Review of Amazon's DRM-Less Music Download Store

fdmendez writes to tell us that he had a chance to check out Amazon's DRM-less music download store that was recently released as a beta trial. "Amazon one-ups the iTunes store in every way except for popularity. Never once did I find an album to be more expensive on the Amazon store in comparison to the iTunes store. The download experience was pleasant, and the lack of DRM truly makes it YOUR music. I don't know of any other download service that could top the Amazon MP3 store."

Obligitory

[El_Smack]

"I don't know of any other download service that could top the Amazon MP3 store."

Bittorrent?

Re:Obligitory

[p0tat03]

You mean the service where everybody leeches, resulting in complete lack of bandwidth available to downloaders unless you're in an exclusive, ratio-metered club?

Or the one that really only works for popular albums, as anything old or otherwise unpopular and non-mainstream will have no seeders?

Even accounting for the $0 price tag, Bittorrent has a LONG way to go to rival ANY paid music store.

Re:Obligitory

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the 95% complete torrents are seeded by the MAFIAA or their minions like MediaDefender.

Re:Obligitory

[ScrewMaster]

Torrents generally aren't the place to go for music ... torrents are good for larger stuff. Try a good Gnutella client instead (personally I use Phex but there are many.) I think you'll have better luck.

Re:

[Ucklak]

That's the problem with 98.6% of a file, you can only share that much of it.

Re:Obligitory

[NamShubCMX]

Actually, every time someone buys a 99 cents track from iTunes from my band, we get 63 cents. I guess amazon service is about the same.

Maybe MAJOR artists dont get paid but cdbaby's (cdbaby.com) sure do :)

Re:Obligitory

[Reason58]

Why was the parent modded funny? If anything is should be modded sad but true. Pirated music is typically of better quality (bitrate, encoder, etc) than any "legal" music store on earth.

You can't be serious.

[Leviathant]

That's funny! At one time I thought the same thing. Anecdote: I was going through the tedious task of ripping my CDs, and after going through my collection of Nine Inch Nails and Autechre discs, I got the bright idea that instead of ripping my Aphex Twin collection, I'd just download a torrent. Same end result, right? I figured Aphex Twin fans would be fairly careful about audio fidelity, so I grabbed a torrent of some giganto Aphex Twin collection.

The end result was all over the map. Sure, there were a number of albums that were alright, some of them were terrible, with skips and low bitrates and mistitled songs, not to mention whole albums of "rare and unreleased" mislabeled garbage that wasn't even by Aphex Twin. I would have better spent my time continuing to rip them myself.

Alternatively, if I didn't already own the CDs, I would have happily bought large chunks of the Aphex Twin catalog from Bleep.com, which has been doing the DRM-free $1 MP3 download thing for over three years now.

Re:Obligitory

[Glonoinha]

None of my theoretical pirated .MP3s gave me a motherfucking root-kit.
I say theoretical, of course, because I don't pirate music. But if I did, they wouldn't.

Plenty of Sony 'compact discs bought at retail' are guaranteed to give you a root-kit.
And that technology was in use two years ago - I can only imagine what they are putting on retail CDs now.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

Garauteed to give you a rootkit if your dumb enough to leave autorun turned on. Although I really shouldn't blame the people who don't know enough to turn this mis-feature off. Whoever thought it was a good idea to have programs execute before you even have the chance to look at what's on the disk should be shot.

Re:Obligitory

[ymgve]

Plenty of Sony 'compact discs bought at retail' are guaranteed to give you a root-kit.
And that technology was in use two years ago - I can only imagine what they are putting on retail CDs now.

It's even worse now. They've started putting Britney Spears on them again.

I do...

[pla]

I don't know of any other download service that could top the Amazon MP3 store.

AllOfMP3.

Re:I do...

[feed_me_cereal]

what's the point of paying for mp3's you wont legally own? You might as well just pirate them for free.

Re:

[JackMeyhoff]

But we do have a right to use them, via our BLANK MEDIA TAX :)

Re:I do...

