Jump to content


Photo

Spotify


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#31 Stone

Stone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,233 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:30 PM

Sonos is a whole-house, wireless music system that connects to the computer(s) in your house where your music library is stored to make it available to all of the various "zones" in your house.


I almost bought a Sonos, because it integrates seamlessly into my Peachtree Nova. But I remembered that I only have one room.

#32 SLBunge

SLBunge

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:50 PM


Sonos is a whole-house, wireless music system that connects to the computer(s) in your house where your music library is stored to make it available to all of the various "zones" in your house.


I almost bought a Sonos, because it integrates seamlessly into my Peachtree Nova. But I remembered that I only have one room.

We have a Peachtree iDecco in the living room. We never use the iPod dock feature in the iDecco but got a much better deal on it than what the Nova would have cost. I would say the Sonos is still worth it even with one room. Optical output from Sonos into the Nova is absolutely the way to go. Get a Sonos Zone90 (unpowered output) and use your iPad for control. I would consider the Sonos iPod dock as well if you want the ability to have friends drop their iPods into your system and play something that you want to hear.
Suffocating under a pile of cheese curds.

#33 Stone

Stone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,233 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:24 PM

I upgraded from the Decco to the Nova for the added inputs. I've got my Airport Express (optical, iTunes streaming), Blu-Ray, PSIII, turntable and cable (when I had cable) going through the Nova. They all sound great (to me, but my ears are a little worse for wear).

#34 SLBunge

SLBunge

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:57 PM

The software interface is far superior to iTunes. Integration with music services (MOG, Spotify, Pandora, Last.fm), satellite radio, internet radio, podcasts all from one interface. Plus the queue-based player allows you to continuously add to your music stream from your library (tracks or albums), playlists, or tracks/albums from a music service. And you can save the queue as a playlist if you like it (including the music service tracks).

iTunes is a great music store. I just think that they interface for playing music isn't the best.

Because you have a system that works, it's hard to say if a superior interface is worth ~$300.
Suffocating under a pile of cheese curds.

#35 SLBunge

SLBunge

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 02:18 PM

The MOG service shut down over the weekend and we are now a Beats Music Service household.  The kids think it is cooler but I'm not so sure.  The "Sentence" portion of the site doesn't quite work with Sonos yet so I can't comment on the utility of that feature.  I think their curated playlists are pretty nice.  But accessing the library to play albums is a little clunkier.  And all of the social media crap isn't valuable to me at all.


Suffocating under a pile of cheese curds.

#36 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73,970 posts

Posted 26 May 2015 - 09:12 PM

Not just about Spotify, but iTunes too.  A few well-known artists still withhold most or all of their music from streaming services.

 

Are they aware its all on YouTube?  That occurred to me recently, as I often find that some piece of music I can't locate on a streaming service is on YouTune anyway.



#37 Orik

Orik

    Advanced Member

  • Technocrat
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,168 posts

Posted 26 May 2015 - 10:11 PM

It is pretty funny. I saw recently that YouTube added a music subscription service (which is somehow tied to google's service), will be even funnier if artists exclude themselves from that but are available for free on youtube. 


sandwiches that are large and filling and do not contain tuna or prawns


#38 mitchells

mitchells

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,956 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 12:50 PM

The murky world of music streaming contracts: http://www.theverge....potify-contract



All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher.
Ambrose Bierce

#39 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73,970 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 07:50 PM

I searched for Bob Seger recently, not out of an excess of enthusiasm, but because I'm reading a book on Detroit music history.  To my surprise, I discovered he's one of the bigger artists who withholds his content from streaming services.

 

He may not like the royalties from those services, but since all his best known albums are on YouTube, he's throwing money away for nothing.



#40 mitchells

mitchells

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,956 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 07:55 PM

Just because Youtube is "free" doesn't mean they don't pay royalties to artists.



All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher.
Ambrose Bierce

#41 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73,970 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 08:03 PM

I'd be surprised to learn YouTube was playing royalties on behalf of the anonymous members who upload copyright content, or that those members are fessing up and paying.
 

I'm talking about unauthorized uploads, of course.  Perhaps Seger is withholding his music from streaming services but giving permission to Rhidalgo456 to upload it to YouTube, but I'm going to assume not.



#42 mitchells

mitchells

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,956 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 08:15 PM

I believe the way it works is that if Seger wants, he can have Youtube take rhidalgo456's  video down. But if enough people click on the video and it generates ad revenue, Seger is entitled to some of that revenue.

 

From Rolling Stone:

 

 

YouTube doesn't divulge how much it pays performers, songwriters, labels and publishers in advertising revenue, but music-business sources say it ranges from 60 cents to $2 for every 1,000 views. A performer receives royalties every time a YouTube or Vevo user clicks on a video, and a songwriter usually gets money whenever a cover version of a song (as in Baauer's "Harlem Shake" spinoffs early last year) generates enough views to draw advertisements.



All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher.
Ambrose Bierce

#43 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73,970 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 08:22 PM

There aren't ads on the kind of content I'm talking about.

 

But even if he was deriving royalties from YouTube, why is he withholding the same content from streaming services?



#44 mitchells

mitchells

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,956 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 08:27 PM

Maybe the terms are better from Youtube and allowing other streaming services access are dilutive.



All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher.
Ambrose Bierce

#45 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73,970 posts

Posted 28 May 2015 - 07:50 PM

No, YouTube's royalties are the worst.  Can be googled.