BEST Music App: Subsonic


Last Updated:

  1. publicanimal

    publicanimal Well-Known Member This Topic's Starter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    88
    Hey guys, I've been using this for a couple weeks now and it is fast becoming a completely indispensable app for me. You can use it to stream your ENTIRE digital music library to your Droid from your PC. It supports a very wide variety of formats including flac.

    Set up was complicated (if you get it and need help setting it up, just ask me) but once I got it running it completely blew me away. I have over 100GB of music on my PC and even with a 32GB SD card in my Droid I felt like I didn't have enough of my music at my fingertips. Now I can drive around listening to over 100GBs of music on shuffle.

    It's a one-month free trial, and I think it's relatively expensive to keep using it after that, but there is not an app on the market I would be willing to pay more money for than this one. For me it is a once far-fetched dream come true.
     

    Advertisement
  2. riffdex

    riffdex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    32
    How much per month? I'm really hoping Google rolls out a cloud-based music streaming service ASAP, I would find it very useful, and it's supposed to be a very cheap yearly fee.
     
  3. publicanimal

    publicanimal Well-Known Member This Topic's Starter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    88
    The minimum donation amount for a license key after free trial is over is 10 euros... so at least around $13. I'd gladly pay $40.

    What would be so great about Google getting involved in the music business?

    I for one hope they stick to what they're good at and stay out of the music/entertainment industry.
     
  4. riffdex

    riffdex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    32
    What exactly are they "good at"? A few years ago they were only known for the search market. They have been constantly expanding by buying companies such as YouTube, Gizmo5, Android, etc, and using these acquisitions to expand into many markets that people thought they wouldn't be good at. And at the same time, I'm never disappointed with the quality of any of the products or services Google offers, many of which are completely free or very cheap. Honestly, the music store business isn't brain surgery, and as long as Google does a half-decent job, people will give it a try. But instead of a half-decent job, they're trying to go beyond that by making track prices cheaper, attempting to allow users to hear the whole track one time before purchasing (iTunes only allows like the first 20 seconds), and releasing their cloud-based music storage service.
     
  5. publicanimal

    publicanimal Well-Known Member This Topic's Starter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    88
    Providing free services that don't involve the complications of licensing fees.

    All of the ones I use are free. What services do they currently offer that you have to pay for? I can think of only two: international calling via Google Voice and extra storage space in Gmail.

    Yeah, it isn't like there are tricky licensing fees/royalty payments to work out with millions of songs by thousands of artists. Brain surgery is a hell of a lot simpler.

    That would be a great thing... as long as it doesn't mean artists end up getting screwed. I'm not so sure that Google can keep the price of the service low without ripping off the artists. In fact that seems to be the main delay of the service: getting the labels on board.

    Though, as someone who currently receives over $1000/year in royalty checks from BMI, maybe I should be looking forward to a new revenue stream.

    Which is effectively useless now that Subsonic is available.
     
  6. riffdex

    riffdex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    32
    Providing free services that don't involve the complications of licensing fees.

    Are you serious? Android/YouTube/ETC don't have the complications of licensing fees? hahaha..

    All of the ones I use are free. What services do they currently offer that you have to pay for? I can think of only two: international calling via Google Voice and extra storage space in Gmail.

    That's just what I said, many of their services and products are free. Gmail storage/international calling are exceptions. Android phones are an example of a product that is not free. (Though most of their services have indirect costs because of their ads.)

    Yeah, it isn't like there are tricky licensing fees/royalty payments to work out with millions of songs by thousands of artists. Brain surgery is a hell of a lot simpler.

    They are oh so tricky. This is everyday business. It may take time before it gets worked out, but you seem to think that figuring out a licensing agreement is accomplishing the impossible. Companies do this everyday. Google does this everyday. Quite successfully. Regardless, I was referring to the user-experience and store aspect of it being easy, not the licensing aspect. Eventually Google will get the licensing figured out and inevitably get the labels on board. When everybody has the songs available, it really just comes down to the store experience. Which Google will do fine at.

    That would be a great thing... as long as it doesn't mean artists end up getting screwed. I'm not so sure that Google can keep the price of the service low without ripping off the artists. In fact that seems to be the main delay of the service: getting the labels on board.

    Artists have been getting screwed by the music labels forever. Do you think Google not having a music service would change this? That's delusional.

    Which is effectively useless now that Subsonic is available.

    Effectively useless? As far as I've been reading on the Subsonic site, these aren't even the same type of services. The Google service will be a cloud streaming service, Subsonic is simply a streaming service from a server on your computer. Jam11 does the same thing, but for free (Which makes Subsonic effectively useless). Streaming from your computer, is a very nice ability to have, but it's simply not the same as a cloud-based service. You would have to keep your computer on 24-7 to keep your library available. Streaming is taking up your bandwidth, and may have a slight affect on your network, etc.
     
  7. publicanimal

    publicanimal Well-Known Member This Topic's Starter

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    88
    Android is open source, so there are no licensing fees, only a free software license. YouTube is all user provided content. Not licensed. So no, they don't have the complications of licensing fees. hahahahah.

    My point being that Google Music would be a striking departure from their free services model. Newsflash: Android phones (with the exception of Nexus One, which is no longer on the market) aren't sold or manufactured by Google.

    Not on the scale we are talking about with Google Music. Not even close.

    Not agreement. Agreements. Lots of them. With lots of companies. And what about unsigned artists? How does it work for them? Or would we be restricted to mainstream music? Well, I'm convincing myself more and more that this service is going to SUCK.

    No, they don't.

    Of course the easy part will be easy.

    I just don't want to see Google using status as one of the world's most powerful companies to screw musicians. I have a vested interest in this. You don't.

    As I said, my digital music library is over 100GB. How likely is it that in the near future Google will allow me to upload 100+GB to the cloud? NOT BLOODY LIKELY! Whomever the service will be for, it will not be for me.

    Jam11 is only for iTunes users, a piece of software that I would not touch with a 10 foot pole. Maybe an 11 foot pole. As I said, when I can upload 100GB to the cloud for a cheap price, talk to me. Until then, Google Music is the worst idea of the year.

    To be fair, I am not the target audience for this service, as I despise 90% of mainstream music and don't buy mp3s
     
  8. riffdex

    riffdex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    32
    Android is open source, so no, it is not licensed. YouTube is all user provided content. Not licensed. So no, they don't have the complications of licensing fees. hahahahah.

    Hahahahhahahaa. You think because Android is open source, there is no licensing involved? There are agreements with the app developers, with every piece of proprietary software on the device, with the carriers, etc.

    My point being that Google Music would be a striking departure from their free services model. Newsflash: Android phones (with the exception of Nexus One, which is no longer on the market) aren't sold or manufactured by Google.

    Google gets a cut of every app that goes through their store. I suppose you could say that Google's business model is generally associated with free services. But that's not all there is to Google o_O Anyways, what are you expecting a free music store from Google or something d: And while it's true that the Nexus One is no longer in production, it's likely not the last of Google's phone endeavors, but we'll find out in the future.


    Not agreement. Agreements. Lots of them. With lots of companies. And what about unsigned artists? How does it work for them? Or would we be restricted to mainstream music? Well, I'm convincing myself more and more that this service is going to SUCK.

    I realize that you already know the service is going to suck, before any of us have even seen it. Google has consistently put out high-quality products and services, yet you are so completely sure the service is going to be a failure. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, but the confidence you have that this will be a complete failure is very illogical, considering the quality of every Google service I've used.

    No, they don't.

    Yes, they do. (If you're not going to put any effort into a response then I won't either lol. If you honestly think that Google, as well as many other companies, don't work out licensing agreements everyday, then there is no helping you d: )

    Of course the easy part will be easy.

    It's really the most important part to me. Why would I buy my entire music collection from the Google Music store when I can upload my currently owned tracks. Thats why I really was referring to the cloud implementation, as opposed to the licensing issues. Which will get handled, with time, mind you. Agreements are difficult to come to, but not impossible.

    I just don't want to see Google using status as one of the world's most powerful companies to screw musicians. I have a vested interest in this. You don't.

    Please tell me why you are so sure that I don't have a vested interest in this. You don't even know me, but I assure you you are completely wrong. If you know anything about the music industry you would know that musicians don't make crap from the music sales, but make most of their money from shows and merchandise. This is a very unfortunate truth.

    As I said, my digital music library is over 100GB. How likely is it that in the near future Google will allow me to upload 100+GB to the cloud? NOT BLOODY LIKELY! Whomever the service will be for, it will not be for me.

