|
|
Post by Axis on Jan 26, 2016 8:03:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Jan 26, 2016 10:56:57 GMT -5
Plus, I like dbPoweramp's metadata providers.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 26, 2016 11:08:05 GMT -5
+1 dbPoweramp for ripping JRiver for playing |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jan 26, 2016 11:08:42 GMT -5
Trey[/quote]Wow..35,000,000 songs and you can't fine something that would interest you?...ok![/quote]
That is not what I wrote at all.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 26, 2016 11:49:33 GMT -5
I can tell you my reasons ...... (Please note that I think Tidal is great for sampling new music, or for what I consider to be casual listening, but I'd still rather have PHYSICAL copies of the music that I actually care about; which means either actual CDs, or actual files on actual discs that I own). 1) First and foremost - what if they go out of business? I like owning my music - or at least "the physical manifestation of it". I don't know if it's really more likely that Tidal will go out of business than that my house will burn down, but I have at least some control of my house. Tidal COULD go out of business tomorrow, or there could be some sort of copyright dispute - which might cause some - or all - of their music to "magically disappear". (The most likely scenario would be that they might get bought out by some larger company, who might choose NOT to continue their license agreements on certain music or certain artists; again, the possible result might be that certain songs or albums magically disappear.) 2) There is that issue of "connection required"... Not every device that I ever listen to music on, or might listen to music on, is connected to the Internet... so, yes, it's quite possible that I might want to listen to a song while I'm camping in the outback, or deep sea diving in the tropics, or on a rocket ship to Mars (well, probably not, but it's the principle of the thing; I might want to take a portable player into my back yard - one that doesn't have Internet service). Electric lights are great, but I still own a few flashlights for when the power isn't handy - or working; Tidal is grid power - it doesn't work when you aren't using a connected device - or when the connection is down (for example, it sure won't work in a blackout for most people). And what if I buy this awesome new portable music player and headphone amp - but it doesn't have a Tidal App? 3) Then there is the matter of selection... I'm sure that Tidal has enough music that I would always be able to find something I would like to hear. HOWEVER, I'm not sure that they have every single song ever recorded. Now, sometimes I "just want to listen to something nice"; but, other times, I want to listen to a specific album or song. In the first case, Tidal is great; but, in the second case, they may or may not have THE SONG I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO HEAR. I'm going to give you an example - from a different media genre. There's this graphic artist I like (I'm not saying who). Sadly he died; luckily his wife inherited his assets, which included many digital versions of his artwork. Luckily for me, I purchased a high-resolution copy of my favorite image from her Internet store. However, at some later point in time, there was some sort of lawsuit, and part of the upshot of that was that she was no longer considered to own that artwork (apparently his previous employer claimed ownership - and the courts agreed). Now, without getting into any legal or moral questions about anybody's technical rights...... Aren't I lucky that, instead of simply "viewing" that image from her website, I was actually able to download a copy of that image when I bought it - thereby ensuring that I actually got to keep a copy of the product I bought in good faith. Something similar has happened at least once with Kindle books. There was a legal dispute with one volume sold on Kindle.... and it mysteriously disappeared from the Kindle accounts of a lot of people who had bought it in good faith. (Again, I'm not interested in the legalities, but I know I wouldn't have been amused if a book I was reading disappeared when I was halfway through reading it - and being refunded the $5 it cost wouldn't make me feel much better about it.) Now, the one major difference here is that, with services like Tidal, you aren't buying anything - unlike iTunes, where you do "buy" individual songs or albums, which you would actually lose if Apple were to go out of business - with Tidal you are just RENTING the use of the music for as long as you maintain your subscription - and the rental rates are in fact very reasonable. However, just as, if I find I really like a movie I've rented so much I may want to watch it again in ten years, I buy a copy to make sure it remains available, I want to have my own personal copy of any music that I really care about. It's like the difference between buying a ticket to the theater and owning your own copy of the movie. (So, yes, I agree that a service like Tidal is far better than radio, and it serves me very well for music that I don't consider to be "an important part of my important personal library", but it is NOT going to replace my personal collection of music that I care about - and so would be unwilling to risk losing due to the actions or decisions of someone else. To me, it feels very much like the difference between renting an apartment and OWNING a house.) You also bring up an excellent point about the "overhead cost" of ripping music..... I generally wouldn't expend the five minutes required to RIP a CD that I plan to listen to once, however, I listen to my favorite albums once or twice a month and, compared to the hours of time I spend enjoying those particular albums, the extra five minutes it takes