reasons) very much limited their offerings. Most of what I really liked back then is unavailable and about half of what I want to watch now is unavailable.

And I am not talking esoteric stuff. You cannot get any of the old Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, or Outlaw Josey Wales.

I can now watch any movie Netflix wants me to watch, and well, that's about it.

But I felt so modern.


----------



## jegreenwood

KenOC said:


> Thanks for refreshing my memory! Amazon says (per the article) that it did refund the purchases prices automatically. However, the article also says other books were apparently removed from customers' Kindles in the same way - digital editions of the Harry Potter books and Ayn Rand's novels. A snippet from the article:
> --------------------------------------------
> "It illustrates how few rights you have when you buy an e-book from Amazon," said Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer for British Telecom and an expert on computer security and commerce. "As a Kindle owner, I'm frustrated. I can't lend people books and I can't sell books that I've already read, and now it turns out that I can't even count on still having my books tomorrow."


You are correct. I should have reread the entire article.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

KenOC said:


> Thanks for refreshing my memory! Amazon says (per the article) that it did refund the purchases prices automatically. However, the article also says other books were apparently removed from customers' Kindles in the same way - digital editions of the Harry Potter books and Ayn Rand's novels. A snippet from the article:
> --------------------------------------------
> "It illustrates how few rights you have when you buy an e-book from Amazon," said Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer for British Telecom and an expert on computer security and commerce. "As a Kindle owner, I'm frustrated. I can't lend people books and I can't sell books that I've already read, and now it turns out that I can't even count on still having my books tomorrow."


And you can not pass them on to your heirs after you pass away.


----------



## jegreenwood

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And you can not pass them on to your heirs after you pass away.


As for books, I decide between e-book and physical book on a case by case basis based on the circumstances under which I expect to read it. As I said it's not either/or.


----------



## rspader

I have a fairly large collection of CDs and I also have been streaming with Spotify for about one year. For $10.00 per month I have access to an incredible library of music. It is on a month to month basis that I pay for the use (rental) of that music. If Spotify disappeared tomorrow, I would be disppaointed and, of course, would stop paying. I find it difficult to understand how I have "lost" anything, however. $10.00 for one month of music. No music -- no $10.00. Simple.


----------



## Granate

News: Pristine Classical has set up their streaming service. It only needs a Pristine account. Digital files can be streamed in FLAC or 320kbps.

Monthly subscription: 10€
Year subscription: 100€


----------



## Triplets

I use Spotify for all of my non Classical and to audition potential Classical before purchase. I’ve done trials of Primephonic (not enough choice) and Tidal (hate the interface and I think MQA is a crock). Quobuz is unavailable here.
I prefer something at a higher quality bit rate than Spotify for long term listening and based on the sound quality of the other 2 that I tried I could see being a full time streamer. I’ve got so much Physical Media, though, that it would never happen


----------



## ClassicalListener

JeffD said:


> No, not apocalyptic, pretty mundane actually.
> 
> I love movies. When Netflix came out you could get access to seemingly everything. Everything you ever heard of and many things you never heard of. (I especially liked this because I didn't have to subject myself to movie rental personnel who said things like "huh, never heard of it." and figured if they never heard of it how important could it be.)
> 
> I was in heaven. I fell in love with a lot of obscure movies, a lot of old movies I had loved growing up, a treasure trove. And I made a conscious effort to be modern and not own them, but just rent them or stream them when I wanted.
> 
> Now Netflix has (for all kinds of reasons) very much limited their offerings. Most of what I really liked back then is unavailable and about half of what I want to watch now is unavailable.
> 
> And I am not talking esoteric stuff. You cannot get any of the old Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, or Outlaw Josey Wales.
> 
> I can now watch any movie Netflix wants me to watch, and well, that's about it.
> 
> But I felt so modern.


That will of course be the fate of vast tracts of repertoire and interpretation - their disappearance. Have people paying for these services stopped to think what will they do when their favorite cycle gets deleted and they find themselves in a position where despite having paid for years they own nothing and there are no CDs, new or used, to substitute it with?

Rejecting these streaming services requires intelligence to understand their dangers and integrity to say no to their apparent convenience. Sadly, these qualities are in short supply. Particularly in anglophone countries, where people are eager to jump head-first into new technologies and 'surging trends' without knowing or stopping to think where they might lead.

Studies have shown repeatedly that the mere presence of a smartphone in a room makes people dumber. Perhaps that is part of the explanation. 

Conscientious individuals should simply say no to the digital dystopia.



JeffD said:


> Does she have any sisters?


Yes, but they're nothing like her. My K. is one in a billion.


----------



## Larkenfield

As I've gotten older I haven't started streaming on a regular basis, though I've enjoyed it at times for its monumental variety. I much prefer the combination of sight and sound while watching the endless variety of concerts and opera on YT. Streaming can't do that and I enjoy watching the conductor, musicians, the concert hall settings, like I was there. Plus, it's always on demand when I'm in the mood. That's the positive side of the digital experience viewed from one's home. 

On the flip side of the disc, the digital revolution has been an absolute boon to listeners and collectors but because of piracy and the criminal lack of enforcement of copyrights, has ultimately destroyed the careers of many talented musicians, the recording industry (look at one record company swallowed up by larger corporations), album sales, and led to the demise of a number of wonderful orchestras. Just today, I was talking with a fine classical violinist whose career in New York started to fade four years ago because of a lack of opportunities. She now does hospice work with the terminally ill but fortunately finds it richly rewarding. 

The people making the money are at the top of the economic heap running these corporations and streaming services and not at the creative end where the music comes from in the first place where the musicians have to live and breath. And though I enjoy the free content of YT, it's just as exploitive and permits every imaginable type of copyright infringements.


----------



## JeffD

I think the key is appropriate usage. Use the streaming services to inexpensively expose yourself to new stuff. Its great and it doesn't take up space if you hate it.

Then if you love it go out and buy the CD.

Streaming allows you to date, I guess, before you commit.


----------



## JeffD

Its probably not insidious, something is not all that popular so they stop offering it. Something like that. Like Netflix before it, I foresee that these streaming services will be little more than an on demand version of Serius/XM classical music channel.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

JeffD said:


> I think the key is appropriate usage. Use the streaming services to inexpensively expose yourself to new stuff. Its great and it doesn't take up space if you hate it.
> 
> Then if you love it go out and buy the CD.
> 
> Streaming allows you to date, I guess, before you commit.


Yes. that is the nice thing about streaming services you can try some composer you had never heard of without having to buy a cd of their music. If you like it you can buy it. If you hate it you can put there music on ignore.


----------



## JeffD

The key is to limit the extent to which you allow a faceless company driven by mindless algorithms decide what you can listen to, read, or watch, or learn.


