Amazon to Sell Unprotected MP3s?

[Stella]

Great Stuff!

This will speed up the growth of online music. The more online music store do this - the better - more choice for the consumer.

I'm sure that Apple have a strong enough brand - i.e., iPod iTMS to be able to cope with the competition. Few people bought iPods because of iTMS... its the device.

 

[steve_hill4]

As these tubes get faster, music quality needs to get better. The speeds can afford it, so we should get our moneys worth.

I almost exclusively still buy CDs anyway. I always will as I like the physical presence of a purchase. I may sound like an old fart, (even at 24), but we've already lost the gatefold LPs, if CDs go too, what will we skin up on from now on?

Seriously though, it's not my choice, (unless it's a freebie from Apple each week or something that is exclusive I want), but for those downloading music they should be at least getting a decent quality for the £7.99 they pay. I get most of my music for £5-10 on CD, and mostly the non chart stuff is towards £5. Why should someone pay more through iTunes and get vastly inferior quality? Let's get lossless for the same price, but if not immediately, get upping the rate at least.

 

[theBB]

eMusic has always been a favorite of mine (especially going back to when they had an "unlimited downloads" subscription plan), but their customer support leaves a whole lot to be desired.

What kind of customer support are you in need of right now? I just listen the previews and buy it if I like until my monthly quota fills up.

I really like the purchases of people with "similar taste" based recommendations at eMusic. For some reason, they turn out to be a lot more interesting than Amazon's recommendations when I buy a CD from them. The album lists prepared by the users of eMusic also helped me out a lot in exploring different artists. Until Amazon reaches that level, I would stick with eMusic, unless the pricing from Amazon turns out to be a lot more attractive.

 

[theBB]

how so?

Well, same unprotected MP3 format premise as eMusic, but deeper pockets of Amazon. This could be a very formidable competitor for eMusic. I don't think iTunes would be affected as much.

but for those downloading music they should be at least getting a decent quality for the £7.99 they pay. I get most of my music for £5-10 on CD, and mostly the non chart stuff is towards £5. Why should someone pay more through iTunes and get vastly inferior quality? Let's get lossless for the same price, but if not immediately, get upping the rate at least.

Vastly inferior is a big overstatement, I doubt double blind tests would show more than a few people who can tell the difference with the equipment they use at home. Besides, even if I could tell there is a difference, I don't care if the song in question is mostly electronic or electro guitar heavy hard rock. In any case, I buy a lot of single songs from different artists. I cannot really afford to buy a CD from each of these artists. For what I pay between iTunes and eMusic, I am pretty happy.

 

[Cult Follower]

You don't see improvements without competition and they can work on the music labels together.

 

[SeaFox]

Vastly inferior is a big overstatement, I doubt double blind tests would show more than a few people who can tell the difference with the equipment they use at home.

I can tell the difference. Which is why if I'm looking for a song I check on eMusic for it first now.

Besides, even if I could tell there is a difference, I don't care if the song in question is mostly electronic or electro guitar heavy hard rock. In any case, I buy a lot of single songs from different artists. I cannot really afford to buy a CD from each of these artists. For what I pay between iTunes and eMusic, I am pretty happy.

Me too. And I look forward to buying more tracks on iTunes once they are higher quality/DRM-free and I hope this brings more mainstream artists to eMusic (since their refusal to use DRM has been the excuse the record companies have used in the past for not doing business with them).

 

[AlBDamned]

That was my first thought when reading the story, too.

eMusic has always been a favorite of mine....

Really? I did a trial recently with eMusic and found it awful. Really bad search function, varying bitrate files (some as low as 160KB), and a pretty poor selection (for me) on top of all that.

I managed to find 25 tracks I liked for the free download trial then cancelled my account because the quality on some of them was abysmal.

Beatport and Audiojelly have proved good in recent weeks. 320KB downloads, DRM free and a good selection if you're into electronica.

 

[theBB]

I can tell the difference. Which is why if I'm looking for a song I check on eMusic for it first now.

eMusic uses MP3; iTunes uses AAC, so their quality should be about the same, despite their apparent bitrate difference. Sorry, I am quite skeptical about your claim...

 

[SeaFox]

eMusic uses MP3; iTunes uses AAC, so their quality should be about the same, despite their apparent bitrate difference. Sorry, I am quite skeptical about your claim...

