Does anyone buy MP3s from Amazon?

**iPhone** · 2008-08-15, 02:10

Speaking for myself only

Originally posted by peterw

In March I announced my PlayLog plugin
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=44582 (info page: http://www.tux.org/~peterw/slim/PlayLog.html)
I thought there was a chance of actually recouping some money on it -- one of its features is easy links to search Amazon (well, its US store) for CDs or MP3s of music you've heard on your Squeezebox. I figured some folks would surely use PlayLog to track down interesting songs they'd heard on Internet Radio or music services and buy legit copies of those songs, or other records. So I applied for an Amazon Associates account and tagged the links to Amazon. The results? Only a few dozen actual click throughs to Amazon, and no orders at all. Zero.

With Amazon only giving me something like $0.04 for every $0.99 MP3 sale, and cutting no checks until something like $10 (about 250 MP3 sales), I certainly didn't expect to quit my day job. But in five months, not a single sale? I wouldn't be surprised if relatively few folks used PlayLog, but do Squeezebox owners not buy music at Amazon? Not even the DRM-free MP3s?

-Peter

Hey Peter,

Where I can only speak for myself, Amazon, MP3, not no but hell no. I do not even buy CDs from Amazon, muchless MP3s. All my music if ripped from the actual CD or is a FLAC download. Do people with Squeezeboxes buy MP3s? I bet they do. I would think the biggest seller is iTunes.

But my thing is why waste good money buying inferior MP3s when for a few bucks more, one can have the whole CD which is DRM Free and at full resolution when ripped to FLAC! I get most of my new music from YourMusic.Com, off of EBAY, or the CD buying/trading website.

**radish** · 2008-08-15, 02:33

I buy all my CDs from Amazon (typically a couple a week), I have bought a few of their mp3s - but I typically am not interested in lossy downloads.

**Eric Seaberg** · 2008-08-15, 02:42

I do buy quite a few CDs from Amazon, and have also done MP3s. Their downloads are at 256kbps without any DRM, so they play with SC very well. I usually buy MP3s of music that may be 'restored' classics, like Billie Holiday, Mel Torme, Frank Sinatra's mega compilations from Capitol, etc.

If the source material doesn't warrant the time to purchase, rip, encode, etc., then I'll usually buy it from Amazon.

**Goodsounds** · 2008-08-15, 02:54

I think a fair number of people buy MP3 files from Amazon. I know I have - it's quick, convenient, and it's the non-Apple alternative. When I just want a song or two, and not an entire album, that's where I go.

When I want to get a good copy of something, I go vinyl, if available. More audio DVD use, that's a plus. But I'm resigned to the fact that CDs are the most common carrier and are convenient - no reason to get upset about it, it's how it is. I'm amused by people who think a FLAC file of a CD is anything special, not realizing that what they are doing is getting an accurate copy of a quality compromised copy. No reason to fear a lossy copy of a CD - the CD itself is already lossy. Most people don't know or hear the difference. People who are really picky never get anywhere near a CD, other than as a coaster for a coffee cup.

Oh, and yes, I buy CDs from them too - convenience factor and reasonable prices.

**dem** · 2008-08-15, 02:59

I've bought a couple hundred MP3s from Amazon, mostly when I find individual songs I want to add to my playlists.

**radish** · 2008-08-15, 03:53

Originally posted by Goodsounds

No reason to fear a lossy copy of a CD - the CD itself is already lossy.

That makes no sense. However "bad" a CD is, a lossy rip of it is "worse" surely?

**Goodsounds** · 2008-08-15, 04:31

Hi Radish,

Yes, a lower quality lossy rip will sound worse. A higher quality lossy rip will sound less worse. A non-lossy rip will still not sound great because of the inherent lossy nature of CD sound. Artists have been complaining about CDs since they came out - I did a quick search, and found a recent quote from a recording producer calling CD sound "a Xerox of a Polaroid of a photograph of a painting". Google those words, you'll find the interview.

The record industry squashed the DAT format for consumers sometime ago, maybe it was 15 years or so, out of fear that that would put "master" quality sound out on the street. But the recording industry was just fine with CDs, because it is far from master quality. The low sampling rate, which is the problem, was chosen to allow enough capacity for hour long albums, +/-, on the form factor chosen. Therein lies the compromise, the sampling rate is really too low to capture the full spectrum of the sound, and that is why CDs are lossy. Most people don't know or hear the difference.

**Mnyb** · 2008-08-15, 04:35

Nope

I use only lossles files but not only for soundquality.

Lossy files can not be transcoded without artifacts, what will be the major file format in 25-50 years ?
Ripped from CD or DRM free lossles it is for me.

I use mp3 for my car or and sometimes for my portable where it has merit's (storage space) it's a practical temporary format.

Otherwise i buy music for eternity (or at least my lifetime).

Btw Amazon is not selling mp3's in Europe there some very few retails of DRM free mp3's in Europe most are DRM, if you find any there are much more expensive than in the US (even itunes is more expensive here), i think such designed market compartmentalization is Evil. The real distance around the world today is about 200ms if ping an US server, so one world one file one price imho. For this reason alone i'm very reluctant to pay for downloads.