----------



## fliege

I've been using Spotify and I've had no problems with the selection (big catalog) but it can be hard to find things sometimes and it's annoying that it song-centric and has no concept of movements. I like some aspects of Idagio, but the big labels aren't on there and a lot of the recordings don't sound great (even some of the more recent ones). However, they have an Android app now. Primephonic is the other option, but also has a limited catalog. I'm waiting to see what Wolffy brings to the table. Quobuz is interesting, but there is no mobile player and I can't tell the difference between high quality MP3 and FLAC so this isn't an advantage for me. Also, it refuses to present the website in English because I live in Switzerland and there is no option to set the language. They choose your language; an attitude I find annoying.


----------



## eljr

gHeadphone said:


> I downloaded Qobuz 3 weeks ago (i'm on week 3 of a 4 week trial from a code off Gramophone magazine, there usual is a 2 week trial). I tried it out as i wanted to hear the Murray Perahia French Suites and wasn't going to be close to a shop in weeks.
> 
> I've traditionally avoided streaming for a couple of reasons:
> 
> The sound quality is lower than CD. People have differing opinions of this, as i have good headphones, Dac and Amp I choose to put the best version of music through.
> It was difficult to find specific version of classical recordings in Spotify (the only other service id ever tried), the metadata isn't very good.
> I liked going to music shops and browsing
> 
> However ive now totally changed my mind. Even though the CD quality version of Qobuz is 19 Euro per month im signing up.
> 
> Ive been listening to a massive amount of music in the 3 weeks, so much so that ive not been on here once. I thought the novelty would wear off but its not at all, the opposite is true. If i find something i've liked recently (Brahms Violin Concerto, The Goldberg Variations, Beethoven Symphonies) i can listen to as many versions as i like.
> 
> The classical catalog is phenomenal, there is very little i cant find on it, it has everything i own except from the label Hyperion. There is an added bonus that I don't need to wait until i get into Dublin to physically purchase anything.
> 
> I may change my mind on this (and ive not tried Primephonic or Idagio which are both classical streaming services), but i cant see it.
> 
> Now for more Bach!!
> 
> Anybody else tried streaming as their main source for music?


How are they with new releases? (in classical)

several a day or a few a week?


----------



## Jazzbert

I am streaming from Spotify but have about 2000 or so albums ripped to my hard drive. To maximize my current library I would have to spend a few hundred hours improving the metadata (tagging). So far I have found a few bucks a month worth it to avoid the heavy lifting... guess I’m lazy.


----------



## Larkenfield

If I had 2000 CDs, I would likely only upload what I was interesting in listening to at the time,or it sounds like it could be a tedious process. If it takes about an hour to upload and tag each one, it would take about 83 days if one were to upload and label 24 hours a day—a rough approximation.


----------



## eljr

Larkenfield said:


> If I had 2000 CDs, I would likely only upload what I was interesting in listening to at the time,or it sounds like it could be a tedious process. If it takes about an hour to upload and tag each one, it would take about 83 days if one were to upload and label 24 hours a day-a rough approximation.


Two years ago when I went digital I just started ripping the new ones.

The old ones I play as CD's.

Just too big a project for me to rip all my CD's.


----------



## jegreenwood

Larkenfield said:


> If I had 2000 CDs, I would likely only upload what I was interesting in listening to at the time,or it sounds like it could be a tedious process. If it takes about an hour to upload and tag each one, it would take about 83 days if one were to upload and label 24 hours a day-a rough approximation.


My Plextor can rip at a conservative average of 10x (using JRiver in secure copy mode). So a 70 minute disc takes 7 minutes to rip. Tagging is a nuisance, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes per disc. Most tags are consistent for an entire disc and one can tag a group of tracks together. The main question is how obsessed one becomes with naming the tracks. If one wants every symphony in one's library to have the same naming format - say Symphony No. 1, Op. 21, First Movement, Adagio Molto - Allegro con Brio - that takes time. Generally, I'll accept the track names suggested by JRiver (which searches for the disc in an on-line database) as long as I can identify the track. After all it's not as though LP sleeves or CD pamphlets were ever consistent in this regard.


----------



## bigshot

I join tracks to put all of a work into a single file. It makes playback much easier.


----------



## jegreenwood

bigshot said:


> I join tracks to put all of a work into a single file. It makes playback much easier.


I stuck with iTunes for years to hold onto that one feature. JRiver has a feature called "link tracks." which is great as long as I use JRiver as my player. However, the tracks are not actually merged into a single file, and when I use my Squeezeboxes the linkage doesn't carry over.


----------



## Bulldog

Concerning Netflix, my wife and I were re-watching Mash from beginning to end. We were on the 4th season when Netflix suddenly scratched the whole series - no warning, no apology, nothing. Although not a big deal, it did fully reveal that we are at the mercy of bean counters and grifters. It's best to own the stuff you want.

Having said the above, I do subscribe to NML as a supplementary service.


----------



## jegreenwood

Bulldog said:


> Concerning Netflix, my wife and I were re-watching Mash from beginning to end. We were on the 4th season when Netflix suddenly scratched the whole series - no warning, no apology, nothing. Although not a big deal, it did fully reveal that we are at the mercy of bean counters and grifters. It's best to own the stuff you want.
> 
> Having said the above, I do subscribe to NML as a supplementary service.


I don't subscribe to any video services, so I can't speak to that, but Tidal (and I assume the other music services) have quite a few OOP recordings available for streaming. That's how I got to hear the complete Miles Davis - Live at the Plugged Nickel. A used copy on Amazon goes for $200; a new copy goes for $400.)


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I do all ways of listening. I have only 150 or so cd's. About 2500 works electronically and use spotify free and Amazon prime. I do the same with books. 

It's all good, baby.


----------



## eljr

ClassicalListener said:


> That will of course be the fate of vast tracts of repertoire and interpretation - their disappearance. Have people paying for these services stopped to think what will they do when their favorite cycle gets deleted and they find themselves in a position where despite having paid for years they own nothing and there are no CDs, new or used, to substitute it with?
> 
> Rejecting these streaming services requires intelligence to understand their dangers and integrity to say no to their apparent convenience. Sadly, these qualities are in short supply. Particularly in anglophone countries, where people are eager to jump head-first into new technologies and 'surging trends' without knowing or stopping to think where they might lead.
> 
> Studies have shown repeatedly that the mere presence of a smartphone in a room makes people dumber. Perhaps that is part of the explanation.
> 
> Conscientious individuals should simply say no to the digital dystopia.