I agree that AAC audio files are better than MP3, but if you're trying to tell me that a 128kbps AAC is better than a +200kbps VBR MP3, you are bonkers. I would peg iTunes music at better than 160 MP3, worse than 192 MP3. I'm pretty sure the music on iTunes is "colored" too. Judging by the treble and bass response on some tracks.

 

[AlBDamned]

I agree that AAC audio files are better than MP3, but if you're trying to tell me that a 128kbps AAC is better than a +200kbps VBR MP3, you are bonkers. I would peg iTunes music at better than 160 MP3, worse than 192 MP3. I'm pretty sure the music on iTunes is "colored" too. Judging by the treble and bass response on some tracks.

What does colored mean, Seafox? Is that where certain parts of the track are encoded differently - as they do on Bleep.com - or is it something else?

 

[SeaFox]

What does colored mean, Seafox? Is that where certain parts of the track are encoded differently - as they do on Bleep.com - or is it something else?

I don't know quite what you mean by "encoded differently" unless you mean like in an MP3PRO file, where extra treble information is encoded as a separate data stream.

"Colored" is a term you may have heard mentioned around here by audiophiles back in the first few generations of iPods came out. It refers to sound that is not reproduced true to the original source. Coloring is not always a bad thing, depending on your taste in music. The first generation iPod shuffle is praised for having straight line response - hence, it doesn't color the sound, if you're measuring from off the output (your headphones might effect the final product though).

What I mean is I have noticed some rather interesting differences between the way the songs sound on the iTMS verses other encodings. Bass that drops much lower or is much louder when compared to much higher bitrate encodings of other formats, and treble that snaps almost too much.

Like the song had been run through an equalizer before being encoded.

 

[AlBDamned]

I don't know quite what you mean by "encoded differently" unless you mean like in an MP3PRO file, where extra treble information is encoded as a separate data stream.

"Colored" is a term you may have heard mentioned around here by audiophiles back in the first few generations of iPods came out. It refers to sound that is not reproduced true to the original source. Coloring is not always a bad thing, depending on your taste in music. The first generation iPod shuffle is praised for having straight line response - hence, it doesn't color the sound, if you're measuring from off the output (your headphones might effect the final product though).

What I mean is I have noticed some rather interesting differences between the way the songs sound on the iTMS verses other encodings. Bass that drops much lower or is much louder when compared to much higher bitrate encodings of other formats, and treble that snaps almost too much.

Like the song had been run through an equalizer before being encoded.

Ah ok.

What I meant about encoded differently was along these lines from Bleep.com

- Bleep tracks are very high quality, encoded with the renowned codec LAME using the ‘--alt-preset standard’ Variable Bit Rate setting. This uses a higher bitrate for encoding loud sections of a track, and a lower bitrate on quieter sections – it is widely acknowledged to give the best sound quality while maintaining manageable file sizes.

But they've changed it now to:

- since 01st January 2006, all new files have been encoded using the codec ‘--alt-preset insane’ which produces 320kbps file of the highest quality possible for MP3.

 

[japanime]

What kind of customer support are you in need of right now? I just listen the previews and buy it if I like until my monthly quota fills up.

I've had problems with billing and my address, and whenever I email them about it, I get canned responses.

Considering the hundreds upon hundreds of MP3s that I got back in the all-you-can-eat days, though, the lack of customer service is something I could (and still do) tolerate.

Really? I did a trial recently with eMusic and found it awful. Really bad search function, varying bitrate files (some as low as 160KB), and a pretty poor selection (for me) on top of all that.

To each his own, I guess. It's rare for me to find an album on iTunes that I want and not be able to find that same album on eMusic. In fact, it's usually the other way around--eMusic has it, and iTunes doesn't.

 

[AlBDamned]

To each his own, I guess. It's rare for me to find an album on iTunes that I want and not be able to find that same album on eMusic. In fact, it's usually the other way around--eMusic has it, and iTunes doesn't.

The success with their music catalogue definitely depends on what you're into. I don't buy anything on iTunes though, so not been comparing those two specifically.

But eMusic itself, when looking for less obscure names, I just found it really ineffective and ended up wading through pages and pages of lists. Very frustrating (and time consuming).

 

[gnasher729]

mp3 aac, it's all the same

On Slashdot you would get modded down "-1, clueless".