to RIP each of them is trivial. So, I do agree that Tidal is an excellent service, and that it serves a valuable purpose - but it isn't going to completely replace my entire music collection any time soon (that would feel too much like what I really had was a great music collection on loan from a friend, or on rental). (I feel obligated to add a more sinister issue here.... What if, after you've tossed your entire CD collection "because you can listen to them all on Tidal for $20 a month", they decide to raise their prices to $100 a month? I distinctly remember subscribing to cable, and getting HBO movies for about $15 a month; nowadays, I seem to spend more like $200 a month, and even the basic subscription I'd need to see just one or two channels of premium movies seems to cost a minimum of $50 or $60. Without arguing details, once you switch from an ownership model to a rental and services model, even though you may HOPE that competition will result in lower prices, you distinctly open yourself up to rising prices. Likewise, I know at least one person who was deeply pained when he discovered that, until recently, Spotify "who had every song you could possibly want" DIDN'T have ANY Beatles music - because of a licensing "issue".) Why spend time ripping music when you can just listen to it? TIDAL CD quality, over 35 million tracks and 85,000 music videos, cataloging and a 30trial...discount for VETERANS!! The only thing you have to do is push the ON button! |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 26, 2016 12:13:27 GMT -5
Interestingly, I look at it the exact opposite way.... dBPowerAmp is a specialized ripping program, and does that job very well. jRiver is an excellent player and organizing program, and does that very well. Generally, special single purpose tools work better than tools that are expected to perform several different functions. To me, integrating them would seem like combining your refrigerator and your stove (you could do it, and it might even work well, but it doesn't seem logical to me). (I'm inclined to look at ripping as "an add-on feature" for jRiver, and so to have more faith in a program especially designed for that purpose.) Note that digital music files are standardized - so there's no reason to believe that "they'll play better on the program that made them". Also note that ripping digital files has an absolute result.... I have no reason to believe that either program will do it "better", or that they won't produce EXACTLY the same results in every way that matters. Assuming that you pick the same settings, and the output passes verification from something like AccurateRIP, the outputs should be indentical. Therefore, what we're comparing here is features, controls, and convenience. There wouldn't be much point in somehow allowing jRiver to control dBPowerAmp to work behind the scenes. Also, I personally commonly use jRiver and Foobar2000 to play files, and occasionally other programs like JPlay, or HQPlayer. Likewise, while I usually use dBPowerAmp to rip music, I also sometimes use EAC.... And, if I edit or modify files, I use either Adobe Audition, one of the Ozone editing suite programs, or perhaps Audacity. Therefore, in my head, there's no real connection between the program used to rip a file and the one used to play it (other than that both need to be ones I trust). dbPoweramp for ripping JRiver for playing Can you integrate the two, where you can rip with dbPower, and watch the motion of the rip via Jriver. In my head I feel I wouldn't have the same control using any other ripping software, than just using Jriver. Thanks Djoel |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jan 26, 2016 13:06:07 GMT -5
Interestingly, I look at it the exact opposite way.... dBPowerAmp is a specialized ripping program, and does that job very well. jRiver is an excellent player and organizing program, and does that very well. Generally, special single purpose tools work better than tools that are expected to perform several different functions. To me, integrating them would seem like combining your refrigerator and your stove (you could do it, and it might even work well, but it doesn't seem logical to me). (I'm inclined to look at ripping as "an add-on feature" for jRiver, and so to have more faith in a program especially designed for that purpose.) Note that digital music files are standardized - so there's no reason to believe that "they'll play better on the program that made them". Also note that ripping digital files has an absolute result.... I have no reason to believe that either program will do it "better", or that they won't produce EXACTLY the same results in every way that matters. Assuming that you pick the same settings, and the output passes verification from something like AccurateRIP, the outputs should be indentical. Therefore, what we're comparing here is features, controls, and convenience. There wouldn't be much point in somehow allowing jRiver to control dBPowerAmp to work behind the scenes. Also, I personally commonly use jRiver and Foobar2000 to play files, and occasionally other programs like JPlay, or HQPlayer. Likewise, while I usually use dBPowerAmp to rip music, I also sometimes use EAC.... And, if I edit or modify files, I use either Adobe Audition, one of the Ozone editing suite programs, or perhaps Audacity. Therefore, in my head, there's no real connection between the program used to rip a file and the one used to play it (other than that both need to be ones I trust). ^ What he said. |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jan 26, 2016 13:15:59 GMT -5
What if they go out of business? Like Music Giants did? And when I tried to play the tunes I had downloaded from them I was not allowed to do so because the company no longer maintains the website that is used to check the legitimacy of the files?
