"Streaming ends for me today…" Neil Young

The Beatles are still managing to milk a lot of money out of that non-streaming cow. They will join the streaming crowd at some point (if the streaming companies actually stay in business, which isn't a certainty long term).

"TIDAL streams lossless FLAC/ALAC (don't believe the streaming at 1411 kbps Tidal hype, that would be WAV/AIFF files)."

This is a misunderstanding: by definition "lossless" FLAC/ALAC decode and playback at 1411 kbps.

"TIDAL streams lossless FLAC/ALAC (don't believe the streaming at 1411 kbps Tidal hype, that would be WAV/AIFF files)."

This is a misunderstanding: by definition "lossless" FLAC/ALAC decode and playback at 1411 kbps.

I'm talking about streaming not playing. Streams at substantially less than 1411 and I'm happy it does this. There's no reason to stream 1411 kbps.

You can't stream onto a Pono. Maybe that is what has Neil worked up. Also with Tidal, lossless ( Lossless is lossless whether compressed or not), now Neil can forsee a huge problem, an end to Pono online and Pono.

I'm talking about streaming not playing. Streams at substantially less than 1411 and I'm happy it does this. There's no reason to stream 1411 kbps.

Ok, but not sure your point. It "streams" at the rate to which it has been data-compressed. It losslessly decodes and plays back at 1411 kbps exactly the same as redbook CD. What you hear is the same as playing the CD or the 16/44 WAV/AIFF. Not sure what more Tidal needs to do here.

Ok, but not sure your point. It "streams" at the rate to which it has been data-compressed. It losslessly decodes and plays back at 1411 kbps exactly the same as redbook CD. What you hear is the same as playing the CD or the 16/44 WAV/AIFF. Not sure what more Tidal needs to do here.

I'm 100% unsure of where you're taking this conversation and what point you're trying to make. We both agree that the stream isn't 1411 and that lossless is lossless.

Pono Streaming must be getting close to a launch date.

Neil must think we are all idiots. This is the most transparent rant about money to date!

Chris is right about the Beatles. They have missed millions in revenue and few under 25 even know who they were. Now the Stones on the other hand have played it about as right as possible.

Chris is also very correct about selling in the format that consumers want to buy be that whatever it is. This is a point lost on all the "vinyl lives forever and reigns supreme" crowd. I think Chris had a little dust up recently with their high priest and he (the high priest, not Chris) is still yammering on about it.

Oh well, keeps things interesting and site visit counts up and advertising dollars coming in.

I guess problem for Neil Young is not a streaming. Everybody already has his good music up to mid 70s at home and nobody cares about his whining about Monsanto and Starbucks streaming or not.

If Neil Young was interested in sound quality, he would be recording in DSD64 or DSD128. This is about Pono. Streaming services are competition for his outmoded Pono business model.

If Neil Young was interested in sound quality, he would be recording in DSD64 or DSD128. This is about Pono.

I thought the same at the time of announcement.

I thought the same at the time of announcement.

And there are tests of DSD 128 Streaming these days. His moment may be coming soon!

DSD Live Streaming

Never asking "can you hear the difference" again. My wife, who carries on at length about not being able to hear the difference, not only can but has weighed in on future music purchases. We're both lobbying our local public radio jazz station to upgrade their streaming, I played some alternative streaming stations and after she got done saying she could tell the difference, she did tell the difference. If I wear crappy ear pods it doesn't matter. If I wear anything designed to resolve, it matters a lot. I'm with Neil. Below 24/48, music isn't engaging for me, and at 24/96, a lot of stuff that I'm mildly interested in sounds engaging. Beyond that, it's degrees of joy.

Chris is right about the Beatles. They have missed millions in revenue and few under 25 even know who they were. Now the Stones on the other hand have played it about as right as possible.

 

Well I come into constant contact with under 25's from all over the world, and they almost all not only know who the Beatles are, they know Beatles songs well enough that they can sing the lyrics.

I have no idea how much money the Beatles have lost in streaming. On the other hand, they have revenue sources on a level most other artists can't touch. Two vinyl Box sets within a year or two and both sold massive amounts for that medium.

They like to control their catalog and how it is marketed. They have repeatedly shown that they are willing to forgo revenue streams for a while in order to have their music presented the way they want it to be. Unlike most artists, they have the power to do that. I imagine at some point they will join in the streaming world. They will probably manage to negotiate a highly preferential royalty rate that other artists don't get, and make a ton of money that way.

I'm talking about streaming not playing. Streams at substantially less than 1411 and I'm happy it does this. There's no reason to stream 1411 kbps.

