DescentBB

Has anybody here purchased digital music from Amazon? I'd like to buy a couple of songs and download them to my computer and store them on several USB sticks to use for playback in some of my music devices. It also seems that Amazon ONLY wants to use their Amazon Music Importer to download any purchased music to my computer and there is no other method around this. Is this importer program a rootkit or some other spyware?

I'm interested in only one question. What kind of music you like. You get it for free and in any quantity from me.

Yea…that’s called stealing…

I have used Amazon to buy a few mp3s…it was a while ago, but there was no malware in the downloader, and the bitrate wasn’t bad either…for the most part.

Things change…so I would let some others post before doing anything, but as a general rule…I pretty much trust Amazon.

Spidey wrote:Yea…that’s called stealing…

I have used Amazon to buy a few mp3s…it was a while ago, but there was no malware in the downloader, and the bitrate wasn’t bad either…for the most part.

Things change…so I would let some others post before doing anything, but as a general rule…I pretty much trust Amazon.

It seems I do not quite understand the way of thinking in the West... Spidey, if you have Descent, and I do not have, you will try to sell it to me?

Spidey wrote:Yea…that’s called stealing…

I have used Amazon to buy a few mp3s…it was a while ago, but there was no malware in the downloader, and the bitrate wasn’t bad either…for the most part.

Things change…so I would let some others post before doing anything, but as a general rule…I pretty much trust Amazon.

Can you copy those MP3's to a usb stick though? My stereo and car both use USB or SD cards. Even burning to a CD would be nice.

sigma wrote:I'm interested in only one question. What kind of music you like. You get it for free and in any quantity from me.

I like some movie soundtracks and the older rock music from my youth, 1960's. I never deal with free music though. Too risky and besides, it's theft. I like to pay for what I listen to, people worked hard to create it, but I'd like to at least be able to use it in any way I choose, excepting resale for profit, without messy DRM issues. I was looking for a more recent music track. It's called, "Everybody Want to Rule the World" by Lorde. I heard it in the trailer for Assassin's Creed Unity and was spellbound by that rendition of the older song.

I have never had any issues copying these to any media, including other computers.

But like I said, its been some time since I have bought any mp3s from amazon, you should check their policy.

Amazon is trying to get you into their way of doing things, I guess. I've never used iTunes but imagine it's a bit like that.

Annoying, but you do still get the MP3s eventually.

I own my CD's and records. I can listen to them as often as I please, even sell them if I don't like the music. Digital music? Bah! One doesn't own a song for personal listening, one rents it, with electronic strings attached that can make it vanish in a heartbeat.

I use iTunes, TC, and I've always been happy with it. I can just copy the sound files to most of my devices outside of iTunes, and they play them. I haven't updated in a while for fear of losing the "convert to MP3" option, because I know they changed that format in the past, but you can always use a 3rd-party converter on the iTunes files. When I really like a song I will buy the CD and rip my own high quality MP3s. I know sometimes it's hard to find some songs, though. I had a hell of a time digging up the original "Everybody wants to rule the world" by Tears for Fears some years ago. I had no choice but to pirate it, though I exhausted every legal option I could find before doing so.

TC, I hope [url deleted] is what you need.
Please justify your decision. Can not I share with my friends what that content?

I wouldn’t click that link if you paid me.

....................

Tc…anytime you “buy” music, you are only buying the right to listen to that music…you do not “own” it.

It does not matter what medium you purchase your music on, the rights to that music do not change.

If you actually wanted to “buy” music, you would have to cough up a lot more than 99 cents per song.

I don’t see why the downloader is a issue either, many software companies make you use their downloaders…why should some company let you have access to their servers with some ftp or something.

I would simply ask Amazon if their mp3s have DRM…duh. If they don’t (and they didn’t when I bought them) buy some and enjoy.

Me thinks you are over thinking this.

As far as I am aware, the MP3 format does not support DRM. It originates in the early 1990s, when the idea of distributing music for sale over the internet most likely didn't exist. Many other subsequent formats, e.g. AAC and WMA, do support DRM, but if you have an MP3, you can play it anywhere without having to deal with the hassle. Which is why I keep almost all my digital music in that format, it just works and always will...

My experience with music purchases on Amazon has been pretty good. My only complaint is that for purchased .mp3s, they no longer have the direct-download option from the website; you have to install the app.

That said, the app is really minimal, particularly compared to the bloat and DRM of iTunes, and it's simple to download your files once you have it.

Spidey wrote:I wouldn’t click that link if you paid me.