----------



## eljr

ClassicalListener said:


> As someone that loves knowledge and music and owns thousands of books in many different languages and CDs, I can confidently state that 'digital' is the greatest threat culture has faced since the Holy Inquisition.


Well, I do appreciate your extreme passion and this did make me chuckle but I did find myself wondering,what does This "As someone that loves knowledge and music and owns thousands of books in many different languages and CDs" have to do with this, " I can confidently state that 'digital' is the greatest threat culture has faced since the Holy Inquisition?"

Seems a logical fallacy if I read your contention correctly.


----------



## bigshot

I think back fondly of the days of the LP where at my local record store, they had several hundred classical recordings to choose from... and more if I paid in advance and special ordered. I'd have what I wanted in my hands in 2 to 4 weeks! And if I went to the record store on Sunset Bl, I could choose from several different Beethoven Symphonies sets and Ring Cycles!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

bigshot said:


> I think back fondly of the days of the LP where at my local record store, they had several hundred classical recordings to choose from... and more if I paid in advance and special ordered. I'd have what I wanted in my hands in 2 to 4 weeks! And if I went to the record store on Sunset Bl, I could choose from several different Beethoven Symphonies sets and Ring Cycles!


And now you can find most of the Beethoven cycles on spotify.


----------



## SgtJohn74

I use Spotify.

Like other posters around here, I feel that the loss in sound quality is compensated by the choice. Of course I would still purchase my favourite versions as CDs.

Playlists in Spotify also come handy - all my favourite versions in one place! The big disappointment of course is the completely maladapted metadata and display system. Not very practical when I'm looking for a precise Lied and all that is displayed in the mobile app is: "Schubert - Complete Lieder - Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau & Gerald M..." 200 times


----------



## Granate

SgtJohn74 said:


> The big disappointment of course is the completely maladapted metadata and display system. Not very practical when I'm looking for a precise Lied and all that is displayed in the mobile app is: "Schubert - Complete Lieder - Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau & Gerald M..." 200 times


If one thing has taught me the Internet in seven years, has been Patience. Nothing is too hard to find. It eventually shows up.

I search by artist (Conductor) and then I find the recording I'm looking for. It's like the best metadata they have in Spotify, because usually they mess up with titles or singers, soloists... Then I save in my library.


----------



## jegreenwood

SgtJohn74 said:


> I use Spotify.
> 
> Like other posters around here, I feel that the loss in sound quality is compensated by the choice. Of course I would still purchase my favourite versions as CDs.
> 
> Playlists in Spotify also come handy - all my favourite versions in one place! The big disappointment of course is the completely maladapted metadata and display system. Not very practical when I'm looking for a precise Lied and all that is displayed in the mobile app is: "Schubert - Complete Lieder - Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau & Gerald M..." 200 times


Or in a big box set by a particular performer (with multiple composers), and all you see for the first three tracks is:

Op. 45 Allegro
Op. 45 Andante
Op. 45 Rondo


----------



## Merl

Tag and Rename is my best friend.


----------



## jegreenwood

Merl said:


> Tag and Rename is my best friend.


Can you do that with Spotify tracks? I'm pretty sure I can't with Tidal.


----------



## DarkAngel

I was having trouble for the last month or so with Tidal desktop app (windows 7) needed to play masters albums (24/96) would hang-up and not advance to next track periodically when playing an album requiring me to manually track advance, no problems with web player using google chrome but cannot play masters.....only desktop app can play masters

Many other users reported this problem online, fortunately recent software update by Tidal has corrected this and all works well with desktop app......waiting for Tidal to announce a surcharge for users to continue with masters now that people like it


----------



## Merl

jegreenwood said:


> Can you do that with Spotify tracks? I'm pretty sure I can't with Tidal.


I don't know. Don't use Spotify.


----------



## jegreenwood

DarkAngel said:


> I was having trouble for the last month or so with Tidal desktop app (windows 7) needed to play masters albums (24/96) would hang-up and not advance to next track periodically when playing an album requiring me to manually track advance, no problems with web player using google chrome but cannot play masters.....only desktop app can play masters
> 
> Many other users reported this problem online, fortunately recent software update by Tidal has corrected this and all works well with desktop app......waiting for Tidal to announce a surcharge for users to continue with masters now that people like it


I am willing to pay for the CD quality streaming offered by Tidal, but I would not pay more for the masters.


----------



## DarkAngel

jegreenwood said:


> I am willing to pay for the CD quality streaming offered by Tidal, but I would not pay more for the masters.


Still too early in the "roll out" stage, only a small percent of entire catalog is available in master format, but I suspect once it is more widely available an extra charge could be coming........if it remains free to premium users my compliments to Tidal

It would be a very small group of customers that would pay extra fee for it............


----------



## eljr

DarkAngel said:


> Still too early in the "roll out" stage, only a small percent of entire catalog is available in master format, but I suspect once it is more widely available an extra charge could be coming........if it remains free to premium users my compliments to Tidal
> 
> It would be a very small group of customers that would pay extra fee for it............


I would think most who already subscribe to their HIFI level would.

The folks who subscribe to the HIFI level now are either into audio and want the best or by nature want the best available. No?

I wonder what % of their patronage currently has the HIFI service?


----------



## jegreenwood

eljr said:


> I would think most who already subscribe to their HIFI level would.
> 
> The folks who subscribe to the HIFI level now are either into audio and want the best or by nature want the best available. No?
> 
> I wonder what % of their patronage currently has the HIFI service?


But many of them (us) have doubts as to whether MQA (used by Tidal for the Masters) generates real hi-res. Others don't believe that hi-res offers any improvement. In my case I believe it can offer a slight improvement (and I don't feel like arguing about it), and I'm on the fence on MQA. That's not enough for me to spend more money for Tidal, especially as I don't use it that often for serious listening.

Edit - if the increase were a buck a month, I'd probably say why not? But not $5 a month.


----------



## Scopitone

jegreenwood said:


> Or in a big box set by a particular performer (with multiple composers), and all you see for the first three tracks is:
> 
> Op. 45 Allegro
> Op. 45 Andante
> Op. 45 Rondo


Spotify and Google are pretty good about metadata in classical because they show composers on most pieces.

Deezer? Not so much. There's no composer info, so heaven forbid you have a box set with a bunch of CDs worth of music. They'll all be listed just as your example.


----------



## newyorkconversation

Wondering whether anyone has tried Concertmaster (http://getconcertmaster.com/)? It purports to be a Classical front end for Spotify that has some sensitivity in terms of how it presents multi-movement works.


