MP3.com Removes "High-Bandwidth" Streams 154
mshiltonj writes "I noticed today that mp3.com no longer offers high-bandwidth streams for its genres or stations, although it looks like artists' playlists and individual songs are available in high bandwidth. mp3.com has lots and lots of free music that was free and legal to listen to online, and a good number of my "music bookmarks" were on mp3.com. I'll live (I've still got my favorite stream), but I don't think it's a good sign. Is streaming music doomed to die, not because of RIAA litigation, but because of expensive bandwidth costs?" I don't think bandwidth will be the determining cost - that's a price that has been falling and will continue to fall. But are things like iTunes store the future, or is it streaming?
Well, imagine that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather than go to a pay model they just decided to drop their higher streams... Maybe they should have had a system where you can pay some negligible fee (25 a year, perhaps) to hear the high bandwidth streams, and the low ones are free?
That's not the point, here's the real point (Score:4, Interesting)
Some tunes are available only if you pay, but you can stream in hi-fi quality (128 kbit/s). Now, why would anyone pay for the tune, when they can just capture the hi-fi quality stream into an .mp3 file??
Before you call this stealing, think. It's just capitalism in action. Greedy agents acting on behalf of their own interests and agenda. If they can get something for free, they will. Morality has nothing to do with this.
It's business. It's the same thing the companies have been pulling, but now consumers can actually leverage their greediness directly.
Sucks to be the artist, though. But they would make peanuts with mp3.com in any case (been there, done that).
Launchcast (Score:5, Interesting)
Highly customizable though.
And in related news (Score:4, Interesting)
When: May 08 2003
Maybe people just find Kazaa to be so much better.
Subscription radio stations (Score:3, Interesting)
This has got me thinking. Why isn't there such a thing as a subscription radio station?
The annoying thing about radio is the adverts and the rubbish DJs. In Spain they have at least one radio station that just plays music with no breaks all day. It rocks. But I'm not sure how it pays for itself.
I guess the problem with subscription radio is that the receivers would need descramblers. But can anyone offer any insight as to why this has never happened? Or if it has in any part of the world?
The answer is simple. (Score:2, Interesting)
We're moving to bittorrent. That sorts out the entire problem.
Re:yeah, I have noticed that bandwith is an issue. (Score:3, Interesting)
Are we just greedy about quality? I think the mindset is something like "why shouldn't I have 128K stream?" I guess the spread of broadband is the answer. More multiple simultanious streams causes the server to split bandwidth down too low to actually stream. Funny that the spread of cable/DSL broadband is making cable/DSL broadband more obsolete.
MP3.COM should Napsterize (Score:3, Interesting)
Would they ever do that? I'm not holding my breath :)
Re:Well, imagine that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Use Ogg! (Score:3, Interesting)
Another benefit of ogg is that to a degree they are adaptive - during silence and voice the bitrate drops, adding additional savings...
The biggest name to recently add ogg to their armoury is Virgin Radio, which you can listen to here [virginradio.co.uk].
Re:Subscription radio stations (Score:1, Interesting)
About the last sentence... (Score:3, Interesting)
Long-term, I think the answer is streaming, but not the way a commercial company wants. Even on broadband, my upload cap 256kbit is too low for what I'm thinking of, but I know what has been happening on student campuses, student homes etc. 100mbut to the wall, and people use those around them as their "extended hard disk"... They stream music, video etc. from other people instead of actually downloading it. Ultimately, that's where I think the Internet is going too, but for now it's too slow to work out, it's send/recieve instead of stream.
Of course, that all depends on how badly RIAA/MPAA/BSA will crack down on it, but even so it'll exist in a form of "friends" network.
Kjella
Re:Bandwidth has a cost... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not streaming... (Score:2, Interesting)
It would help if they had actual internet radio at that quality somewhere -- I have 768k DSL, so it doesn't even break a sweat at this (128k mp3s), yet it's so far the best substitute I've found for really high-quality internet radio. Does anyone know of another free service that does something like this?
Why isn't multicasting more broadly adopted? (Score:2, Interesting)
Easy, but infeasible, bandwidth reduction. (Score:3, Interesting)
What we have instead is a huge infrastructure to do the job with incredible inefficiency. It might pay for the network industry to buy the music industry and give the stuff away.