    There really is no telling. Just because you are so sure that you won't be able to have that kind of space doesn't mean it's true, we'll just have to wait and find out. Google is notorious for giving a lot for a little. But realistically, I'm not expecting for them to offer that much. I understand that the service might not be for you. But why are your preferences relevant to what I would want in a music streaming service?

    Jam11 is only for iTunes users, a piece of software that I would not touch with a 10 foot pole. Maybe an 11 foot pole. As I said, when I can upload 100GB to the cloud for a cheap price, talk to me. Until then, Google Music is the worst idea of the year.

    Well I don't know why u think that. I don't even use iTunes but I've use Jam11 from time to time. There is another free alternative to Jam11 too but I can't think of the name at the moment. Maybe for you it's the worse idea of the year. But for a large number of average Android users, I think it would be extremely useful for them.

    To be fair, I am not the target audience for this service, as I despise 90% of mainstream music and don't buy mp3s

    Now, understandably, Google Music may not be for you, but I think you should at least wait till we get all the details before you make your decision. For some of us, cloud music is what we want out of our devices and, unfortunately, we will have a limited number of choices on what service to use, at least for a few years o_O
     
  9. MicroNix

    MicroNix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    37
    Absolutely wrong. I don't know what is behind Subsonic to be honest, but Google has servers all around the world and datacenters that are small cities. They are much more geared to deliver streaming content than a nobody company.
     
  10. MicroNix

    MicroNix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    37
    Google Music is exactly what Android needs to compete in multimedia. As someone who came from an iPod Touch, love it or hate it, iTunes makes it easy to not only arrange your own content for syncing to your device, it also allows you to easily add content. Not just mp3s either but pod casts, music videos, photos and other content as well as offered by Apple. Something doubletwist is trying to do but horribly underfeatured. Android is lacking in the multimedia department and I welcome something to get rid of iTunes. I'm just wondering if Google has the UI talent to pull this off properly. UI isn't their strong point.
     
  11. JM33

    JM33 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    25
    I use Orb to stream my music on my pc to my phone. Setup was very easy on the pc, and free. I only paid for their Music app from the market. It was $1, and the interface is much better than using the browser. Of course I can access my music from any browser. Its not in the cloud, so my pc needs to be on, but I can leave it in sleep mode, and wake it up with the app.

    So why would Subsonic be a better music player than Orb? Sure its in the cloud, but does that make it any better? Maybe someone can enlighten me. I just can't see paying that price (though its not terribly high) if Orb gives me the same for free.
     
  12. riffdex

    riffdex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    32
    I would definitely agree that Google has a long way to go in terms of multimedia. I'm trying to be optimistic though, and I'm hoping that Google Music turns out as good as it sounds (based on what I want, it sounds pretty good to me). Now I also definitely agree that the iPod is ahead of Android in terms of UI in addition to the fact that there are some very standard features completely missing for multimedia playback on the Android. But I'm glad they are not going to route of making their own iTunes syncing app. I much prefer drag and drop. The cloud could potentially bridge the gap between the techies, many of which don't like syncing software like iTunes and want more control over their media, and the average consumers who may not be as tech-savvy, and want an easy solution similar to iTunes. Of course, this is all speculation for now. We can only hope for the best.

    From what I've read on their site, Subsonic isn't a cloud solution, but a streaming from PC to phone app similar to Orb. Though I haven't installed Subsonic personally and tried it out, I might give it a try just to make sure later today. Anyways, I'm sure Orb is great for what it does, and I'm sure Subsonic is too. All products have their strengths and weaknesses, but personally I prefer a cloud solution to streaming from PC solution (but that's just me).
     
  13. Jyro275

    Jyro275 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree and I think Subsonic is great! Buuutt...lol do you know if it actually downloads the files to your phone or is it only temporary. Because the songs that I play show up in my Winamp library (on my phone) and I can play them. Hopefully it's only storing temporary files :confused:
     
  14. tonestert

    tonestert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    7
    I just downloaded PowerAMP from the market and it is awesome ! Only used for a short time but I'm loving it so far. The EQ works great. It's beta right now. Here's a link the dev's site:

    PowerAMP
     
  15. cruud

    cruud Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2010
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    10
    AudioGalaxy is very similar and very free. I've used both, liked Subsonic a little more but AudioGalaxy works just as well if not better.
     

Share This Page

Loading...