----------



## eljr

jegreenwood said:


> But many of them (us) have doubts as to whether MQA (used by Tidal for the Masters) generates real hi-res. Others don't believe that hi-res offers any improvement. In my case I believe it can offer a slight improvement (and I don't feel like arguing about it), and I'm on the fence on MQA. That's not enough for me to spend more money for Tidal, especially as I don't use it that often for serious listening.
> 
> Edit - if the increase were a buck a month, I'd probably say why not? But not $5 a month.


I understand and I have never head a difference however I am in the camp of, "why take a chance" on not getting the best available.


----------



## jegreenwood

eljr said:


> I understand and I have never head a difference however I am in the camp of, "why take a chance" on not getting the best available.


Of course Tidal may have to raise rates if this report is true:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

newyorkconversation said:


> Wondering whether anyone has tried Concertmaster (http://getconcertmaster.com/)? It purports to be a Classical front end for Spotify that has some sensitivity in terms of how it presents multi-movement works.


I just tried it so far it works better than just using spotify by itself. Easier to find different era's of classical music.


----------



## eljr

jegreenwood said:


> Of course Tidal may have to raise rates if this report is true:


of course raising their fee may result in lower revenues...

people are pretty spoiled by the $10 spotify price


----------



## jegreenwood

eljr said:


> of course raising their fee may result in lower revenues...
> 
> people are pretty spoiled by the $10 spotify price


Agreed. And the report may not be accurate. But Tidal seems not to have convinced enough people about the value of CD resolution (or MQA). I think that if I listened primarily to contemporary pop, hip-hop or indy rock recordings (all "mastered for iTunes"), I would not see much advantage in better resolution in my streamer source.


----------



## tgdb9

I subscribed to Tidal for about 2 years. Recently canceled my subscription because the digital watermarking was starting to drive me insane. It's really obvious on any recording involving an instrument that doesn't use vibrato e.g. piano and clarinet.


----------



## Triplets

newyorkconversation said:


> Wondering whether anyone has tried Concertmaster (http://getconcertmaster.com/)? It purports to be a Classical front end for Spotify that has some sensitivity in terms of how it presents multi-movement works.


Is this a part of Spotify?


----------



## Triplets

tgdb9 said:


> I subscribed to Tidal for about 2 years. Recently canceled my subscription because the digital watermarking was starting to drive me insane. It's really obvious on any recording involving an instrument that doesn't use vibrato e.g. piano and clarinet.


Tidal really doesn't seem to care about Classical. The organization looks like it was done by a squirrel on methamphetamine.
I tried the free subscription for a month. I listened to a few MQA recordings (Bluesound DAC) that duplicated items in my collection and I honestly don't know what the fuss is about


----------



## newyorkconversation

Triplets said:


> Is this a part of Spotify?


No, it's a standalone app. I think it probably includes some kind of data targeting pixel which may be used to target ads to you elsewhere on the web but it's free to use (basing this on the developer's profile - he runs a big data consultancy in Brazil).


----------



## tgdb9

Triplets said:


> Tidal really doesn't seem to care about Classical. The organization looks like it was done by a squirrel on methamphetamine.
> I tried the free subscription for a month. I listened to a few MQA recordings (Bluesound DAC) that duplicated items in my collection and I honestly don't know what the fuss is about


As far as I'm concerned the main thing streaming has going for it is its convenience. Tidal's watermarking just became too annoying whenever I was listening to it anywhere other than in the car...


----------



## eljr

Triplets said:


> Tidal really doesn't seem to care about Classical. The organization looks like it was done by a squirrel on methamphetamine.
> I tried the free subscription for a month. I listened to a few MQA recordings (Bluesound DAC) that duplicated items in my collection and I honestly don't know what the fuss is about


and anyone interested in Classical new releases, forget about Tidal. It's terrible in this regard too.

No wonder they claim they are about to go under.


----------



## jegreenwood

eljr said:


> and anyone interested in Classical new releases, forget about Tidal. It's terrible in this regard too.
> 
> No wonder they claim they are about to go under.


I found 21 of the NY Times's 25 best classical albums of 2017 on Tidal. One or more of the ones missing were on labels that may not have released their music for streaming (e.g. Hyperion). The only surprising absence was Andsnes's Sibelius.

Edit - I may have miscounted. I may have found 22 out of 25.


----------



## adrianosbr

newyorkconversation said:


> No, it's a standalone app. I think it probably includes some kind of data targeting pixel which may be used to target ads to you elsewhere on the web but it's free to use (basing this on the developer's profile - he runs a big data consultancy in Brazil).


Hi, Concertmaster developer here.

Thanks for trying Concertmaster  Your feedback is essential to keep improving the app.

I can assure you that no tracking of any kind is done in Concertmaster. It's a non-profit side project just out of passion for classical music.

Cheers!


----------



## newyorkconversation

adrianosbr said:


> Hi, Concertmaster developer here.
> 
> Thanks for trying Concertmaster  Your feedback is essential to keep improving the app.
> 
> I can assure you that no tracking of any kind is done in Concertmaster. It's a non-profit side project just out of passion for classical music.
> 
> Cheers!


Thank you for the update and thank you for the app!


----------



## DarkAngel

jegreenwood said:


> I found 21 of the NY Times's 25 best classical albums of 2017 on Tidal. One or more of the ones missing were on labels that may not have released their music for streaming (e.g. Hyperion). The only surprising absence was Andsnes's Sibelius.
> 
> Edit - I may have miscounted. I may have found 22 out of 25.


Yes Tidal music catalog has expanded nicely, I don't know what level audio gear people here listen with but the HiFi (lossless) Tidal is really nice sound improvement over Spotify 320, and Spotify 320 streaming does not sound as good as 320 mp3 I rip from CD and play on same system (windows desktop app).....



> Of course Tidal may have to raise rates if this report is true:


BTW that article about demise of Tidal should not be taken too seriously, 40 million is a drop in the bucket and all subscription based companies spend money in early years to capture customer base, even Amazon still makes very little profit as they spend everything expanding to new markets and growing customer base.....how much money do you think tiny beats music service (Dr Dre's company) was generating before Apple computer bought them for 2.5 billion .....


----------



## RobertKC

adrianosbr said:


> Hi, Concertmaster developer here.
> 
> Thanks for trying Concertmaster  Your feedback is essential to keep improving the app.
> 
> I can assure you that no tracking of any kind is done in Concertmaster. It's a non-profit side project just out of passion for classical music.
> 
> Cheers!


Adrianosbr,

I'm intrigued by your software.

Following is an email that I sent to the Google Home support team 2 days ago. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this.

-------------------------------

These past few days I've been experimenting with Google Home's speech interface, as a potential solution for delivering music (Spotify Premium, Tune-In) for my elderly mother. (My Mom doesn't use a smartphone or tablet.)