....................

Tc…anytime you “buy” music, you are only buying the right to listen to that music…you do not “own” it.

It does not matter what medium you purchase your music on, the rights to that music do not change.

If you actually wanted to “buy” music, you would have to cough up a lot more than 99 cents per song.

I don’t see why the downloader is a issue either, many software companies make you use their downloaders…why should some company let you have access to their servers with some ftp or something.

I would simply ask Amazon if their mp3s have DRM…duh. If they don’t (and they didn’t when I bought them) buy some and enjoy.

Me thinks you are over thinking this.

Well, that may be, but in the olden days of vinyl and CD's, you "owned" the physical media. It made it a lot easier to copy to another newer medium when the technology changed. In fact, I still have a lot of vinyl records, some which are apparently worth more than I paid for them. As for the downloader, it sounds like it's harmless and I will use it to download my purchased songs. I just kept thinking back to Sony and their rootkit issues when I saw that Amazon had their own proprietary "app" for downloading songs. I don't like their MP3 bitrates either, but beggars can't be choosers. Thanks Spidey and Foil for your inputs.

sigma, thanks for the link, but I wouldn't click on it if you paid me. Nothing is really free in this world. There are always consequences.

sigma wrote:TC, I hope [url deleted] is what you need.
Please justify your decision. Can not I share with my friends what that content?

?

You never had the right to make a copy of vinyls while they were still where major sellers. That was only possible between limited classes of devices in 92, and more broadly after that sony CD rootkit fiasco.

fliptw wrote:You never had the right to make a copy of vinyls while they were still where major sellers. That was only possible between limited classes of devices in 92, and more broadly after that sony CD rootkit fiasco.

Glory to you, Lord, that I live in Russia, and I can listen to any music for free and in any format. From MP3 and lossless ending. I do not want to insult anyone, but in fact in the world there is so much good music that you do not even have time to listen to it for free. Now I understand why poor people in the West can not get education. All that happens to you there is a monstrous violation of human rights.

Russia actually has copyright law, but it's poorly enforced. The countries that don't enforce copyright law are typically the ones that don't produce much in terms of intellectual property themselves. If and when that ever changes with Russia, you'll find that they'll suddenly start caring about copyright infringement to protect their own bottom line.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to pay for music anyways. Maybe you have no money. But if you actually liked an artist, then you would be eager to pay them for their work.

fliptw wrote:You never had the right to make a copy of vinyls while they were still where major sellers. That was only possible between limited classes of devices in 92, and more broadly after that sony CD rootkit fiasco.

Maybe not, but I made copies of my favorite songs on a cassette tape mix just to play in my car stereo, back when my car had a cassette deck. Many of my favorite songs that I had on vinyl didn't appear on cassette when they came out with that format. I never sold any of my copies and they were for my personal use only. Besides, who can play vinyl records in a car?

Jeff250 wrote:Russia actually has copyright law, but it's poorly enforced. The countries that don't enforce copyright law are typically the ones that don't produce much in terms of intellectual property themselves. If and when that ever changes with Russia, you'll find that they'll suddenly start caring about copyright infringement to protect their own bottom line.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to pay for music anyways. Maybe you have no money. But if you actually liked an artist, then you would be eager to pay them for their work.

I do not understand how you can compare the copyright law and MP3 format. This is not a quality, it sucks.
This can only listen on the subway or on the street in your phone.
I do not mind to pay money for a quality product, but send me this thing in a beautiful package on physical media, not in electronic form.

The MP3 may not be a very good format for good listening, but it's either that or else buy the whole CD album just to get the one song I like and then rip it to a lossless format for my other digital devices, if that's even possible. Many CD's are now copy protected and you can't rip any of the music from them. However, that's kind of expensive for just 1 or 2 songs anyway. The MP3's I got from Amazon sound good enough for the time being and they were only a $1.29 each. The whole albums are around $10 each.

sigma wrote:I do not understand how you can compare the copyright law and MP3 format. This is not a quality, it sucks.
This can only listen on the subway or on the street in your phone.
I do not mind to pay money for a quality product, but send me this thing in a beautiful package on physical media, not in electronic form.

I didn't say anything about mp3's. Don't infringe the artists' copyright in any format. Buy their music in whatever format you want.

tunnelcat wrote:The MP3 may not be a very good format for good listening, but it's either that or else buy the whole CD album just to get the one song I like and then rip it to a lossless format for my other digital devices, if that's even possible. Many CD's are now copy protected and you can't rip any of the music from them. However, that's kind of expensive for just 1 or 2 songs anyway. The MP3's I got from Amazon sound good enough for the time being and they were only a $1.29 each. The whole albums are around $10 each.

