Could say the same for anything that's expensive, then becomes cheap. I don't care to buy a BMW today, but if I won the lottery....
Plus, who wants to spend the money on bandwidth for totally uncompressed music?
\\ /\( ) Alice.( ). lwr32@mac.comYup. Steaming 320 takes up more than 2X the data than 128..... So half as many songs can be streamed.~KLM\\ "Antisocial behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists" ~Nikola Tesla //
On Apr 27, 2015, at 1:48 PM, David Smith david.smith.14916@gmail.com [iPad] <iPad@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Yes, the problem is the limited bandwidth in, I think, most of the US, and the high cost of even moderately high bandwidth, where it's available.Gosh I hope not. Not streaming. Not on limited bandwidth. That's the most annoying part of music match. It downloads your music at high bitrate. I'd prefer to choose between 128 and 320. Mostly because I would choose quantity over quality. Mostly because I can't hear the alleged quality and but also because I'd rather have 3x the selection.~KLM\\ "Antisocial behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists" ~Nikola Tesla //
On Apr 26, 2015, at 6:05 PM, David Smith david.smith.14916@gmail.com [iPad] <iPad@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Post-Tidal, I can no longer be satisfied with less than uncompressed, but thanks for the thoughts. I imagine that before too many years have passed - five or ten? - we'll start seeing Spotify, Pandora, Rhapsody, and Apple all doing uncompressed. Maybe someone will even bite the hi-def bullet
__._,_.___
Posted by: David Smith <david.smith.14916@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (95) |
.
__,_._,___