Earlier this week while babbling on about Taylor Swift, as I have been wont to do of late, I made reference to the TIDAL music-streaming service, which offers higher-fidelity streams for roughly twice the price. Em’s not sure it’s worth it:
The first of which is does the majority listener demographic of the music artists who were part of the brand push own the kind of equipment where listening to uncompressed audio actually reveals greater fine detail and fidelity. Or (shameful stereotyping warning) are they more likely to think that a pair of Beats headphones is the pinnacle of the music listening experience (they might be good for some types of bass heavy music. But I seriously doubt they are the best item for discerning the subtleties of lossless audio streams)?
I don’t know. But I’m unsure enough people care enough to pay twice the asking price of a service like Spotify.
Not having wired my mid-1970s stereo rig for Internetty stuff, I do most of my streaming in the room where I do most of my typing, with decent but not inspiring equipment, and truth be told, I’m generally content with, for instance, the iTunes AAC 256 stuff.
And there are other considerations:
[N]ot all music demands greater clarity (Have you heard the Blu Ray audio remaster of The Sex Pistols Never Mind The Bollocks? That kind of previously unheard fidelity almost sounds wrong applied to classic punk rock).
You already know my standard for such things:
In the 1980s, Steve Hoffman assembled a Gary “U.S.” Bonds compilation for MCA, and with decades of accumulated muck cleared away, we could hear the real muck [Frank] Guida was producing. The focal point was “Quarter to Three,” arguably the noisiest recording ever to top Billboard’s Hot 100. Rock critic Dave Marsh had focused on its “peculiar unity,” claiming: “I’ve played it on stereo systems ranging from $49.95 to $10,000, and the equipment makes no difference.”
Although I might make an exception for this YouTubed version with massive tube hum.