That would never happen again would it?
Thankfully, I had managed to rip some backups of the files and could rescue them.
Granted, a company that streams will not have that problem, they will just disappear. Along with my playlists and access to those tunes.
So I stream for new music and pay money for hard copies of music I like. And that supports the artists I like.
I am so happy some of you enjoy streaming and have never criticized your choice to do so. So why do you guys have to criticize our choice to not rely on streaming?
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 26, 2016 14:14:34 GMT -5
I can tell you my reasons ...... (Please note that I think Tidal is great for sampling new music, or for what I consider to be casual listening, but I'd still rather have PHYSICAL copies of the music that I actually care about; which means either actual CDs, or actual files on actual discs that I own). 1) First and foremost - what if they go out of business? I like owning my music - or at least "the physical manifestation of it". I don't know if it's really more likely that Tidal will go out of business than that my house will burn down, but I have at least some control of my house. Tidal COULD go out of business tomorrow, or there could be some sort of copyright dispute - which might cause some - or all - of their music to "magically disappear". (The most likely scenario would be that they might get bought out by some larger company, who might choose NOT to continue their license agreements on certain music or certain artists; again, the possible result might be that certain songs or albums magically disappear.) 2) There is that issue of "connection required"... Not every device that I ever listen to music on, or might listen to music on, is connected to the Internet... so, yes, it's quite possible that I might want to listen to a song while I'm camping in the outback, or deep sea diving in the tropics, or on a rocket ship to Mars (well, probably not, but it's the principle of the thing; I might want to take a portable player into my back yard - one that doesn't have Internet service). Electric lights are great, but I still own a few flashlights for when the power isn't handy - or working; Tidal is grid power - it doesn't work when you aren't using a connected device - or when the connection is down (for example, it sure won't work in a blackout for most people). And what if I buy this awesome new portable music player and headphone amp - but it doesn't have a Tidal App? 3) Then there is the matter of selection... I'm sure that Tidal has enough music that I would always be able to find something I would like to hear. HOWEVER, I'm not sure that they have every single song ever recorded. Now, sometimes I "just want to listen to something nice"; but, other times, I want to listen to a specific album or song. In the first case, Tidal is great; but, in the second case, they may or may not have THE SONG I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO HEAR. I'm going to give you an example - from a different media genre. There's this graphic artist I like (I'm not saying who). Sadly he died; luckily his wife inherited his assets, which included many digital versions of his artwork. Luckily for me, I purchased a high-resolution copy of my favorite image from her Internet store. However, at some later point in time, there was some sort of lawsuit, and part of the upshot of that was that she was no longer considered to own that artwork (apparently his previous employer claimed ownership - and the courts agreed). Now, without getting into any legal or moral questions about anybody's technical rights...... Aren't I lucky that, instead of simply "viewing" that image from her website, I was actually able to download a copy of that image when I bought it - thereby ensuring that I actually got to keep a copy of the product I bought in good faith. Something similar has happened at least once with Kindle books. There was a legal dispute with one volume sold on Kindle.... and it mysteriously disappeared from the Kindle accounts of a lot of people who had bought it in good faith. (Again, I'm not interested in the legalities, but I know I wouldn't have been amused if a book I was reading disappeared when I was halfway through reading it - and being refunded the $5 it cost wouldn't make me feel much better about it.) Now, the one major difference here is that, with services like Tidal, you aren't buying anything - unlike iTunes, where you do "buy" individual songs or albums, which you would actually lose if Apple were to go out of business - with Tidal you are just RENTING the use of the music for as long as you maintain your subscription - and the rental rates are in fact very reasonable. However, just as, if I find I really like a movie I've rented so much I may want to watch it again in ten years, I buy a copy to make sure it remains available, I want to have my own personal copy of any music that I really care about. It's like the difference between buying a ticket to the theater and owning your own copy of the