mike_mccue


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

See there you go the streaming preview enabled you to hear it was worth downloading.
 
Perhaps now you are less perplexed as to why other folk make the 'claims' that they do.
 
If you listen to more of the great stuff in the Songs forum you might be less inclined to think your production values are that special that they warrant being posted in the X1/X2 forum and you'll realise how much easier streaming makes it to appraise several songs in one session and why some will actually refuse a download when so much stuff is available via streaming. 
 
Also as I said you dictate the quality of how you'd like YOUR music to be streamed depending on whether you serve it yourself a pay for a premium service and also include the option of download in whatever formats you care to supply.
That is the answer to the original question posted.
 
We all know there is a difference in quality between formats and bit rates.  Just choose how you present yourself and let the listener decide rather than thinking and indicating he's missing out on something for refusing your bulky download.
 
I tend to refuse downloads because it normally portrays a distinct lack of courtesy on the part of the uploader.

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. 

Sorry to drift off-topic, but many of us here use SoundCloud because we can upload higher-quality files for free, so I thought you'd all be interested to know that there is at least one third-party website that's scraping material from SoundCloud and posting it on their own site. Your music may be in more places than you realize.

Now, I allow downloads of all my stuff and have no problem proliferating it. But one of the songs they snatched from me wasn't my song to give away! This could present awkward situations if you've posted a client's song for critiquing. And apparently, they are even snatching files flagged as "Private".

Here's the site: http://www.deregalo.fm/

Go there and type your SoundCloud name into the search box.

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.

Why doesn't that surprise me at all.
 
I've always believed once you've put it out there it's out there.
 
Yup, even I'm getting some free distibution...

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

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.)

 
In your normal characterstic style you've totally reframed what has been freely given in reply to your question to propose that folk are far less enlightened than your pompous self.
 
1/ Is that you don't only listen for 5 seconds but rather you have the option to do that if what you are hearing doesn't float your boat.
 
2/ Has anyone here presented the idea that dealing with the resultant download is actually a worry?
 
3/ Nobody has mentioned bit-torrent sites (this mention seems the most the most interesting to me).  The point is that a rogue mp3 will fail to load on its remote player if it isn't legitimate whereby you have no idea what a 'dowloaded' file contains just because it has an mp3 extension.
 
Your original question posed that you were perplexed by people refusing a download over a streaming option.  There are many valid reasons already given here that you are con****iously resisting, ignoring and disregarding in your synopsis. 
 
Mentioning Soundcloud looks like a feeble device here in order to bolster the idea that your original premise may have had some basis, but is irrelevant. It has been pointed out already you can host a streaming application on your own server and you'll find that your intended listeners will be happy with that where they weren't with your inconvenient download.
 
However, you do seem to like the idea of being unnecessarily tedious so I can see clearly where the thought of offering a download would probably suit you best.
 
Well done!

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.

I don't listen to people's songs if I have to dl it...if I click on it and I have an option to open with media player or something then fair nknow]pjoithb whateverr