Why is streaming a mp3 prefered over downloading a mp3?

so much music , so little time

I prefer to download and then listen. It's just a more enjoyable experience, and if I really like the song, I'll keep it. But I can only do that if downloading is an option.

I think anyone who posts songs and invites critiques should make their files downloadable, preferably at a reasonable bitrate of at least 192kb/s. I have a collection of songs that were made by forum acquaintances and brought to my attention via the Songs forum. And they're not just on my hard drive, many have earned a permanent spot in my pocket MP3 player. I may not post many comments on the Songs forum, but I do listen, and usually more than once. 

I don't often post songs on the Songs Forum, but I like to use SoundCloud and give people the option to download.  I always upload it at 320kbps and if you download it that's the version you get.  When I send the link to friends or post it to a forum I generally point out that the download version will be a higher quality rendering.

It's simple, although if you have allowed Quicktime access to your browser then any ol' mp3 will play in that after it has loaded it's not always convenient and some don't want Quicktime as the default file player on their browser or even installed on their systems.
 
Streaming starts playing as soon as the the buffer is full enough and you don't have to wait for it to download if it turns out the file sucks and you didn't want to hear anymore.  You get the option to download as well if you like the file you've just played and the author has given permission to download.
 
Seems obvious really.  As somebody said so much music so little time.  Who wants to wait up to 5 minutes to find out something sucked?
 
Streaming is better for .wavs and .flacs even where the wait time is even longer than mp3 so quality isn't the issue. 
 
It's easy enough to put a streaming app on your web server.

Keepers?

Like THIS?

bapu


Keepers?

Like THIS?

Ed you missed a perfect opportunity to link to your own HQ media player there.
 
(or did you?)

I've seen several occasion where people claim to dislike downloading a mp3

 

 Well, I don't have strong feelings on the matter but I've ran into a few people online that get really bent out of shape over musicians giving away free downloads. The point was, all the free music on the internet devalues music and creates a pattern of people expecting free music.  
 I agree with Rain, I would prefer to hear the stream first, the decision to dl and it and keep it would have little or nothing to do with audio quality anyway. 
 Unfortunately as much as we hate them, it doesn't look like mp3's are going away anytime soon and I think has become the responsibility of the producer to make a mix that still sounds good squashed down to 128

Hi Ghengis,
 Sure enough it's just like you said. I used the download link to get the 320kbs version of Mystery Meat and then I downloaded the stream and it was at 128kbs.
 
 The 320kbs version sounded much better.

 It's great to have the option to download the higher res.

 Nice song too. :-)


 best regards,
mike

Thanks for explaining about that Jeff.

I also get excited by FLAC but I get the impression that few people know how to play it.

The Winamp app on my Android phone plays FLAC, and the Foobar 2000 I use on my PCs do too. It seems like if you are really into it you can go that route too.


best regards,
mike

I don't like to DL stuff from what is often a personal web site... or a site I have never seen before. While I know I have AV scanning all incoming files, it is still not a comfortable thing for me. 

That is my primary reason for requesting  a streaming file on a site like Reverbnation, Soundclick, or Sound cloud. 

Listening to tunes from the folks in the songs forum, if I had to DL them all that would end up being a large number of songs over the years. Many times I do not comment but I do listen to just about all of them there.  I can stream them in a matter of seconds, and if I like the song, keep listening. A DL would continue to DL into my folder and I would have to delete it. 

Streaming allows it to be a non-committed relationship..... 

that is not to say that this is a hard and fast rule with me. I have on occasion, DL'd a song but it's not something I would prefer doing all the time. most folks here do use streaming sites and will offer multiple options for listening..... I appreciate that. 

This has been going on for years, since the mp3.com days. If you have music online it can be stolen.
It also applies to CdBaby.com, some titles are on illegal pay for mp3 downloads & CDBaby can't do a thing about it.
There's quite a few of these illegal sites.

Every time I read over SoundCloud's terms of use I wonder why a company needs such an incredibly long document to protect them selves from recourse should they do anything that requires recourse.

For example; they stipulate that I must be able to answer "No" to being a member of a performing rights organization.

I guess that's so they can continue to neglect paying the statutory per play fee that they are required to pay per stream.

For example; they stipulate that I must be able to answer "Yes" that I have the artist's permission, in writing, to post music that I do not own the copyright to.

I guess that's so they can continue to neglect paying the statutory per play fee that they are required to pay per stream and so they can defer the responsibility to me if the issue comes up.

This is not a specific criticism of SoundCloud... I generally just go about my own business and ignore those types of services. I don't really know what it is that they are doing and they make sure it is very difficult to understand what they are up to.


I saw a specific comment in the songs forum yesterday while I was listening to some the good music there.

I was curious to learn that there is a resistance to the idea that someone may just want to post a mp3 on their private server for direct, no strings attached availability.

I read a statement where someone simply refused to listen to someone's music until they posted it on a streaming site or in a streaming format.

I was just curious to learn why some have a preference for use of a service that comes with so many, more than I count, strings attached.


Corporations like Soundcloud are engaged in unlawful activity each and every day.

Want to see for your self? Just search out Lady GaGa on Soundcloud and take a look at the 500+ illegal files Soundcloud is hosting and streaming without paying the stream fee.

Soundcloud will respond to a criticism like that by stating that it is their users that are taking the illegal actions... Soundcloud does not hold them selves responsible for making money off their service while providing illegal content.

I don't really care what SoundCloud is doing that is illegal, I prefer to consider it none of my business, but I do find it curious that someone would state that they don't trust an individual musician because they might post a virus infected mp3 but that they do trust a corporation that is fully engaged in illegal activity.



There are several ways that a person can set up a streaming feature on their personal, non corporate website... so that is an option. Many of those solutions are not cross browser compatible... so they aren't ideal or practical options.

One ideal streaming option is to simply post a link to a mp3. When someone clicks on the link to the mp3 it will stream into the player of their choice and it streams like any other stream.

I wonder why people don't *get* that? It's a simple, straight forward, cross browser, no strings attached experience yet many people seem to really dislike being presented with that option.



If you click on a mp3 link it goes to your browser cache, which automatically cleans it self out on regular basis. It does not clog up the hard drive.

If you click on a mp3 link it can begin streaming and playing music immediately... well before the entire file has temporarily loaded into your browser cache.

If you click on a mp3 (or .wav, .aiff, FLAC, etc.) link the artist can deliver the best sound available for the format... or at least have full control of how they want top present the mp3 if they wish to use a low res version for some reason.




It seems like the resistance is based on 3 sentiments:

1) I usually only listen for 5 seconds before I click on something else.

2) I don't really know where the mp3 file goes when I click on it so I think it's clogging up my hard drive.

3) I have a friend that got a virus from a bit torrent site. (this line of reasoning seems the most interesting to me... I don't see how anyone can be seriously concerned about a rouge mp3 while allowing jpegs and flash to load into their browser all day long.)


I think I learned what I was curious to learn.


Thank you everyone.



best regards,
mike

People are lazy, always count on that.

Picture the average surfer like trying to get a ****s attention in a room full of balloons, candy, puppies and red shiny bikes.