**Mnyb** · 2008-08-15, 05:02

Originally posted by Goodsounds

Hi Radish,

Yes, a lower quality lossy rip will sound worse. A higher quality lossy rip will sound less worse. A non-lossy rip will still not sound great because of the inherent lossy nature of CD sound. Artists have been complaining about CDs since they came out - I did a quick search, and found a recent quote from a recording producer calling CD sound "a Xerox of a Polaroid of a photograph of a painting". Google those words, you'll find the interview.

The record industry squashed the DAT format for consumers sometime ago, maybe it was 15 years or so, out of fear that that would put "master" quality sound out on the street. But the recording industry was just fine with CDs, because it is far from master quality. The low sampling rate, which is the problem, was chosen to allow enough capacity for hour long albums, +/-, on the form factor chosen. Therein lies the compromise, the sampling rate is really too low to capture the full spectrum of the sound, and that is why CDs are lossy. Most people don't know or hear the difference.

O thats probably correct in theory but how many recordings actually sounds that good that the CD format is an bottle neck ?

I have an DVD-A player and approx >100 dvda's some of them do sound spectacular, the ones that are actually recorded in 24bit with modern equipment. The remastered records from old masters is rarely special, if they are I have niggling suspicion that it is because of a better master not the hi-rez format.
I think the death of hi-rez formats is due to fact that most recordings is crap (relatively speaking) and wont merit from it.

Btw there are some spectacular remasters done in 5.1 from original source mtrl (and many bad ones), correct use of surround channels and center actually makes sense.

**pfarrell** · 2008-08-15, 05:13

Does anyone buy MP3s from Amazon?

Goodsounds wrote:
> The record industry squashed the DAT format for consumers sometime ago,
> maybe it was 15 years or so, out of fear that that would put "master"
> quality sound out on the street. But the recording industry was just
> fine with CDs, because it is far from master quality.

This is rubbish. DATs were 48khz x 16, RedBook is 44.1kHz x 16.
There is nothing more than theoretical differences.

DAT was killed because it was recordable. The idiot labels thought that
recording/sharing was going to kill their industry. CDs are very early
1980 technology, they were designed to replace the hated cassette tape,
which was crap audio quality, but recordable. The CD was better audio
quality, as convenient, and not recordable. At least not until 1995/96

On the olden days, CDs had DRM, you had to own a mega dollar pressing
plant to make them.

RedBook recordings can sound very good. But only if the artists,
producter, label, etc want it that way. Most folks don't care, and so we
have loudness wars.

SACD and DVD-A were pushed by the labels as "better" but mostly because
consumers could not make copies. In pratice, lots of SACD and DVD-A were
the same signal as on the RedBook.

I expect that one could technically make their own SACD in theory, but
there was never a demand for it. DVD-A died before DVD burners became
mass market.

--
Pat Farrell

Pat Farrell's Website of wonder and information

http://www.pfarrell.com/

**seanadams** · 2008-08-15, 05:22

Originally posted by Goodsounds

The record industry squashed the DAT format for consumers sometime ago, maybe it was 15 years or so, out of fear that that would put "master" quality sound out on the street.

DAT is the same 16-bit PCM data as a CD, just sampled at 48 instead of 44.1 KHz. And DAT can run at 44.1 too. Back in the day I bought used, degaussed server backup tapes for $0.25 ea and used them to *ahem* back up my CD collection.

But the recording industry was just fine with CDs, because it is far from master quality.

No, they got behind CDs because consumers loved the random access capability and the ooh shiny factor, and because they are dirt cheap to make. They also (if handled properly) last indefinitely - and if not, well, they sell more replacement CDs. DATs take more physical abuse, but degrade after many playbacks.

The low sampling rate, which is the problem, was chosen to allow enough capacity for hour long albums, +/-, on the form factor chosen.

You are talking about the difference between a frequency response of 0-22.05 KHz vs 0-24 KHz, and a difference in minutes-per-megabyte of only -9%.

**Goodsounds** · 2008-08-15, 05:58

Sean,

Thanks for weighing in. You're the expert here, I will always welcome the opportunity to hear your views. And I will do so quietly.

So, what is your take on the CD quality issue? I personally prefer vinyl to plastic based on my listening experiences, but do you think that to be unfounded? I'm an amateur like most in these parts, but have long heard the artists complain about the CD format. I had some involvement 10+ years ago with the Bay Area company that was trying to move forward with HDCD - Neil Young (who has long been one of the vocal anti-CD format types) was an investor in the company. One of his long awaiting project - the release of archival material- keeps getting delayed, most recently because it is now being remastered for DVD-A.

Any basis in reality to this?

**pfarrell** · 2008-08-15, 06:04

Does anyone buy MP3s from Amazon?

Goodsounds wrote:
> anti-CD format types) was an investor in the company. One of his long
> awaiting project - the release of archival material- keeps getting
> delayed, most recently because it is now being remastered for DVD-A.

DVD-A is dead. No company is preparing to release material in that
format. Some tiny amount of "classical" material is being made in SACD.

Any future archival releases that aim for quality will be BlueRay.

**Goodsounds** · 2008-08-15, 06:17

Right you are, his delays get delayed and his sidetracks get sidetracked. Young's BlueRay announcement was just before summer started, but of course the BlueRay matter was a subsequent development to his remastering project that has changed direction many times over the past many years. The hour is late.

Read any other part of my posting, have any other comments, or just looking for things to jump on? No matter to me either way.

Does anyone buy MP3s from Amazon?

Does anyone buy MP3s from Amazon?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment