By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Viper1 said:
runqvist said:
Viper1 said:

I don't need a crystal ball.  What I need are the trade journals I read that show everybody working on more compressions schemes.  Nobody wants to run uncompressed streams when you don't need to.  You throw away bandwidth for nothing.  

Do any music streaming services stream red book audio?  No, of course not.


Who said anything about uncompressed? The post you quoted said moderate compression, like in bluray disks.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

For streaming, that's considered uncompressed from the source material.  You used Blu-ray as the "source".  That high bit rate will never be streamed because it's a waste of bandwidth.   

The whole point of streaming anything is to provide the ability to as many people as possible to consume your content.  Using a data stream that only Finland can enjoy isn't economicaly fruitful.   But more to the point is that you don't have to use that bit rate to get a picture quality so close you can't even tell it's not the original source content.  

Content providers pay money for the bandwidth they utilize.   Why would you want to pay 5-10 times the money to provide content that won't gain you 5-10 times the revenue?

That is your opinion. If you can't see the difference, too bad.

Surely you are aware of those companies who stream mostly to scandinavian countries?  They might want to have an advantage against multinational companies like netflix, better streams could be just that. At least in Finland and Sweden we do have the infrastructure for those kind of bitrates.

Uh, duh. Do they pay? Herp derp.