Google Home is amazing. Its easy to play radio stations via a simple voice command: "Hey Google, play KUSC".

Playing a specific pop song is also straightforward. "Hey Google, play 'Fields of Gold' by Eva Cassidy".

However, I have not been successful in using Google Home's voice interface to play multi-movement classical compositions from Spotify. (Perhaps this isn't surprising given the lack of standards for tagging classical music.) Based on experimenting for an hour, the only solution I found is to create a Spotify Playlist that contains all of the movements of the composition (e.g., Rachmaninoff's All Night Vigil), giving it a unique name ('All Night Vigil'), and then say: "Hey Google, play playlist 'All Night Vigil'." This of course is very cumbersome, and enables playing only those multi-movement compositions for which I've created a playlist. (And I have to remember what I called the playlist.)

Even the most popular piece of classical music, Beethoven's 9th Symphony (Spotify has more than 100 different recorded performances), won't play correctly - not for any performance (Google Home starts with the 4th movement of some performance I didn't want) - let alone provide the ability to select a recording (i.e., which conductor, orchestra, performance date, etc).

It seems to be that the first step would be for the recorded music industry to standardize tagging of classical music (e.g., sub-genre, composer, composition, conductor, orchestra, soloists, performance date, etc).

Then perhaps Google could offer an "advanced search", prompting the user for each piece of information.

"Hey Google, I want to perform an advanced search for music"
Google: "What composer?"​"Beethoven"
Google: "What composition"​"Ninth Symphony"
Google: "What conductor"​"Abbado"
Google: "What orchestra"​"Any"

Than, if there are multiple matches, Google could play a list of options. (Often, a conductor will have recorded more than one performance of a composition, sometimes with the same orchestra, sometimes different orchestras.)

While playing the recording, it would be nice to be able to say: "Hey Google, play the third movement."

Bottom line, the only way that I can find to play multi-movement classical music using the Google Home speech interface is to create my own playlist - with my own tag - for each piece of music. Am I missing something?

Thanks for any assistance.


----------



## jegreenwood

Recently I've been considering getting a Google Home or Amazon Alexa type device for my kitchen (to be used with a Bose SoundLink Mini). This could work for me if I could stream either Tidal or my own computer based JRiver managed library and if operating it was simple. Right now I have a pretty good table radio in there, so by simple I mean simpler than hitting the programmed station buttons. I can also connect my phone to it via cable or BlueTooth. So what I'm looking for is hands-free operation. I found this article, but the instructions struck me as rather a mess. I have also found an Alexa skill that is supposed to integrate it with JRiver, but from one article I read you can only get it to play on the computer.

All in all, this still looks unnecessarily complicated. But I would love to hear from anyone who has discovered otherwise.


----------



## adrianosbr

Hi Robert,

Your request to Google makes complete sense.

Classical "metadata" (i.e., information about works, composers, movements, performers, recordings etc) is quite tricky. That's why neither Spotify or Google can handle classical music in a proper way. Their apps simply don't have all the information required to answer an "advanced classical music search" (something that is, in turn, essential to most listeners).

There are some projects that are trying to solve this problem. The most advanced one is the All Music Guide database, which I use on Concertmaster. There is an open source, wiki-style database called MusicBrainz. There is Idagio, a specialized streaming app from Germany, that is making notable progress in this field.

Google, Apple, Tidal, Spotify et al, not specialized at all in classical music (which stands for about 4% of their listening sessions), aren't putting much effort in this issue. I bet the solution will come from other, more focused companies.

Cheers!
Adriano.



RobertKC said:


> Adrianosbr,
> 
> I'm intrigued by your software.
> 
> Following is an email that I sent to the Google Home support team 2 days ago. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this.
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> These past few days I've been experimenting with Google Home's speech interface, as a potential solution for delivering music (Spotify Premium, Tune-In) for my elderly mother. (My Mom doesn't use a smartphone or tablet.)
> 
> Google Home is amazing. Its easy to play radio stations via a simple voice command: "Hey Google, play KUSC".
> 
> Playing a specific pop song is also straightforward. "Hey Google, play 'Fields of Gold' by Eva Cassidy".
> 
> However, I have not been successful in using Google Home's voice interface to play multi-movement classical compositions from Spotify. (Perhaps this isn't surprising given the lack of standards for tagging classical music.) Based on experimenting for an hour, the only solution I found is to create a Spotify Playlist that contains all of the movements of the composition (e.g., Rachmaninoff's All Night Vigil), giving it a unique name ('All Night Vigil'), and then say: "Hey Google, play playlist 'All Night Vigil'." This of course is very cumbersome, and enables playing only those multi-movement compositions for which I've created a playlist. (And I have to remember what I called the playlist.)
> 
> Even the most popular piece of classical music, Beethoven's 9th Symphony (Spotify has more than 100 different recorded performances), won't play correctly - not for any performance (Google Home starts with the 4th movement of some performance I didn't want) - let alone provide the ability to select a recording (i.e., which conductor, orchestra, performance date, etc).
> 
> It seems to be that the first step would be for the recorded music industry to standardize tagging of classical music (e.g., sub-genre, composer, composition, conductor, orchestra, soloists, performance date, etc).
> 
> Then perhaps Google could offer an "advanced search", prompting the user for each piece of information.
> 
> "Hey Google, I want to perform an advanced search for music"
> Google: "What composer?"​"Beethoven"
> Google: "What composition"​"Ninth Symphony"
> Google: "What conductor"​"Abbado"
> Google: "What orchestra"​"Any"
> 
> Than, if there are multiple matches, Google could play a list of options. (Often, a conductor will have recorded more than one performance of a composition, sometimes with the same orchestra, sometimes different orchestras.)
> 
> While playing the recording, it would be nice to be able to say: "Hey Google, play the third movement."
> 
> Bottom line, the only way that I can find to play multi-movement classical music using the Google Home speech interface is to create my own playlist - with my own tag - for each piece of music. Am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks for any assistance.


----------



## RobertKC

jegreenwood said:


> Recently I've been considering getting a Google Home or Amazon Alexa type device for my kitchen (to be used with a Bose SoundLink Mini). This could work for me if I could stream either Tidal or my own computer based JRiver managed library and if operating it was simple. Right now I have a pretty good table radio in there, so by simple I mean simpler than hitting the programmed station buttons. I can also connect my phone to it via cable or BlueTooth. So what I'm looking for is hands-free operation. I found this article, but the instructions struck me as rather a mess. I have also found an Alexa skill that is supposed to integrate it with JRiver, but from one article I read you can only get it to play on the computer.
> 
> All in all, this still looks unnecessarily complicated. But I would love to hear from anyone who has discovered otherwise.