Re:I think many of you are missing the bigger pict (Score:2, Interesting)
The goals of our site changed radically a few years ago when after we released the Instant Listening service we got sued to oblivion on. Prior to launching that service, Michael Robertson made a decision to change focus away from the independant artist and try to commandeer the popular artists. The RIAA sued us and at the same time Napster took away most of the wind in our sails, to the point where most people thought Napster was MP3.com. The RIAA/Napster owned us, which recently became a sad irony, as Roxio bought a section of our company and currently the engineers who built the Instant Listening service are building the new RIAA-legal, paid Napster service.
Our business turned away from promoting the little guy a long time ago, because there isn't money in promoting the little guy. We could get away with independant artists as our main attraction when money was free and Pets.com could run ads. When the internet bubble collapsed and we got sued into oblivion for our very legally questionable Instant Listening service (yes, a lot of us here questioned it while building it), we had to start charging for previously free services as well as cut back on services.
So in conclusion it wasn't so much being bought out by Vivendi that changed our business model as it was market conditions and our own stupidity at losing 90% of our IPO money to the major labels in an ill fated attempt to corner online music.
-MP3.com AC
Re:High bandwidth over rated (Score:4, Interesting)
We streamed 24 and 56k MP3 and it sounded great. The secret to making it sound good was simplicity, just as with good home audio.
I used very little signal processing on the music end of things; arguably, none at all. I simply selected a sound card with very pleasant input clipping characteristics (read: free emergency limiting) and accurate digital loopback (for the controlroom monitors), followed by 1 bit of software gain reduction (to preclude the listeners' sound cards from reacting inconsistantly to the sometimes-peaked audio). The resultant bits were fed to LAME, with very carefully-selected parameters, and presented to the world.
Of course, we used REAL, COHERENT DJs instead of a mindless automatron playlist-spewer. It's non-trivial to select music sets which maintain consistancy, but by no means difficult. Even the "creative people" seemed to do a good job at it, and were able to handle manual gain management justfine with the live feedback they got from their 'phones or a pair of NS-10s.
Automatic gain control is useful for uncontrollable situations. I used some rather complicated compression, limiting, gating, and sidechain filtering for the mics during the talking parts of the program in order to keep things quiet and consistant. But even then, it was as little processing as I could get away with. I was faced with between 6 and 12 shifty people in a room full of live mics, any (or all) of whom might start talking at any time. I don't have that many hands.
On the other hand, modern music is generally already compressed and Fletcher-Munsenized to hell and back in the mastering process. It doesn't need any more "help." And that which still contains some element of dynamic content, such as Tool's Lateralus, uses it so artistically that it would be sinful to throw any of it away.
An engineer (or likely, several of them) spent hours, days, or weeks tweaking -that- -one- song to perfection. By homogenizing it with your ill-concieved one-size-fits-all processing, you've not only destroyed their work, but done a disservice to your listeners.
Compression was introduced to radio as a counter to road noise and static - admirable goals. Sometime later, it was used to keep levels somewhat consistant for lazy DJs, and kicked the processing up a notch. More recently, some marketing fucktard decided that it could be used to better compete with nearby stations, even to the point of modulating over them, and we ended up with the wall of multiband-limited pile of compressed shit that we get when we turn on the radio now.
These issues do not exist in the world of Internet broadcasting, where instead of static we get nearly limitless dynamic range. People listen to unprocessed music all the time at their PC, and are accustomed to hearing it that way, dynamic and timbral nuances intact.
And, unlike the stereo in your car, here the listener has control. If they want homogenized pre-processed shit, they can download (or merely enable) a plugin for it. Realplayer can do this, WMP can do this, along with Winamp and XMMS.
Why fuck it up in advance when they've got such a diverse array of tools to make things sound more to their liking right at their fingertips, if that's what they're after?
If you want consistancy, strive to make it sound the same from your stream as it does from the MP3 that they've got on their hard drive, put an ounce of effort into the mix, and keep your monitor setup appropriate to your audience.
This ensures that the puritans are happy because the chain is clean. The QSound users are happy because their settings don't need tweaked to accomidate the pre-process massage. And the "what's a soundcard?" people are happy, because it's still consistant with the noise they're used to hearing from their PC.
How do you improve on personal choice?