movie. (So, yes, I agree that a service like Tidal is far better than radio, and it serves me very well for music that I don't consider to be "an important part of my important personal library", but it is NOT going to replace my personal collection of music that I care about - and so would be unwilling to risk losing due to the actions or decisions of someone else. To me, it feels very much like the difference between renting an apartment and OWNING a house.) You also bring up an excellent point about the "overhead cost" of ripping music..... I generally wouldn't expend the five minutes required to RIP a CD that I plan to listen to once, however, I listen to my favorite albums once or twice a month and, compared to the hours of time I spend enjoying those particular albums, the extra five minutes it takes to RIP each of them is trivial. So, I do agree that Tidal is an excellent service, and that it serves a valuable purpose - but it isn't going to completely replace my entire music collection any time soon (that would feel too much like what I really had was a great music collection on loan from a friend, or on rental). (I feel obligated to add a more sinister issue here.... What if, after you've tossed your entire CD collection "because you can listen to them all on Tidal for $20 a month", they decide to raise their prices to $100 a month? I distinctly remember subscribing to cable, and getting HBO movies for about $15 a month; nowadays, I seem to spend more like $200 a month, and even the basic subscription I'd need to see just one or two channels of premium movies seems to cost a minimum of $50 or $60. Without arguing details, once you switch from an ownership model to a rental and services model, even though you may HOPE that competition will result in lower prices, you distinctly open yourself up to rising prices. Likewise, I know at least one person who was deeply pained when he discovered that, until recently, Spotify "who had every song you could possibly want" DIDN'T have ANY Beatles music - because of a licensing "issue".) Why spend time ripping music when you can just listen to it? TIDAL CD quality, over 35 million tracks and 85,000 music videos, cataloging and a 30trial...discount for VETERANS!! The only thing you have to do is push the ON button! Interesting priorites, Keith, thanks. I suppose it boils down to priorities, and here are mine: With CD level resolution, sonic quality is the same whether CD or Tidal streaming. And when they start streaming hi res, a big plus. Choice - No one here has 25 million or more tracks to choose from at will in their personal collections, I'd bet. And little chance to discover much music on your own, unless you spend your valuable listening time with low res and ads on Pandora etc. Ever buy a cd for one or two tunes and don't care for the rest? And I'll bet you already own one or more recordings of that "crucial" music you can't find on streaming services. Convenience - No ripping, indexing, backup schemes, hard drive failures, etc, all as documented problems here many times - let the IT pros do their thing. This alone is worth my $12 per month for Tidal lossless (I do get the Military discount). And Tidal provides the app, not necessarily your player. Value - For the price of one CD or download per month, immediate access to the full buffet, which is updated and expanded daily. Interface - Tidal and others have terrific interfaces, developed with budgets that J River et al can only dream about. If they go out of business, so what? There will doubtless be a replacement, and in the meantime I've realized full value for my monthly fee. So for me, I don't have a need to cling to silver discs full of the same data easily obtained over the internet. That's all a cd is, after all. Many modern computers don't even have disc drives, actually. A dying format, like 8-tracks and cassettes. With a 30 or 60 day trial, how could it make sense to not even go for a test drive? You might like it. Just my 2 cents! qz.com/383109/the-music--has-h |
|
|
|
Post by bluemeanies on Jan 26, 2016 20:05:22 GMT -5
Wow..35,000,000 songs and you can't fine something that would interest you?...ok![/quote] That is not what I wrote at all. [/quote] Your previous post None of the online streaming businesses have some music that I do and find crucial. So it is OK for finding new stuff, but there is some music that I really appreciate and it is just not there. Perhaps I over exaggerated, but I found the implication of what I said in your post with nothing positive about a 35,000,000 song selection. That is a huge amount of music material. I myself do wish and hope they expand their classical genre. Jazz and the blues are very well represented. Sorry we disagree but it's true different strokes for different folks. One last thing. Besides the 30 day trial with TIDAL if you are a veteran there is a discount. I believe a 40% discount which would translates to around $12.00 per month. |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jan 26, 2016 21:40:46 GMT -5
That is just not what I said at all.