On side note on streaming quality

I think we are missing one major factor The sound quality from streaming at what ever format is till not par or even close to CD quality from local files or transports. So what ever magic is going on with streaming calling it 1411 does not mean you are getting CD quality sound.

So Neil has a point here!

I wouldn't be surprised if this is more a reaction to Apple Music than anything else. After all lossless Qobuz and Tidal streaming services cater to a relative niche. It's Apple that mainly owns the space right now.

So is Neil also going to pull his catalog from the iTunes Store, because I'm pretty sure the files Apple Music is streaming are the same 256K AAC files they have for sale.

I'm talking about streaming not playing. Streams at substantially less than 1411 and I'm happy it does this. There's no reason to stream 1411 kbps.

Yes, but then it uncompresses and you get the full CD quality file.

John and George must be rolling over in their graves over the lost streaming revenue

On side note on streaming quality

I think we are missing one major factor The sound quality from streaming at what ever format is till not par or even close to CD quality from local files or transports. So what ever magic is going on with streaming calling it 1411 does not mean you are getting CD quality sound.

And there it is. I'm 100% sure that this unsubstantiated claim illustrates why labelling TIDAL as "unbelievable hype" is a bad thing.

And there it is. I'm 100% sure that this unsubstantiated claim illustrates why labelling TIDAL as "unbelievable hype" is a bad thing.

I think you are mixing two things here, 1. My objective fact that Tidal is hyping it's service with a false claim of streaming 1411 and 2. People's subjective experience of Tidal's sound quality.

By the way, can you personally hear the watermark in all Universal Music on streaming services?

John and George must be rolling over in their graves over the lost streaming revenue

It's not about revenue as much as it's about cultural relevance for The Beatles.

Update from NY's facebook page:

"I was there.

AM radio kicked streaming's ass.

Analog Cassettes and 8 tracks also kicked streaming's ass,

and absolutely rocked compared to streaming.

Streaming sucks. Streaming is the worst audio in history.

If you want it, you got it. It's here to stay.

Your choice.

Copy my songs if you want to. That's free.

Your choice.

All my music, my life's work, is what I am preserving the way I want it to be.

It's already started. My music is being removed from all streaming services. It's not good enough to sell or rent.

Make streaming sound good and I will be back.

Neil Young"

lots of comments on both posts.

Personally, I think he intends these as strong subjective comments. I have no reason to suspect that this is primarily about $$$$, but it isn't surprising that people will. I like his comments and stance for what they are: fed up with low sound quality. So am I. I subscribe to and like Tidal, but my cd rips generally sound a bit better to me. Anything less than Redbook? I don't want to pay for it. And I'm not going to pay for it. In fact, I've been considering dumping even my Tidal subscription. Apple can do better. Spotify can do better. Why don't they? If 100 big names in music dropped streaming until sound quality improves, and did this as a coordinated effort, what would happen?

Just expressing personal preferences. I sometimes enjoy listening to music I don't own on YouTube, especially if I'm really interested or in the mood. But gradually, it wears on me. And my system is reasonably forgiving.

He's talking complete hogwash if he really thinks that streaming (as experience by 99.999% of listeners) is worse quality that cassette (as experience by the 99.999% of listeners who didn't have a Nak Dragon).

And as for AM radio; sorry the quality there is lower than 64k MP2!

All IMO of course.

Eloise

Update from NY's facebook page:

 

"I was there.

AM radio kicked streaming's ass.

Analog Cassettes and 8 tracks also kicked streaming's ass,

and absolutely rocked compared to streaming.

Streaming sucks. Streaming is the worst audio in history.

If you want it, you got it. It's here to stay.

Your choice.

Copy my songs if you want to. That's free.

Your choice.

All my music, my life's work, is what I am preserving the way I want it to be.

It's already started. My music is being removed from all streaming services. It's not good enough to sell or rent.

Make streaming sound good and I will be back.

Neil Young"

 

lots of comments on both posts.

 

Personally, I think he intends these as strong subjective comments. I have no reason to suspect that this is primarily about $$$$, but it isn't surprising that people will. I like his comments and stance for what they are: fed up with low sound quality. So am I. I subscribe to and like Tidal, but my cd rips generally sound a bit better to me. Anything less than Redbook? I don't want to pay for it. And I'm not going to pay for it. In fact, I've been considering dumping even my Tidal subscription. Apple can do better. Spotify can do better. Why don't they? If 100 big names in music dropped streaming until sound quality improves, and did this as a coordinated effort, what would happen?

I can't help but think this is more about something else than sound quality. If Neil removes all his content from download sales offering MP3 then I'll start to think its about quality.

Something's eating Mr Young as he now won't allow his music to be played on UK radio!

Don't play Neil Young or the Doors, BBC tells DJs and programme makers | Music | The Guardian