I don't know about Google Home accessing a customer provided library of music (e.g., on NAS). I've not researched this. Do you have music in your library that isn't on Tidal? Do you have playlists in JRiver that you don't want to recreate in Tidal? Do you have hi-res recordings in your library that you want to play via wi-fi vs. playing the same recording from Tidal? (Depending on the technology, wireless systems have restrictions on playing hi-res recordings.)

Do you want to use a smart-speaker (e.g., Google Home or Alexa) to send audio to a Bluetooth speaker? If so, why? I have no experience with Bluetooth. I've read that Bluetooth can be used to send music from a smartphone to a Google Home gizmo. I don't know if the Google Home gizmo can use Bluetooth to send audio to another speaker. (I use Google Home with Chromecast wi-fi based casting to send streaming services (e.g., Tune-In) to my hi-fi systems.)

I'm considering getting a Google Home *Max* for my Mom (i.e., the larger smart speaker that was just introduced). The music would play directly on the Google Home Max (i.e., not cast to another system). (I think casting would be too complicated for an elderly person.) I haven't heard the Max, but I'm guessing it would be satisfactory for playing music in her small single-room assisted living apartment. The only limitation I've discovered (in terms of how I intend to use it) is that Google does not currently support use of the Google Home Max as a TV soundbar (even though the Max has an AUX input). Hopefully Google will enhance the software so that a single Google Home Max can serve for music, and TV audio, in a way that's completely transparent to the end-user. If Google can make that work, I think the Google Home Max could be a simple-to-use space-efficient source of entertainment for an elderly person, without leaving their bed or chair (i.e., everything is voice controlled).

My use is different. For serious listening, I prefer to listen via SACD, hi-res FLAC, and Blu-ray, via my Oppo universal players hardwired to my hi-fi systems (i.e., no streaming or wi-fi). This ensures the highest audio quality.

For non-serious background listening, I have 4 Chromecast Audio. I use the CA for casual background listening to internet radio (Tune-In), plus Spotify Premium (providing access to music not in my library). When I stream from my Samsung tablet, the tablet is strictly a "remote control". (Music is not stored on the tablet, or "hair-pinned" through the tablet.) I sometimes stream from the Spotify app on my Windows 10 PC, and occasionally from the Chrome browser.

With Google Home, I can use my voice to turn on a vintage vacuum tube amp (using a Wemo smart plug), and use my voice to cast music from Spotify Premium and Tune-In (radio stations): "Hey Google, play <song> by <artist> on my Chromecast bedroom."

Of course, Google Home can also control lights via voice command, and perform internet searches, such asking about weather, traffic, trivia, etc. And with Chromecast (the video version), I can simply say: "Hey Google, play <movie> on <TV>".

I would say that for many uses the Google Home Max is simple to use. An exception is trying to use speech to play multi-movement classical music (discussed in my post # 83 above). And, IME, all sophisticated software-based systems can occasionally cause heartburn.

No product is perfect, but based on a few days of experience, I'm impressed by Google Home, considering its price point (currently on sale for $79 US). The Google Home Max retails for $399 and reportedly has better audio quality. I think that if Google can make Google Home Max serve dual purpose as a TV soundbar and a smart speaker ("Hey Google"), it will be a useful product for people who want voice control (e.g., people with limited mobility), and/or have limited space and/or limited budget.

I've read about Amazon's Alexa vs. Google Home. They both sound like good products. I was swayed by the argument that Google's search engine is more powerful. Other manufacturers are building these technologies into their products. (For example, the Sonos One has Alexa built in.)

Sorry if I've hijacked this thread. Perhaps at some part I'll start a separate thread in the "Hi-Fi" section about voice control of music playback.

Your thoughts?


----------



## jegreenwood

RobertKC said:


> I don't know about Google Home accessing a customer provided library of music (e.g., on NAS). I've not researched this. Do you have music in your library that isn't on Tidal? Do you have playlists in JRiver that you don't want to recreate in Tidal? Do you have hi-res recordings in your library that you want to play via wi-fi vs. playing the same recording from Tidal? (Depending on the technology, wireless systems have restrictions on playing hi-res recordings.)
> 
> Do you want to use a smart-speaker (e.g., Google Home or Alexa) to send audio to a Bluetooth speaker? If so, why? I have no experience with Bluetooth. I've read that Bluetooth can be used to send music from a smartphone to a Google Home gizmo. I don't know if the Google Home gizmo can use Bluetooth to send audio to another speaker. (I use Google Home with Chromecast wi-fi based casting to send streaming services (e.g., Tune-In) to my hi-fi systems.)
> 
> I'm considering getting a Google Home *Max* for my Mom (i.e., the larger smart speaker that was just introduced). The music would play directly on the Google Home Max (i.e., not cast to another system). (I think casting would be too complicated for an elderly person.) I haven't heard the Max, but I'm guessing it would be satisfactory for playing music in her small single-room assisted living apartment. The only limitation I've discovered (in terms of how I intend to use it) is that Google does not currently support use of the Google Home Max as a TV soundbar (even though the Max has an AUX input). Hopefully Google will enhance the software so that a single Google Home Max can serve for music, and TV audio, in a way that's completely transparent to the end-user. If Google can make that work, I think the Google Home Max could be a simple-to-use space-efficient source of entertainment for an elderly person, without leaving their bed or chair (i.e., everything is voice controlled).
> 
> My use is different. For serious listening, I prefer to listen via SACD, hi-res FLAC, and Blu-ray, via my Oppo universal players hardwired to my hi-fi systems (i.e., no streaming or wi-fi). This ensures the highest audio quality.
> 
> For non-serious background listening, I have 4 Chromecast Audio. I use the CA for casual background listening to internet radio (Tune-In), plus Spotify Premium (providing access to music not in my library). When I stream from my Samsung tablet, the tablet is strictly a "remote control". (Music is not stored on the tablet, or "hair-pinned" through the tablet.) I sometimes stream from the Spotify app on my Windows 10 PC, and occasionally from the Chrome browser.
> 
> With Google Home, I can use my voice to turn on a vintage vacuum tube amp (using a Wemo smart plug), and use my voice to cast music from Spotify Premium and Tune-In (radio stations): "Hey Google, play <song> by <artist> on my Chromecast bedroom."
> 
> Of course, Google Home can also control lights via voice command, and perform internet searches, such asking about weather, traffic, trivia, etc. And with Chromecast (the video version), I can simply say: "Hey Google, play <movie> on <TV>".
> 
> I would say that for many uses the Google Home Max is simple to use. An exception is trying to use speech to play multi-movement classical music (discussed in my post # 83 above). And, IME, all sophisticated software-based systems can occasionally cause heartburn.
> 
> No product is perfect, but based on a few days of experience, I'm impressed by Google Home, considering its price point (currently on sale for $79 US). The Google Home Max retails for $399 and reportedly has better audio quality. I think that if Google can make Google Home Max serve dual purpose as a TV soundbar and a smart speaker ("Hey Google"), it will be a useful product for people who want voice control (e.g., people with limited mobility), and/or have limited space and/or limited budget.
> 
> I've read about Amazon's Alexa vs. Google Home. They both sound like good products. I was swayed by the argument that Google's search engine is more powerful. Other manufacturers are building these technologies into their products. (For example, the Sonos One has Alexa built in.)
> 
> Sorry if I've hijacked this thread. Perhaps at some part I'll start a separate thread in the "Hi-Fi" section about voice control of music playback.
> 
> Your thoughts?