 

[goosnarrggh]

I wish AAC was called MP4 for marketing reasons. Anyways I hope this puts some pressure on the other record companies. I hope this model makes a ton of cash and nobody steals this music in a big way.

The fact that an audio stream is meant to decoded using the AAC codec doesn't necessarily imply that the stream must be contained within an MPEG wrapper.

To be sure, MPEG is the most common form of encapsulation by far. But it is also possible to encapsulate the same AAC-encoded data (resulting in identical audio reproduction and similar file-size overhead) in a RealAudio file.

Indeed, MPEG-4 allows for several different audio codecs to be used instead of AAC, so a strictly conforming MP4 file doesn't necessarily need to contain any AAC-encoded data. The M4A extension is not sanctioned by any official body, but files of that type are typically specified to have the same format specification as MP4 except that by convention they are guaranteed to only contain audio (no video or other) information. But I'd argue that the same argument should apply to them.

 

[Apple Architect]

Bit and bob rates

Although not strictly relevant the the original post I thought that many might find the following article interesting.


Bit rate test

I would guess that most people would suffer the same problem as those in the test - we like to think we would tell the difference, but in fact....we can't.

My own view is that the quality of the equipment will make more difference than the bit rate, one you have got to a reasonable level.

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

Again with the bit rate arguments. I've fiddled with iTunes for a long time, fiddling with different bit rates up to lossless. The difference gets noticable at a certain level, but then again I didn't spend that much money on my audio equipment. All I currently have are Harmon/Kardon soundsticks and Shure e2c's. I currently have some 128kb/s and 200+ kbs that are imported from CD's. They both sound great to me, but then again I probably don't have the capacity to really pick apart every tonal separation and squint my ears and so forth. Whatever, it's all good. All I care about right now is DRM-free tracks.

 

[SeaFox]

Again with the bit rate arguments. I've fiddled with iTunes for a long time, fiddling with different bit rates up to lossless. The difference gets noticeable at a certain level, but then again I didn't spend that much money on my audio equipment. All I currently have are Harmon/Kardon soundsticks and Shure e2c's. I currently have some 128kb/s and 200+ kbs that are imported from CD's. They both sound great to me, but then again I probably don't have the capacity to really pick apart every tonal separation and squint my ears and so forth. Whatever, it's all good. All I care about right now is DRM-free tracks.

I always felt that anything over 224kbps was virtually unnoticeable, but my ex-girlfriend had golden ears and insisted on 300+ VBR. She also didn't like AAC's compression artifacts verses MP3's. She said AAC sounded more "synthetic". I can't hear much difference except a slightly softer treble response on MP3's (it wouldn't be swishing at those bitrates).

 

[SeaFox]

What I meant about encoded differently was along these lines from Bleep.com

- Bleep tracks are very high quality, encoded with the renowned codec LAME using the ‘--alt-preset standard’ Variable Bit Rate setting. This uses a higher bitrate for encoding loud sections of a track, and a lower bitrate on quieter sections – it is widely acknowledged to give the best sound quality while maintaining manageable file sizes.

But they've changed it now to:

That's good that they changed it. Because that explanation of what VBR is used for is laughable. As though the bitrate has anything to do with the "loudness" of music.

 

[Mulyahnto]

Again with the bit rate arguments. I've fiddled with iTunes for a long time, fiddling with different bit rates up to lossless. The difference gets noticable at a certain level, but then again I didn't spend that much money on my audio equipment. All I currently have are Harmon/Kardon soundsticks and Shure e2c's. I currently have some 128kb/s and 200+ kbs that are imported from CD's. They both sound great to me, but then again I probably don't have the capacity to really pick apart every tonal separation and squint my ears and so forth. Whatever, it's all good. All I care about right now is DRM-free tracks.

Uhm...yea, I have the same thing. If you'd give me the choice between:

128 kb/s @ $0.99
256 kb/s @ $1.29 or higher

I'd definitely go for the 128 kb/s. 'cause they sound good enough for me. I could not look you straight in the eye and tell you I could hear the difference. Now, I would, most likely, pay a premium for the NO-DRM version. Maybe not more than 30c though.

 

[uv23]

Bought 5 albums off of Bleep last night. 320kbit or high quality VBR, no DRM. Gotta love it. The iTunes store is way behind. More mainstream competition will force them to pick up the game.