And sadly, I was no military material when I was young enough to serve, so I miss that rather substantial discount. Cool thing they are doing for vets though, I appreciate that.
And to be honest, I tried one of the scrip services and it just doesn't do it for me. I would remind myself to use it, I think it was Spotify, and it was fine, but the music I heard always sent me back to stuff in my collection.
I think I am officially an old fogey! I really appreciate it when you streaming guys talk about the music you found and your enthusiasm for the new system. It is the occasional condescension that irks me.
But bygones as far as I am concerned.
What is some cool music you have been listening to streamed?
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jan 26, 2016 23:39:57 GMT -5
I use streaming services for discovering new music, or music I haven't heard before.
I don't need to stream everything in the greatest quality, and when I hear something I really like, I go and get it to add to my collection.
I still have CDs for the car and home, but I do rip to FLAC in both stereo and surround. I can play my ripped, and purchased, files from my server, and I can put some on my Rockboxed Sansa, and play FLAC files in my car as well.
For me streaming is also good for background music when I want to take a nap.
Tidal is fine, it just doesn't work, and isn't worth it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 27, 2016 4:59:51 GMT -5
That is just not what I said at all. And sadly, I was no military material when I was young enough to serve, so I miss that rather substantial discount. Cool thing they are doing for vets though, I appreciate that. And to be honest, I tried one of the scrip services and it just doesn't do it for me. I would remind myself to use it, I think it was Spotify, and it was fine, but the music I heard always sent me back to stuff in my collection. I think I am officially an old fogey! I really appreciate it when you streaming guys talk about the music you found and your enthusiasm for the new system. It is the occasional condescension that irks me. But bygones as far as I am concerned. What is some cool music you have been listening to streamed? Trey Condescension is irksome, but change and progress always feels that way, IMO. Sorry if I've contributed to that, but I can't understand those that smugly conclude that streaming is of marginal value without even trying a free 30 or 60 day trial! As far as cool music, try Hank Garland, Bobby Broom, Joshua Breakstone, Peter Bernstein, Jimmy Raney, Billy Bauer, Russell Malone, Kurt Rosenwinkel, John Stein and the list goes on. Slim chance of finding any of these at Wal-Mart! |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jan 27, 2016 8:23:14 GMT -5
That is just not what I said at all. And sadly, I was no military material when I was young enough to serve, so I miss that rather substantial discount. Cool thing they are doing for vets though, I appreciate that. And to be honest, I tried one of the scrip services and it just doesn't do it for me. I would remind myself to use it, I think it was Spotify, and it was fine, but the music I heard always sent me back to stuff in my collection. I think I am officially an old fogey! I really appreciate it when you streaming guys talk about the music you found and your enthusiasm for the new system. It is the occasional condescension that irks me. But bygones as far as I am concerned. What is some cool music you have been listening to streamed? Trey Condescension is irksome, but change and progress always feels that way, IMO. Sorry if I've contributed to that, but I can't understand those that smugly conclude that streaming is of marginal value without even trying a free 30 or 60 day trial! As far as cool music, try Hank Garland, Bobby Broom, Joshua Breakstone, Peter Bernstein, Jimmy Raney, Billy Bauer, Russell Malone, Kurt Rosenwinkel, John Stein and the list goes on. Slim chance of finding any of these at Wal-Mart! So what serious listener shops at Walmart for music? All those artists you mention are readily available from Amazon and other places. Getting the music is easier than ever. Even clawssical.  |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 27, 2016 8:32:15 GMT -5
Just sayin' - if you buy physical media, hard to return if you don't like....oops.
