Streaming Topped All Forms Of U.S. Music Consumption In 2016

[Megalith]

Americans streamed 431 billion songs in 2016 alone, surpassing total digital sales of songs and albums for the first time in history. I still prefer to manage my own library since streaming services won’t let me cherry-pick album art and tweak tag information, but I can see why streaming is winning.

…folks in the US streamed more songs per day (1.2 billion) than the 734 million that were downloaded during the entire year, the ratings company said. As with similar increases in the UK, streaming increased 76 percent from last year, a figure that helped the music industry grow a solid three percent over 2015. Major streaming sites, especially Spotify and Apple Music, also saw dramatic subscriber boosts.

 

[DPI]

Streaming > dicking around with downloading and managing MP3s

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Streaming > dicking around with downloading and managing MP3s

Provided the streaming quality is good, your bandwidth is reliable, and all the content is available on the streaming service, I agree.

I have a paid Spotify account, and IMHO the 320kbit OGG they use whe. You set the desktop client to use high quality, is more than sufficient for my needs.

I've never had an availability problem with them either. They do - however - not have a lot of my favorite music, which means I still maintain an old fashioned local music library.

 

[Talyrius]

I pay $14.99 a month for Google Play Music's family plan (yourself and up to 5 additional family members) which also includes YouTube Red. I can fill in any gaps in their streaming library by uploading my own music and they'll let me stream or sync it to my devices.

If you're like me and don't like hunting for the browser tab that's playing music while on the desktop, you can install GPMDP. It's an open source cross platform desktop player.

 

[travbrad]

They do - however - not have a lot ofy favorite music, which means I still maintain an old fashioned local music library.

Yep that is the biggest thing that keeps me from moving to something like Spotify instead of still maintaining a local music library and using Google music for streaming stuff (since you can upload your own collection and stream that). My music tastes are very diverse however so I realize that makes me a weirdo/niche case user for streaming. The nerd/customizer in me prefers the UI/modding options of PC-based media players/browsers as well from programs like MediaMonkey. Again not something most people care about though.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Yep that is the biggest thing that keeps me from moving to something like Spotify instead of still maintaining a local music library and using Google music for streaming stuff (since you can upload your own collection and stream that). My music tastes are very diverse however so I realize that makes me a weirdo/niche case user for streaming. The nerd/customizer in me prefers the UI/modding options of PC-based media players/browsers as well from programs like MediaMonkey. Again not something most people care about though.

Same here, I'm a strange weirdo as far as music goes.

I'm into obscure Swedish synthpop, and German industrial music. Some of it is actually on Spotify, but a lot of it isn't.

 

[westrock2000]

I do wonder. I have Apple Music ($5/month with edu email) and I will often just play the iTunes "version" just because it's easier to get to then my own version. So I wonder if they are counting this as a "sale", even though I actually already own the content, I'm just choosing a streaming source rather than my own source.

This is opposed to streaming a recently released song instead of purchasing it. Which I think is more proper representation of a "sale".

Regardless, I don't doubt streaming smashed it. $5-$15 a month and access to tons of stuff, versus $10-$20 a month and access to 1 album. For the disposable generation, it's not even a logical comparison.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I do wonder. I have Apple Music ($5/month with edu email) and I will often just play the iTunes "version" just because it's easier to get to then my own version. So I wonder if they are counting this as a "sale", even though I actually already own the content, I'm just choosing a streaming source rather than my own source.

This is opposed to streaming a recently released song instead of purchasing it. Which I think is more proper representation of a "sale".

Regardless, I don't doubt streaming smashed it. $5-$15 a month and access to tons of stuff, versus $10-$20 a month and access to 1 album. For the disposable generation, it's not even a logical comparison.

I have my music collection pretty well organized and tagged, so it's just as easy to get to the Spotify version as it is my library version, but I tend to prefer the Spotify version, as if I do, the artist I play gets paid again (fraction of a penny as it may be, every little bit helps )

 

[Vader1975]

I love reporting that is just assumption. How can they know how much I used my record player or cdplayer or Ipod/mp3 player or downloaded iTunes music or somos on my local network?

 

[Armenius]

As soon as a streaming service supports lossless codecs, I'll subscribe to one. Until that day I'll continue to buy physical copies and rip them myself.

 

[Ragenrok]

I love reporting that is just assumption. How can they know how much I used my record player or cdplayer or Ipod/mp3 player or downloaded iTunes music or somos on my local network?

they dont but thats not what it says, it says streaming has bypassed NEW digital sales as in more people streamed than purchased this year

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

As soon as a streaming service supports lossless codecs, I'll subscribe to one. Until that day I'll continue to buy physical copies and rip them myself.

You are welcome.

That being said, you are probably wasting your money though, considering the repeat study after study showing that people just can not tell the difference (even audiophiles on high end gear) between a well encoded mp3 or OGG file and flac/uncompressed CD rips.

I have never seen a blinded A/B style test where people were able to pick the uncompressed file more than 50% of the time (roughly the same as chance) and I've seen studies using "golden eared" audiophiles using their own new car priced stereo systems for comparison.

It's all in your head man

 

[Armenius]

You are welcome.

That being said, you are probably wasting your money though, considering the repeat study after study showing that people just can not tell the difference (even audiophiles on high end gear) between a well encoded mp3 or OGG file and flac/uncompressed CD rips.

I have never seen a blinded A/B style test where people were able to pick the uncompressed file more than 50% of the time (roughly the same as chance) and I've seen studies using "golden eared" audiophiles using their own new car priced stereo systems for comparison.

It's all in your head man

I was grabbing some old albums from my dad over Christmas that he had ripped, not even paying attention to the files (just the folders). As soon as I started listening to something I knew these were not lossless. Took a look and confirmed my suspicions: 320 kbps MP3, all of them. Was so disappointed.

But I am sure most people either don't notice a difference or don't care.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I'm into obscure Swedish synthpop, and German industrial music. Some of it is actually on Spotify, but a lot of it isn't.

I get a lot of this in my main Pandora station; some evolution of liking Rammstein, on a station that I started with Five Finger Death Punch. I'm liking it too.

 

[DocSavage]

...That being said, you are probably wasting your money though, considering the repeat study after study showing that people just can not tell the difference (even audiophiles on high end gear) between a well encoded mp3 or OGG file and flac/uncompressed CD rips...

Not sure how you could refute such a study, as when people do hear the difference, you can just say that mp3 "wasn't well encoded".

 

[Krab]

I actually like hearing new stuff based on my preferences. Streaming services are great for that.

It's probably been almost a decade since I put any effort into maintaining a music library.

 

[Ragenrok]

I actually like hearing new stuff based on my preferences. Streaming services are great for that.

It's probably been almost a decade since I put any effort into maintaining a music library.

same, I like services like pandora that stream things I never would of thought of listening to based off a bunch of other random bands I do like

 

[Darunion]

You are welcome.

That being said, you are probably wasting your money though, considering the repeat study after study showing that people just can not tell the difference (even audiophiles on high end gear) between a well encoded mp3 or OGG file and flac/uncompressed CD rips.

I have never seen a blinded A/B style test where people were able to pick the uncompressed file more than 50% of the time (roughly the same as chance) and I've seen studies using "golden eared" audiophiles using their own new car priced stereo systems for comparison.

It's all in your head man

I think a lot would have to be with what the source material quality was, and also what songs as well as if it is one of your favorites. Some of my songs I listen to the most would notice something as being off, but a side by side with something I am not as familiar with, I likely wouldn't notice and I have damn sensitive hearing.

But honestly, aren't we all here because of some desire to push hardware or software to get more out of something we enjoy?