Brand new to Sonos, don't own anything of the brand yet.
My wife doesn't do streaming, we have ~300 CDs, and she wants a CD Changer/Carousel. We just moved, so I have to rebuild the audio system. Good news is that they still make CD carousels. But I don't really want to invest in another old-school audio system...I'd like to integrate the CD carousel into a Sonos system.
What is the best approach? Will a Connect work for this? Or do I need a Connect: Amp? If I want stereo, are two Sonos Ones a good start?
thanks for sharing your expertise!
Page 2 / 2
I used Napster when it was illegal, I also used to buy a lot of music and still do. Sorry but your attitude stinks. If you love music buy it. End of.
Huh? You just said you used to steal music, but you're happy to judge others because you think they aren't paying enough for their music? Do you know how much an artist gets when you buy a CD from retail, vs directly from the artist at a show, vs ad driven free radio, vs as part of a subscription plan, vs digital streaming rights, vs buying t-shirts and such from the artist sites, vs buying tickets to a live show, vs royalties from any other way? How does how much you love an artist/song translate to how much money the artist should get? Should regular consumers factor in what cut retail and distributors get before an artist is paid?
If you like the CD format and feel like it adequately pays the artist, that's great. Not sure how that then because the standard of how others should support an artist.
As far as CDs not supporting artist because there is no DRM, I can't agree with that. Buying a CD doesn't mean you are going to illegally share it with others. It's only those who are using illegal copies of music that are hurting the artist, or perhaps using a personal license for commercial reasons, etc.
It's going off in the weeds a bit, but even illegal sharing isn't always as damaging as it may appear on the surface. In many cases, the consumer choice was not between getting an illegal copy or a legal copy, but between an illegal copy or nothing at all. I think that's rather evident in the fact that illegal sharing dropped when the price of buying a single dropped from around $3 to $1 (or maybe it was just me).
I used Napster 20 years ago to road test music in the same way I use Apple Music now. But if I like an album I buy it, minimum two albums a week. I also go to lots of gigs. But live music beyond the grass roots level is dominated by huge companies like LiveNation who are almost as bad as Spotify. I don’t care what format you buy music in, mp3,wav, flac, cd or vinyl but don’t believe you’re a music fan if you just stream and buy the odd T-shirt.
It's going off in the weeds a bit, but even illegal sharing isn't always as damaging as it may appear on the surface. In many cases, the consumer choice was not between getting an illegal copy or a legal copy, but between an illegal copy or nothing at all. I think that's rather evident in the fact that illegal sharing dropped when the price of buying a single dropped from around $3 to $1 (or maybe it was just me).
Yes, I've always considered these arguments rather specious, too... I've never been convinced of the claimed extent of harm to artists.
I don't see who gave you the right to decide this for me.
Absolute nonsense. Paid streaming saved the music industry from widespread and rapidly growing illegal music piracy.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/apr/24/weve-got-more-money-swirling-around-how-streaming-saved-the-music-industry
Yes, I've always considered these arguments rather specious, too... I've never been convinced of the claimed extent of harm to artists.
See the post linked to by pwt above. The income from CD's dropped like a stone after Napster. All those "I wouldn't have bought that CD anyway" and "Napster allows me to sample music that I will then go buy" arguments were nothing but a justification for theft. Very few bought music when they could get it for free, and the sales numbers proved it.
The only artists who profit from streaming are huge pop stars. How are young, less commercial artists supposed to forge a career in music with the streaming model? It leads to bland music.
Sorry, but actual numbers say otherwise. From the above link:
Music used to be dominated by audiences with the most spending power – so middle-class, middle-aged people, buying albums at Tesco as part of their weekly shop, often decided what topped the charts. Now, Afrobeat, Danish rap, hundreds of genres of niche electronic music and particularly British urban music are flourishing commercially, without having to make any concessions to the mainstream.
“Before, you had to get on mainstream radio, have a certain style or sound,” says Boateng. “It’s allowing for a more diverse proposition for British music and a wider range of people who are stars. A generation are coming through and feeling free.”
The only artists who profit from streaming are huge pop stars. How are young, less commercial artists supposed to forge a career in music with the streaming model? It leads to bland music.
Sorry, but actual numbers say otherwise. From the above link:
Music used to be dominated by audiences with the most spending power – so middle-class, middle-aged people, buying albums at Tesco as part of their weekly shop, often decided what topped the charts. Now, Afrobeat, Danish rap, hundreds of genres of niche electronic music and particularly British urban music are flourishing commercially, without having to make any concessions to the mainstream.
“Before, you had to get on mainstream radio, have a certain style or sound,” says Boateng. “It’s allowing for a more diverse proposition for British music and a wider range of people who are stars. A generation are coming through and feeling free.”
Ha yeah keep on believing that dude, if it makes you feel better..
Yes, I've always considered these arguments rather specious, too... I've never been convinced of the claimed extent of harm to artists.
See the post linked to by pwt above. The income from CD's dropped like a stone after Napster. All those "I wouldn't have bought that CD anyway" and "Napster allows me to sample music that I will then go buy" arguments were nothing but a justification for theft. Very few bought music when they could get it for free, and the sales numbers proved it.
"Not quite: he was the head of Universal Music’s Nordic operation." - so, no bias there, then....
I am not at all surprised that " very few bought music when they could get it free". There will always be exceptions, and some of those that say so here are those, even honourable ones, but human nature in general will not be defeated or changed in a hurry. When has anyone bought something when it was available for free, risk free? Who washes rented cars?
What I found interesting about the Guardian article is this:
"Varma strikes another note of caution: although previously artists weren’t making much money from record sales, they were able to develop a financial connection with their fans through touring or merchandise. Now that’s being lost. “Streaming often has no bearing on whether people want to buy tickets or a physical album,” says Varma. “The audience is pretty passive for most huge streaming acts. For Jones, we found out that many people streaming her didn’t even know who she was; they were streaming her on a playlist alongside 50 other songs.”
The nature of the game has changed with the change in the technology and so have the rules of the game. Those that will play the game successfully are those that will adapt to the new rules. This too has happened over and over in different times in different industries, so the music industry won't be immune to this phenomenon. Also, streaming mean that the rubbish filler tracks that previously earned money by the sale of the CD will no longer do so; people will only stream and pay for the music they like, and that is something that artistes have to learn to live with.
And now we are completely off topic:D.
What I found interesting about the Guardian article is this:
"Varma strikes another note of caution: although previously artists weren’t making much money from record sales, they were able to develop a financial connection with their fans through touring or merchandise. Now that’s being lost. “Streaming often has no bearing on whether people want to buy tickets or a physical album,” says Varma. “The audience is pretty passive for most huge streaming acts. For Jones, we found out that many people streaming her didn’t even know who she was; they were streaming her on a playlist alongside 50 other songs.”
The nature of the game has changed with the change in the technology and so have the rules of the game. Those that will play the game successfully are those that will adapt to the new rules. This too has happened over and over in different times in different industries, so the music industry won't be immune to this phenomenon. Also, streaming mean that the rubbish filler tracks that previously earned money by the sale of the CD will no longer do so; people will only stream and pay for the music they like, and that is something that artistes have to learn to live with.
And now we are completely off topic:D.
Devastating comeback. :8
You’re all perhaps missing the most important point ...and that is after ripping, they still make great coasters.?
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.