Is streaming the best way to listen to music?

Is physical music doomed? A new survey found more Americans believe streaming music is “superior” than all physical forms of music combined.

The poll of 2,000 U.S. adults found 38% believe streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify are superior to their physical counterparts — where 13% believe CDs are supreme, 12% are vinyl purists and 1% think nothing comes close in quality to cassettes.

Another 14% said they still believe radio stations are the best way to listen to music, and 4% prefer digital music files.

Surprisingly, a mere 15% said hearing the music live, in-person was the best way to listen in. Yet live music was found to be the most expensive, on average.

Conducted by Talker Research, it was revealed that in a single year, respondents said they’ve spent a total of $274 on music, on average — $100 on live concerts, $75 on streaming services, $53 on CDs and $46 on vinyls.

But many believe the cost of music is way too high. When asked how much respondents believe different formats of music should cost them, their answers were consistently lower than what they actually pay.

Thirty-five percent of people believe a single month of streaming shouldn’t cost them more than $10, even though a majority (59%) are willing to pay up to $20 for the convenience.

The same can be said about digital albums and a single MP3 file — 38% won’t pay more than $10, while 27% think individual files should be free, with 18% only willing to pay between $1 and $5.

Respondents said they would spend a bit more on physical types of music. More than half (52%) believe a single CD or a cassette should cost $15 at most, and vinyls are allowed to cost up to $20, according to 54% of consumers.

“Streaming is great because you can obtain nearly anything you require almost all the time. But [it’s] sort of like fast food — fast and convenient, and you may not even pay much attention,” explained Steve Nixon, jazz pianist and founder of freejazzlessons.com. “With physical music, the experience is different. You decide. You walk into the store, you pick up the disc, and you hold it in your hands.

“That is the experience. You obtain the artwork from the sleeve, the packaging, and the weight of the disc. There is something about it you cannot obtain through streaming. It is not about the music; it is about the process.”

The study also found a strong indication that people prefer to support live music, though the cost barrier was apparent to some. Two in three said they don’t want to pay more than $100 for a ticket, but the average person is willing to shell out $427 to see their favorite artist perform live.

However, the average person can also recall missing out on at least 10 live shows because ticket prices were too expensive for them to justify.

“To make something physical takes some time; you can't immediately make it physical,” continued Steve. “If you buy something physical, you support the artist. Music streaming platforms pay artists very little for their work. If you pay slightly extra for the record, you ensure the artist is fairly remunerated for something they spent their creativity and energy upon. You aren't only hitting the play button and leaving the next track for the algorithm to decide.

“It's a tough one. Music sales may not compete against streaming. But the connection artists now have with their fans is greater. If you only listen to the radio and rapidly switch through the songs, you will not experience this. If you listen to one track from one album, the experience is entirely different.”

Survey methodology:

Talker Research surveyed 2,000 general population Americans; the survey was administered and conducted online by Talker Research between Feb. 7 and Feb. 10, 2025.

We are sourcing from a non-probability frame and the two main sources we use are:

• Traditional online access panels — where respondents opt-in to take part in online market research for an incentive
• Programmatic — where respondents are online and are given the option to take part in a survey to receive a virtual incentive usually related to the online activity they are engaging in

Those who did not fit the specified sample were terminated from the survey. As the survey is fielded, dynamic online sampling is used, adjusting targeting to achieve the quotas specified as part of the sampling plan.

Regardless of which sources a respondent came from, they were directed to an Online Survey, where the survey was conducted in English; a link to the questionnaire can be shared upon request. Respondents were awarded points for completing the survey. These points have a small cash-equivalent monetary value.

Cells are only reported on for analysis if they have a minimum of 80 respondents, and statistical significance is calculated at the 95% level. Data is not weighted, but quotas and other parameters are put in place to reach the desired sample.

Interviews are excluded from the final analysis if they failed quality-checking measures. This includes:

• Speeders: Respondents who complete the survey in a time that is quicker than one-third of the median length of interview are disqualified as speeders
• Open ends: All verbatim responses (full open-ended questions as well as other please specify options) are checked for inappropriate or irrelevant text
• Bots: Captcha is enabled on surveys, which allows the research team to identify and disqualify bots
• Duplicates: Survey software has “deduping” based on digital fingerprinting, which ensures nobody is allowed to take the survey more than once

It is worth noting that this survey was only available to individuals with internet access, and the results may not be generalizable to those without internet access.