And I don't get listening to crappy low res mp3s with my valuable listening time to "see what I like".
I like all my listening to be at least at CD quality. To each his own, I suppose, but I was thinking that high fidelity was the whole point.
As overall CD sales keep sliding in the United States, specialty music stores shrink or disappear, and retailers like Best Buy BBY 3.58% and Barnes & Noble BKS 4.81% scale back their music offerings, Walmart has become even more important to artists.
Walmart accounted for 22% of U.S. CD sales in 2013, just behind Amazon AMZN 0.79% with 24%, Ross Crupnick, managing director of MusicWatch told Fortune.
|
|
|
|
Post by ÈlTwo on Jan 27, 2016 8:56:28 GMT -5
Condescension is irksome, but change and progress always feels that way, IMO. Sorry if I've contributed to that, but I can't understand those that smugly conclude that streaming is of marginal value without even trying a free 30 or 60 day trial! Please don't insult me by calling me smug and condescending and then being condescending yourself; apologizing before you insult someone is not what I really expect of you. I have tried Tidal, but with the time I have for listening it doesn't make sense. I'm not using my quality listening time to listen to low quality music, but traveling to and from work in my car is not quality listening time because: 1) I'm driving, and that's where most of my attention is, and 2) my car isn't the greatest listening environment for critical listening. To dis listening to anything but the highest quality music is to say it's not worth going to a live concert because of the crowd noise, or if you're not sitting in the closest half of the hall to the stage. I choose to experience music in a variety of settings, and to explore new music further if it tickles my fancy. What's wrong with this approach? |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 27, 2016 9:00:33 GMT -5
Nothing, there are many paths to audio satisfaction!
Enjoy your journey.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jan 27, 2016 9:31:09 GMT -5
Just sayin' - if you buy physical media, hard to return if you don't like....oops. And I don't get listening to crappy low res mp3s with my valuable listening time to "see what I like". I like all my listening to be at least at CD quality. To each his own, I suppose, but I was thinking that high fidelity was the whole point. As overall CD sales keep sliding in the United States, specialty music stores shrink or disappear, and retailers like Best Buy BBY 3.58% and Barnes & Noble BKS 4.81% scale back their music offerings, Walmart has become even more important to artists. Walmart accounted for 22% of U.S. CD sales in 2013, just behind Amazon AMZN 0.79% with 24%, Ross Crupnick, managing director of MusicWatch told Fortune. I don't know of many audiophiles that shop at Walmart for their music. And the point I was making is that it is, in fact, easy to find what you want. Easier than ever before. If you like Tidal, then by all means use Tidal. Others (even those of us that have tried streaming services) prefer to do things differently. We have choices. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Jan 27, 2016 9:37:17 GMT -5
Of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluemeanies on Jan 27, 2016 15:25:39 GMT -5
I don't know why some people have to generalize other people's point of views when suggesting alternatives such as TIDAL. TIDAL is another means to enjoy music in hi-fi cd quality with millions of songs to tap into. I do not recall anyone suggesting that TIDAL taking the place of other formats as original cd's, other streaming services or ripping. It seems that there has been more than one thread on this forum about people having issues with ripping their music and what is the best software to use.
TIDAL simplifies all of that not to mention album art and storage and the ability of its users to create playlists much easier than (for example) iTunes. Another asset of TIDAL is there Music videos which can be easily projected to your iPad, TV, or big screen projector with the help of APPLE TV.
I think some people get a little offensive when someone suggests something new and to think outside the box even with a FREE NO OBLIGATION TRAIL period.
Face it that the NEW will sometime in the near future be the old and streaming may be the only means to access music as well as video. Perhaps the only hard copy of music available will be vinly...won't that be a kick in the head.
|
|