A lot of questions - I'll try to respond to at least some. And I've done some further online research this morning (although given the rate that this technology gets modified, any article more than a couple months old may be out of date).

It seems there there is technology allowing both Alexa (House Band skill - but it is designed to play music from on your computer not on the Echo) and Chromecast (BubbleUPnP) to work with JRiver. It also sounds like Tidal will work with Chromecast, although you cannot set it as your default player for Google Home. If that simply means I have to reference Tidal in all my commands it's not so big a deal. I'm not sure Alexa integrates with Tidal.

All told Alexa seems a non-starter.

As best I can see, neither of the two smaller Google Homes has an audio out. I don't think they have Bluetooth either. Is this correct? Does the Max? It probably doesn't matter as I don't want to spend that much for background music in my kitchen. But if the speaker on the $79 Google Home is adequate for background music it might work.

Or maybe I'll just stick with my radio or on occasion Siri playing music located on a connected iDevice. Or if Tidal fails, maybe I'll switch to Apple's music service and use Siri for that as well.

I too have an Oppo (105), but I usually rely primarily on streamer->DAC->pre-amp, integrated amp or headphones for serious listening on my two systems. I have ripped my 450+ SACDs (well, all but two where the rip failed) as well as the rest of my music library. Add to that some downloads (mostly hi-rez).


----------



## philoctetes

I am both professional geek and technophobe, not trusting devices unless I understand them. I also have issues about privacy but I figure my listening habits have been fair game since I stopped listening to radio in the 70s.

I'm streaming both audio and video now, just breaking ground in the last month while taking those ugly boxes back to Comcast. So my total cost is going down about $100 a month, until the next internet price hike rolls out.

I've tried Pandora, Spotify, and Amazon Unlimited on a free trial. Amy seems to be repackaging the Spotify service, with the same content, and tailoring it to their business model, but her web player is not as easy to use as Spotify's. Pandora is mostly useful as a search engine, so Spotify is getting most of my streaming time. Right now it's something by Trabaci that I like but might not hear otherwise. What's wrong with that?

I don't see these audio services as a substitute for physical media. I side with the paranoid when it comes to trusting these media providers. The idea with all digital technology is to use it to one's advantage and not someone else's. I won't bother detailing here how it's done, but sometimes it takes a lot of self-initiative, and I won't be throwing out my physical media tomorrow, but maybe I can lighten my burden a little and slow down the accumulation....


----------



## RobertKC

jegreenwood said:


> A lot of questions - I'll try to respond to at least some. And I've done some further online research this morning (although given the rate that this technology gets modified, any article more than a couple months old may be out of date).
> 
> It seems there there is technology allowing both Alexa (House Band skill - but it is designed to play music from on your computer not on the Echo) and Chromecast (BubbleUPnP) to work with JRiver. It also sounds like Tidal will work with Chromecast, although you cannot set it as your default player for Google Home. If that simply means I have to reference Tidal in all my commands it's not so big a deal. I'm not sure Alexa integrates with Tidal.
> 
> All told Alexa seems a non-starter.
> 
> As best I can see, neither of the two smaller Google Homes has an audio out. I don't think they have Bluetooth either. Is this correct? Does the Max? It probably doesn't matter as I don't want to spend that much for background music in my kitchen. But if the speaker on the $79 Google Home is adequate for background music it might work.
> 
> Or maybe I'll just stick with my radio or on occasion Siri playing music located on a connected iDevice. Or if Tidal fails, maybe I'll switch to Apple's music service and use Siri for that as well.
> 
> I too have an Oppo (105), but I usually rely primarily on streamer->DAC->pre-amp, integrated amp or headphones for serious listening on my two systems. I have ripped my 450+ SACDs (well, all but two where the rip failed) as well as the rest of my music library. Add to that some downloads (mostly hi-rez).


The Google Home Max advertises a 3.5mm jack (which I understand to be an AUX in), and a USB-C (I'm not sure of its application - presumably to connect a PC for playing music). I don't own a Google Home Max, so I don't have any experience with it. My understanding is that the "devil's in the details" regarding how the GHM would switch between the AUX input and streaming services. My guess is that future software updates will improve the operation.

The Google Home does not have any physical jacks, and there is no mention of Bluetooth support.

Other manufacturers are building Google Assistant (or Alexa) into smart speakers. (I think you're right that "any article more than a couple months old may be out of date".) I believe that the software will evolve rapidly. I'd feel more comfortable that the Google Home products will be first to get all of Google's software updates.

Of course, only you can decide if the speaker in the Google Home is adequate for background music. I have no regrets about buying a Google Home, based on how I use it (including casting music via Chromecast Audio).


----------



## jegreenwood

RobertKC said:


> The Google Home Max advertises a 3.5mm jack (which I understand to be an AUX in), and a USB-C (I'm not sure of its application - presumably to connect a PC for playing music). I don't own a Google Home Max, so I don't have any experience with it. My understanding is that the "devil's in the details" regarding how the GHM would switch between the AUX input and streaming services. My guess is that future software updates will improve the operation.
> 
> The Google Home does not have any physical jacks, and there is no mention of Bluetooth support.
> 
> Other manufacturers are building Google Assistant (or Alexa) into smart speakers. (I think you're right that "any article more than a couple months old may be out of date".) I believe that the software will evolve rapidly. I'd feel more comfortable that the Google Home products will be first to get all of Google's software updates.
> 
> Of course, only you can decide if the speaker in the Google Home is adequate for background music. I have no regrets about buying a Google Home, based on how I use it (including casting music via Chromecast Audio).


I've seen recent posts (this month) on the JRiver Forum that indicate that while JRiver works with Chromecast it doesn't work with Google Home. Too bad. But it should work with Tidal and something like TuneIn. That should suffice.


----------



## jegreenwood

jegreenwood said:


> I've seen recent posts (this month) on the JRiver Forum that indicate that while JRiver works with Chromecast it doesn't work with Google Home. Too bad. But it should work with Tidal and something like TuneIn. That should suffice.


With the sale ending this week, I picked up a Google Home and, on the spur of the moment, a Home Mini. I've done the basic set-up. To my mild disappointment, while they do integrate with Tidal, you can't give verbal Tidal commands. You have to open the Tidal App on your device start it up and then cast the music to Google Home or Mini. Otherwise, preliminary testing seems OK. I may start using my free Spotify service, and TuneIn works. Both of those can work with voice commands.


----------



## jegreenwood

jegreenwood said:


> I've seen recent posts (this month) on the JRiver Forum that indicate that while JRiver works with Chromecast it doesn't work with Google Home. Too bad. But it should work with Tidal and something like TuneIn. That should suffice.


Turns out that not quite accurate. Right now I can cast music from Tidal, JRiver and LMS (i.e. the Squeezebox music server) to the Google devices. The limitation is that I can't do it with voice commands; I need to use my phone as a remote control. This is not a big drawback. Even though it will accept voice commands to control Spotify and Google Music, I'm pretty sure if I told the device to play Beethoven's 7th Symphony conducted by Herbert von Karajan from the 1962 cycle it wouldn't know what the heck I was talking about.


----------



## ClassicalListener

Out of frustration at so many CDs going out-of-print and despite my misgivings, I decided to give Tidal a try. After examining it intently for a few days however I cannot understand how anyone, much less a classical music listener, would be able to live with the audible watermarks with which so many recordings are marred. Many piano albums for instance sound horribly distorted. Also, many albums, particularly long collections, are presented with tracks out of order, making them unusable.

I pray to God people buy more CDs so that we don't lose the only medium where music is presented with care and integrity.


----------



## gHeadphone

I recommend trying Qobuz, ive been on it for a good while now and i cant fault it (other than its missing Hyperion).

The sound quality is excellent and they have fantastic coverage of classical.

Ive not ever tried Tidal.


----------



## eljr

gHeadphone said:


> I recommend trying Qobuz, ive been on it for a good while now and i cant fault it (other than its missing Hyperion).
> 
> The sound quality is excellent and they have fantastic coverage of classical.
> 
> Ive not ever tried Tidal.


still not available in USA


----------



## eljr

ClassicalListener;1431155iI cannot understand how anyone said:


> I never experienced either with Tidal.


----------



## Guest

Is there a way to avoid shuffled listening with free Spotify?


----------



## Biffo

MacLeod said:


> Is there a way to avoid shuffled listening with free Spotify?


Not sure what you mean by shuffled listening. If you search on the name of a composer or artist it often brings back a jumble of tracks. If you click on a track from the album you want it will appear in the bottom left-hand corner. If you click on the moving text below the icon it will bring up the complete album, in the correct order, in the main part of the screen. If you do a more specific search you get back fewer tracks and in a more manageable order. It is a bit clumsy but you get used to it.

Edit: Sorry, just noticed the 'shuffle' optition (two crossed arrows) to the left of the play button - that may be your problem - click on it to turn it off. I never use it, have never seen the point.


----------



## Guest

Biffo said:


> Not sure what you mean by shuffled listening. If you search on the name of a composer or artist it often brings back a jumble of tracks. If you click on a track from the album you want it will appear in the bottom left-hand corner. If you click on the moving text below the icon it will bring up the complete album, in the correct order, in the main part of the screen. If you do a more specific search you get back fewer tracks and in a more manageable order. It is a bit clumsy but you get used to it.
> 
> Edit: Sorry, just noticed the 'shuffle' optition (two crossed arrows) to the left of the play button - that may be your problem - click on it to turn it off. I never use it, have never seen the point.


It won't turn off....up pops a "This is a Premium feature!" message.


----------



## Biffo

MacLeod said:


> It won't turn off....up pops a "This is a Premium feature!" message.


That is a nuisance. I have Spotify Premium but I used the free version for a couple of years or more and don't recall having any problems with shuffle, only the irritating adverts.


----------



## jegreenwood

MacLeod said:


> It won't turn off....up pops a "This is a Premium feature!" message.


https://support.spotify.com/is/acco...nformation/spotify-free-on-your-mobile-phone/


----------



## Granate

Oh, so that's only because you are using the *mobile APP* instead of a Desktop app...


----------



## Guest

Granate said:


> Oh, so that's only because you are using the *mobile APP* instead of a Desktop app...


Correct. What a pain.

So I've signed to Qobuz for 30 days free for the moment...


----------



## bharbeke

I don't know why they have it shuffled when you use the free version of the app but not on the desktop version. I'd like them consistent, but I'm sure the company would opt for all shuffled on both versions if that were the case. Until the day I go Premium again, I'll be doing Spotify on the computer and YouTube on the phone.


----------



## Granate

Anyone uses here YouTube music? It's also a pps streaming app.


----------



## ClassicalListener

gHeadphone said:


> I recommend trying Qobuz, ive been on it for a good while now and i cant fault it (other than its missing Hyperion).
> 
> The sound quality is excellent and they have fantastic coverage of classical.
> 
> Ive not ever tried Tidal.


Does it have MDG recordings? How is it regarding jazz?



eljr said:


> I never experienced either with Tidal.


Listen and compare these two versions of the same recording and see if you find something amiss:

https://listen.tidal.com/album/4734234

https://listen.tidal.com/album/4583237

Trying out these streaming services reminded me of what a beautiful product physical CDs are. Please buy more of them and do not let it die. I fear many of the classical recordings under the umbrella of Warner Classics are disappearing.


----------



## JohnD

You've started streaming music. Have you seen a doctor? ;-)


----------



## KenOC

I've also started steaming music. I put it in after the water boils, cover, and steam for seven minutes. Serve with butter and salt.

Oh, streaming. Never mind.


----------



## eljr

JohnD said:


> You've started streaming music. Have you seen a doctor? ;-)


I did.

He was streaming too!


----------



## DarkAngel

*A couple of small problems in my Tidal streaming paradise...........*

I have noticed more often than in the past some Classical/Opera tracks get the final few seconds chopped off (while sound is still present) when advancing to next track, often causing a very jarring transition  (more frequent in large boxsets)

Also Tidal has virtually zero user control of app playback features to make things super simple, BUT one problem is that they insert a hard 2-3 second silence between tracks, no problem with rock music, symphonies, concertos etc but on wagner opera for instance the entire opera is continuous sound track with no breaks so this again causes jarring track breaks vs CD playback experience 

My computer audio system just got major sound upgrade with addition of PS Audio Directstream Jr Dac (redcloud)


----------