Double blind tests show that even experts can't tell the difference when encoded at 256 kbps or higher, but I've noticed by now that everyone on the Internet is a special little snowflake who can tell the difference anyways.

I want to be a special little snowflake!

I used to use 256k, but I'm happy with 192k with my present audio devices. IMO some "audiophile" stuff is kind of like the search for great coffee. That said I believe in the ability of human senses to perceive things that most people may not observe for one reason or another, so I would lean toward the highest quality possible if I had a good set of speakers.

That is something I hadn't thought much about - while I'm already aware I would struggle to tell 192 apart from anything higher - sometimes even 128, to be honest, but there were counterexamples - I've typically ripped/bought stuff at 256 or 320 just because I figured I "might as well". Except... yeah, it makes it harder to fit on a phone, where the space actually is pretty limited.

I do sometimes have quibbles about audio quality still, but it might have more to do with the way things are recorded than anything else. Or my headphones. But I've heard plenty of detail when I've had them turned up too loud to be (what I consider) safe by accident... so I'm not really sure. Sometimes I feel like I'd like to "test-listen" some ultra-expensive headphones to figure out if they really do anything

It does not make sense without the high-quality sound. In addition, all the ultra-expensive headphones are very sensitive to the sound source. And, of course, different models are very expensive headphones are designed for a particular style of music. If you do not do music, perhaps the best choice - it is a models of headphones that artificially "embellish" sound.

sigma wrote:...In addition, all the ultra-expensive headphones are very sensitive to the sound source. And, of course, different models are very expensive headphones are designed for a particular style of music. If you do not do music, perhaps the best choice - it is a models of headphones that artificially "embellish" sound.

Definitely, you're totally right on that one Sigma, it's also very important to take in account the quality of headphones or speakers/studio monitors, and also the quality and response of the amp you use.

Indeed, there's some equipment where the difference between compressed and un-compressed formats is more or less clearly audible (it also depends on the song you're listening to).
There's no magic either, even with that equipment it may be a bit hard to tell the difference between a FLAC/WAV and a MP3 256kbps, but it can be at least a bit noticeable if you got trained ears.

However, if you find someone arguing that there's a clear and huge difference between 48khz 16-bit and 96khz 32-bit audio (doesn't matters if it's the best equipment), it's pretty sure he/she's lying!

Apparently Neil Young can. Even though much less aged ears have trouble picking up anything over 20 kHz or a 100 dB dynamic range (which from what I recall is easily captured in 16-bit). But science and double-blind A/B testing apparently aren't really important when you're trying to flog off more copies of music people already own.

On my PC I usually opt for FLAC audio because I have the storage capacity to handle it and not for any particular audio quality reason, but when I load something on to my MP3 player I encode it to ~160 kbps VBR MP3 for storage constraints and it still sounds fine to me. Although I can definitely tell the difference between the $20 earbuds and the $100 earbuds.

I once tried using an old smart phone as a MP3 player, but found the sound quality on it to be lacking compared to my much older Sandisk Sansa E280... Guess it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that a device built specifically to play music has a better amplifier and DACs than a smartphone which "can also" play music.

You might be able to tell the difference if you are under 20. If you are 60+ rock star, that's pure delusion.

this is a nice site to check most things audio: http://www.audiocheck.net/

the only reason 24bit/96khz downloads exists is pure laziness - that and its technically pre-master.

Jeff250 wrote:Double blind tests show that even experts can't tell the difference when encoded at 256 kbps or higher, but I've noticed by now that everyone on the Internet is a special little snowflake who can tell the difference anyways.

Yep. I can't tell the difference. I do use the LAME encoder in foobar to burn MP3's from my CD collection for my car listening pleasure. Sounds fine by me in either WAV or MP3, but I do have these old, abused ears now.

There was one time I used a really bad encoder that came with an older Sony Vegas program that I used to have on my old XP machine. I really COULD tell the difference that time is was so bad. Gah!

Well, some people believe that Sennheiser it good headphones It is important to understand for what purpose you need headphones. When working with audio editing and compilation - this one, if you just listen to the music - it is quite another. For example, Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro or Fostex T50RP it is for creativity, while Audio-Technica ATH-M50 it is for just listening to music. In general, I often use the KOSS UR-40 as the universal model with a gorgeous sound.