[Goldberg's Pants]

Not only that, I find it endlessly amusing people see buying a digital replica of a song a good deal, especially when you work out the prices. I worked it out yesterday. The album I was looking at was a mere dollar cheaper in MP3 format. So that extra dollar gets you a physical disk you can make your own MP3's from, or if you want lossless, quality sound, FLAC format, (not an option when all you have is an MP3) all the packaging etc...

It's like settling for a JPG of the Mona Lisa.

Re:

[fyrie]

I agree. If I want the whole disc, buying mp3s isn't too appealing. However, if I want to make that perfect Yacht Rock mix CD, I'd rather buy 15 mp3s all from different albums rather than 15 albums. For single songs, digital downloads are the shiz.

Re:I do...

[ConanG]

What if you only want a single song from that album? If you buy the disk, it's NOT cheaper than buying the one song.

It's not like settling for a jpg of the Mona Lisa. It's like buying just the Mona Lisa jpg instead of a collection of artwork that includes the Mona Lisa. Maybe the rest of that artwork is crap.

Back to the album...maybe you don't want to go through the trouble of converting it yourself. Maybe you don't want to mess with CDs at all. There are plenty of reasons why it's a better choice to buy a single off an album rather than the entire album.

Albums vs singles

[jmorris42]

> ...they're intended to be heard in the context of other songs.

Not always. Sometimes an album is an integrated 'experience' that doesn't work as singles at all, sometimes the singles can stand alone but make more sense listened to on the album and some 'albums' are just some random unrelated songs sold as a bundle. It really just depends on the artist. Please avoid making sweeping generalizations.

All recording artists are not Pink Floyd. And even though I like a lot of Pink Floyd I still think it is

Re:I do...

[Allador]

Thats garbage. Some artists may, in some cases, intend for all the songs of an album to be part of some 'integrated holistic artistic experience'.

But that has nothing to do with what I enjoy. They dont get to tell me how I have to enjoy their music.

And I cant think of a single album, ever, where I've ever wanted to listen to it all, end-to-end, or even give a rat's hairy butt about listening to them in context with each other.

In every cases, I'd prefer to listen to 1, maybe 2 (in exceptional cases) songs from an artist, then I want something different. Listening to the same singer/artist over and over again just bores me.

.. if you can only find one or two songs off an album that you like, then maybe you need to find some artists that make music better suited to your tastes.

See thats the thing. You dont get to tell me how I have to enjoy music. I can enjoy it in whatever dynamic or process I like. I like what I like, and thats all that matters. It's not like listening to music has some net societal effect that matters, its just something that makes you feel good when listening to it.

Re:

[sgtrock]

It's not like listening to music has some net societal effect that matters, its just something that makes you feel good when listening to it.

You really don't see the contradiction in that sentence?

Time = Money

[msimm]

While I agree (mostly), those lines of thinking side-step things like convenience (I download it when I like, from the comfort of my home, probably while doing other things) and format (I use mp3's exclusively, so buying 'hard' media simply adds an additional step between me and the music).

So while I agree that you end up paying more for less (no album cover, no liner notes, no physical media) it comes close to being a wash (not quite) with the immediacy and the convenience.

Re:I do...

[Dixie_Flatline]

NO. STOP IT.

It's legal to download music because it's legal, not because of the blank media levy. Whether or not the industry is bilking you of that money, you have that right. It's not illegal. The media levy doesn't make it any more or less legal, though it may assuage some of the guilt people feel.

If you put a levy on bullets to ease the pain and suffering of families that are broken apart by gun violence, it doesn't make shooting people legal. It's an illegal activity no matter what.

The levy is a smoke screen so that we don't notice if they try and legislate our IP rights away. It's a random and immoral money grab. It presupposes guilt when you buy media for any purpose, even if the media has non-infringing purposes. We should all hate the levy.

Re:I do...

[Lussarn]

what's the point of paying for mp3's you wont legally own?

What's the point of legally owning an mp3?

I tried it out yesterday

[SiChemist]

I tried the store out yesterday (bought 1 track) and was very impressed. No special software needed (making it Linux friendly). This might just get me back into buying music again instead of listening to all my old stuff.

I tried it out today

[crovira]

And it works well.

I purchased "Several Species Of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together In A Cave And Grooving With A Pict (1994 Digital Remaster)" off of the "Ummagumma" by "Pink Floyd"and got it to update iTunes (and my iPod) without a hitch.

It works and the selection seems to be pretty good.

Re:

[cliffiecee]

I haven't tried it, but I searched for some songs I recently bought with iTunes. Everything I bought was also at Amazon; One album was cheaper by a dollar, some songs were 0.89 rather than 0.99. I wish I'd heard about this earlier!

Re:I tried it out yesterday

[larry bagina]

I wish I'd heard about this earlier!

It's only been available since yesterday.

Re:I tried it out yesterday

[QuantumRiff]

Per their FAQ:
If you use Linux, you can currently buy individual songs. A Linux version of the Amazon MP3 Downloader is under development, and when released will allow entire album purchases.

That is really nice to see!

Re:I tried it out yesterday

[Mr. Sketch]

A Linux version of the Amazon MP3 Downloader is under development, and when released will allow entire album purchases.

Why do they need a special downloader for albums? Are they struggling to master the concept of a .zip file?

Re:I tried it out yesterday

[vux984]

They are struggling to handle users that can't master the concept of a .zip file.

BZZZZT

[robogun]

Just tried it. XP & VISTA or MAC OSX ONLY for Albums!!!

-------------------
You have selected to purchase:
        GREATEST HITS by Elton John
(Amazon MP3 Purchases are limited to U.S. customers.)

You must install the Amazon MP3 Downloader to purchase albums. (learn more)

        * It automatically adds your music downloads to iTunes or Windows Media Player
        * It takes just a few clicks and less than 30 seconds to install

DOWNLOAD NOW -- WINDOWS XP & VISTA

I agree to the terms of use | Download Mac OS X version

Re:BZZZZT

[CrazyTalk]

So what you are saying is...they support 99.9% of desktop operating systms. Sounds reasonable to me!

Re:BZZZZT

[mycroft822]

Dude, they were doing you a favor by not letting you buy it. Elton John? Seriously?

Album vs. single tracks

[Kelson]

It seems to me that if the only issue is whether tracks are licensed for individual sale or not, they could probably solve that by offering the album as, say, a ZIP archive containing the album tracks. If a track is only available on an album, and not individually, then you only put it in the ZIP.

Heck, for all we know, maybe an .amz file [amazon.com] is just a zip archive, just with a different extension so that it'll open with the Amazon Downloader and automatically extract itself.

Competition is good.

[mattgreen]

I hope this service takes off, as competition between iTunes and other services only means less DRM, higher quality songs, and better selection for all of us. Amazon just needs to land some deals with record labels...

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

I've been surprised at how much they already have. Things I've struggled to find elsewhere. And when I did find it, I'd have to order the whole cd. There is a lot more that they can get, but the selection now is not what I would call sparse.

Re:Competition is good.

[e2d2]

Seems the current selection is pretty good. I did a check for my favorite artist, Bob Marley, and where some places only stock a few albums of his they have 66 albums. That means tons of live albums and other fairly obscure stuff. Bob is a pretty popular artist, but I dare anyone to walk into a Sam Goodies or HMV and find a copy of Boston '76 (live).

But I fully agree, I really hope the record industry takes note and realizes that people actually will pay to download DRM-free music, it's profitable. That's what's gonna matter to these guys. When they realize they can sell the same album with NO media costs they'll jump (like they are selling ringtones!).

 

Missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the lack of DRM truly makes it YOUR music"... and YOURS, and YOURS, and HIS, and HER, and THEIR.

Re:MP3 piracy irrelevant

[larry bagina]

Some of their MP3s are in fact watermarked [wired.com], but by the label, not amazon (at least not yet).

too little too late

[soupdevil]

I've been getting my music either free or DRM-free or both from Emusic, Jamendo and Magnatune. I don't see any reason to start paying for mainstream music again.

It's too good

[Necreia]

It had the music I wanted -- Didn't require a special download -- Is DRM free -- Is properly priced. When will MAFIAA shut it down?

I Can Think Of A Better One

[Jane Q. Public]

That would be any site that sold the actual .cda track, rather than an MP3. Without DRM, of course.

Re:I Can Think Of A Better One

[Constantine XVI]

Amazon does sell .cdas of music. It's DRM-free too. Thing is, it takes forever to download, but you get a free frisbee and storage case for the trouble.

Cool

[Jane Q. Public]

Thanks. I did not know that.

Re:

[Kelson]

Thing is, it takes forever to download, but you get a free frisbee and storage case for the trouble.

As they say, never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck driving down the highway, full of recorded media.

Magnatune has lossless downloads

[cutecub]

The indy music store/label Magnatune [magnatune.com] has both lossy and lossless music downloads. They're a good example of what's possible:

There are 5 major formats availabe to buyers:

• 44k/16bit WAV: zip file of perfect quality WAV files.
• FLAC: zip file of perfect quality FLAC files.
• OGG: zip file of high quality OGG files.
• 128kb MP3: zip file of 128kb MP3 files.
• MP3 VBR: zip of high quality MP3 VBR files.

-S

Classical selection...

[Pausanias]

is amazing! Prokofiev symphony #2 revealed 156 hits! Now that is some obscure music (his least popular symphony), and the fact that they would have multiple recordings of it right there for 90c... wow.

Re:

[feed_me_cereal]

unfortunately I haven't had as good of luck as you yet. Both songs that I've been wanting lately didn't show up at amazon. I hope they have a larger collection at their official launch.

Re:Classical selection...

[Petrushka]

is amazing! Prokofiev symphony #2 revealed 156 hits! Now that is some obscure music (his least popular symphony), and the fact that they would have multiple recordings of it right there for 90c... wow.

Just for some balance,

1. only a few of those hits are actually for Prokofiev's 2nd symphony;
2. only three separate recordings are available;
3. with one of them (the Ukraine National Symphony Orchestra recording), you're going to be paying that 90c for each and every variation in the second movement, for a total of $7.20 for that one movement. With the other two recordings (LSO and Berliner Phil.), you have to buy all the symphonies just to get number two, as number two is marked as "album only".

I mean, it seems to me like they're on the right track, but someone hasn't put too much thought into the fact that classical music tends to have a lot of very short and very long tracks. Evidence of this -- compare the prices for the complete set of Prokofiev symphonies in those three recordings:

• Naxos (Ukrainian/Polish orchestras) -- $65.02
• LSO/Gergiev -- $36.12
• Berliner Philharmoniker/Dzawa -- $21.67

Who's going to pay more than three times as much for a Naxos set as for the Berliner Philharmoniker???

Re:

[Petrushka]

I doubt they'll ever get around to normalising the pricing, actually. Amazon has never had reliable information about classical recordings -- sometimes their metadata lists title-plus-composer, sometimes title-plus-performer, sometimes just title, and to find out e.g. who the conductor is you have to look at the scanned images of the CD booklet (as with the Prokofiev symphonies, for example) -- but those don't always give full information either. Amazon's always had similar problems with translated books (t

I just downloaded a tune...

[Anonymous Coward]

and found your credit card number in it.

US Only

[Tack]

For now it's US only. I emailed Amazon and asked this will be available to other countries and got the expected "we apologize for the inconvenience" non-answer from them.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

A great improvement.. but

[illectro]

I'm still anchored in my love for tactile product, I'll stick to cd's for now.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Pricing oops?

[BRSQUIRRL]

Granted, there probably aren't a lot of them, but it looks like an album with one very long track [amazon.com] only costs the price of one track.

Wait wait wait...I'm confused

[db32]

Are we still supposed to loathe Amazon for their patent nonsense with crap like the 1-click issue? I mean...I thought we weren't supposed to buy from them and support evil patent trolls. But now, we are supposed to buy from them to show support for non DRM music stores. But we aren't supposed to buy from Apple anyways because of their iPhone shenanagins. But we are supposed to love Apple because its trendy. I am so confused. Will someone please deconflict the groupthink so I know if I'm allowed to buy non-DRM (good) music from Amazon (bad) instead of DRM music (bad) from Apple (both) or if I am supposed to loathe all of the RIAA music and not buy DRM or non-DRM music from any source if it is RIAA owned. What about indie music with DRM? Where does that fit in? God, someone please help... All I know for sure is the MS music store is 100% evil and the Zune will eat your soul.

emusic is also drm free

[slashmojo]

Amazon are not the only game in town (although a welcome addition).. personally I quite like emusic which provides plenty of drm free mp3's for a small subscription fee..

http://www.emusic.com/ [emusic.com]

You can of course keep your downloaded mp3's after your subscription ends and while you remain a member you can re-download everything you previously downloaded as many times as you want.

You wont get the latest top of the tops crap but you will find lots of really great music in many genres such as jazz, reggae, folk,

I just bought one... Danger!

[Aladrin]

I just bought a track... It took my credit info that was stored (my fault, I suppose) and charged it without asking even once. (I have never turned on that 1-click crap.) I (wrongly) assumed it'd go in my cart and then I could purchase it. Luckily, I intended to follow through the whole process.

The download was quick, and I'm playing it on Amarok right now, no problems.

There's been a few songs lately I thought 'I'd buy that, if it were easy and reasonable.' Hm, guess it is, now. I'll probably pick up

UK Works

[fozzmeister]

OK it works for the UK too, unlike Apple...

Because the "cost of doing business in the UK is higher" songs from Apple are _twice_ as expensive than in the US.

All I have to do to use Amazon is get a Zip code that fits in a selected state and bob's your uncle! Half price music!

"Love it!" and How to increase sales

[jgoemat]

This is what I've been waiting for, I bought over 160 songs last night... The experience is great, one click will buy and import into iTunes just like apple. The 30 second previews load in just a couple of seconds. The music for the most part is cheaper than Apple. I got a couple of double-CD sets for under $10. I think this is one reason Universal is snubbing Apple, they wanted some control over song pricing and Apple only allows the flat 99 cent rate ($1.29 for the non-DRM songs). Some songs are more expensive on Amazon, I think I saw a few that were $1.99, but most are only 89 cents.

I love previewing the songs, what would be perfect is if Amazon had radio stations to play the song previews. I could sit all day and just listen to the previews to find new music. I spent four hours yesterday looking for music. If it was just playing in the background all day I could open my browser and buy a song when I heard one I liked...

Re:

[u-bend]

I downloaded a few tracks last night (on a Mac), and the little downloader application thingy automatically opened iTunes and imported the tracks. Pretty nice. So, yes, iPod sync through iTunes, but, no, not by itself.

Re:iPod sync?

[stoolpigeon]

don't worry - you don't appear as an Apple fanboy.
 
You appear as an idiot. If the distinction is meaningful is up to you.

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

my karma will get beat up over it - but that's life here on the dot. i wonder if every single piece of music on his ipod got there through something that 'synced' to it. apparently he can't listen to any music on the device if it doesn't have that ability built into it. if you just dropped a boat load of mp3s on his machine, into some directory, he'd never listen to them since you didn't sync them to his ipod.

Re:

[Radon360]

But, at that bit rate, can you honestly say you can tell the difference with your own ears?

Re:

[CodeBuster]

The mass market "music" (if one can call it that) which is being produced by the record labels these days is so unoriginal, bad, and generally lacking in talent that it really doesn't matter how high quality the recording of crap is, crap is crap at any bitrate, one cannot polish a turd after all.

Re:"in every way"

[stoolpigeon]

how about "in every significant way" because I guarantee you most of us could care less about the AAC - MP3 thing.

Re:"in every way"

[Frogbert]

Couldn't care less! [incompetech.com]

AAC "quality" irrelevant ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Amazon trumps iTunes on DRM-free volume, but iTunes trumps Amazon by selling 256kbps AAC, as opposed to the 256kbps MP3 that Amazon sells.

Isn't that 256kb AAC the optional higher priced version?

More importantly the improved "quality" of 256 kb AAC over 256kb MP3 is largely hypothetical, few if any could tell the difference. However even if we accept marginal quality and size improvements these are overwhelmingly outweighed by the universal nature of MP3 files. Every digital player supports MP3. Portables, cars, home stereos, etc. There is no vendor lock.

Re:

[metamatic]

There's no "vendor lock" for AAC either, just lots of crap vendors who haven't added support for it yet.

Re:

[AHumbleOpinion]

There's no "vendor lock" for AAC either, just lots of crap vendors who haven't added support for it yet.

We are comparing Amazon's MP3 downloads to Apple's AAC downloads, Apple's AAC's have DRM. The fact that you can rip your CD to AAC is largely irrelevant. Most folks I know reconfigure iTunes to rip as MP3 rather than the default AAC, exceptions are die hard long term Mac owners.

In addition to the preceding, "vendor lock" does not require a technological enforcement. Simple market forces where only

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, of course, that Apple's 256kb AACs -- which is what folks are discussing -- don't have DRM, and are playable without modification on a wide variety of non-Apple players.

Re:

[JonathanBoyd]

We are comparing Amazon's MP3 downloads to Apple's AAC downloads, Apple's AAC's have DRM.

Not the 256 kbps ones he's talking about; they're DRM-free

Re:

[bsane]

We are comparing Amazon's MP3 downloads to Apple's AAC downloads, Apple's AAC's have DRM.

I'm pretty sure he was comparing the iTunes+ tracks, which are 256k AAC with _no_ DRM to Amamzon's 256k MP3s.

Of course you have to keep in mind that the iTunes+ tracks cost more ($1.29?)...

Re:

[kherr]

Apple's AAC's have DRM

Except when they don't. The higher-bitrate iTunes Plus songs are DRM-free AAC.

As for quality, I did my own listening tests between 192Kbps MP3 and 128Kbps AAC when Apple first added support for AAC, and I could clearly hear a difference (using iTunes encoding, maybe it was their ripper). To my ears AAC sounds much better than MP3. Others' ears may hear differently. If nothing else I get comparable audio quality. Don't fear the AAC.

Re:AAC "quality" irrelevant ...

[MojoStan]

As for quality, I did my own listening tests between 192Kbps MP3 and 128Kbps AAC when Apple first added support for AAC, and I could clearly hear a difference (using iTunes encoding, maybe it was their ripper). To my ears AAC sounds much better than MP3.

If you used the default MP3 encoder in iTunes, then you probably used the worst MP3 encoder available (I'm pretty sure it was Fraunhofer back then). On the other hand, the AAC encoder in iTunes is one of the best. So if you used iTunes to encode both MP3s and AACs, then it wasn't a fair test.

As many others have noted, Amazon uses LAME, which is the best MP3 encoder. At equal bitrates, LAME MP3 should be roughly equal in quality to iTunes AAC. At 192kbps MP3 vs 128kbps AAC, LAME should be clearly better. At 256kbps, there should be no difference to all but those with canine hearing and zillion-dollar stereo systems.

Roberto Amorim [rjamorim.com] and Sebastian [listening-tests.info] (who appears to be continuing Amorim's work) have done some interesting "public double-blind listening tests."

• Sebastian's Public, Multiformat Listening Test @ 128 kbps (December 2005) [listening-tests.info] shows LAME 3.97 Beta 2 being roughly equal to iTunes AAC 6.0.1.3.
• Amorim's MP3 at 128kbps test (February 2004) [rjamorim.com] shows iTunes 4.2 MP3 performing much worse than LAME 3.95.
• Amorim's AAC at 128kbps test v2 (February 2004) [rjamorim.com] shows iTunes AAC performing much better than other AAC encoders at the time. At least we know that the vast majority of home-created AAC files (created with iTunes) are pretty good quality.

Re:

[sxltrex]

No, they were comparing 256kb AAC to 256kb MP3 in which case the Apple AAC is DRM free.

Re:AAC "quality" irrelevant ...

[pthisis]

More importantly the improved "quality" of 256 kb AAC over 256kb MP3 is largely hypothetical, few if any could tell the difference.

There are sites out there offering decent rewards (in the thousands of US$) to anyone able to tell the difference between 256kb MP3 and uncompressed audio in double-blind A/B tests (of course there are specifications on which version of LAME and options are used for the encoding). I just googled around and couldn't find the links, sadly; I'll see if I can dig it up later.

On a somewhat related note, the most recent edition of the Audio Engineering Society's journal [aes.org] includes the interesting study"Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback", E. BRAD MEYER AND DAVID R. MORAN, J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007. It pretty conclusively demonstrated that 16/44 (normal CD quality) and 24/96 (Super Audio CD/HDCD quality) raw audio are also essentially indistinguishable (using a long-term double-blind testing with hundreds of trials including college students, subscribers and editors of a well-known audiophile magazine, and professional mastering engineers). It notably included long-duration testing as well--not just the typical "listen for a few minutes to A, then a few minutes of B and try to distinguish". It was possible for some listeners to pick up differences under extreme conditions (scaling up the audio and jacking up the decibel levels), but not under normal "listening to it played normally on high-end audio equipment" conditions.

That's not to say that your SACD collection is worthless, but it's the care that goes into mastering products aimed at an audiophile market rather than the extra bits that might make it sound better (meaning that it's unlikely to be any better than that well-done Mobile Fidelity or whoever "audiophile" mastering of a standard CD, unless better mastering sources are found or something like that).

Re:

[GarfBond]

There's no vendor lock with AAC either. It's an open industry standard, where open does not mean 'free' in this instance. The Microsoft Zune supports AAC too, among others.

Re:

[Improv]

I'm sure it's probably different for Mac users, but I've generally considered AAC-encoded files to be irritating to work with. When I get them, I generally convert them to Ogg Vorbis..

Re:"in every way"

[croddy]

They're not 256kbps CBR mp3s. They look like -V0 or -V1 files, based on the bitrate, but are definitely joint-stereo VBR files encoded using LAME 3.97. Run it through strings to see for yourself. There are a lot more devices that support MP3 than AAC (don't just think about pocket jukeboxes here -- think of stuff that plays MP3 CDs and DVDs). 89 cents for a high-bitrate LAME VBR MP3 is without doubt a better choice than an AAC at a slightly lower bitrate for $1.39.

Re:"in every way"

[croddy]

(the two files I've inspected myself, by the way, averaged 279 kbps and 280kbps.)

Re:

[FishWithAHammer]

Now this, children, is what we call "elitist fuckery."

I'd bet ANYTHING that you cannot differentiate between 256kbps MP3 and FLAC.

Rather than mod you as a troll...

[Overzeetop]

...I'll respond.

I can't tell the difference between a 256kb MP3 and a FLAC. I've done the ABX, and my threshold on good equipment is somewhere in the 224 range, give or take a bit depending on the program. That said, I can usually tell the difference between a 256mp3->128kbmp4 and a FLAC->128kbmp4. Bad experience with past formats made me re-rip my entire collection to FLAC. Those are my "masters" and I recode to the format-of-the-hour (on the fly to my portable with media monkey) for use on the road.

I like the Amazon store, and I'm pretty likely to use it. I'd be happier if they offered FLAC. Hell, any uncompressed would be okay, since I'd just transcode to FLAC, but getting it native would be nice.

Re:MP3 sounds bad to my ears

[afay]

The question is not whether you can distinguish one from the other. Anyone can do that. The question is, if you're not told beforehand (blind), can you pick out the higher quality recording more than 50% of the time. And the answer is you can't.

Re:MP3 sounds bad to my ears

[pthisis]

It's not "elitist fuckery", it's a combination of good equipment, an original source recording of high quality, and perhaps better-than-average hearing.

Every actual study I've seen shows that except on certain "hard" classes of recordings it's wishful thinking or other psychology--with 99% of normal music (be it well-recorded classical, a capella voice, rock, whatever) the 256kbps VBR LAME settings Amazon uses haven't been distinguishable to anyone in any scientific study I'm aware of.

I've had this argument many times, and there are some recordings that reveal obvious flaws in even 320 kbps CBR mp3 to my ears with my headphones and amplifier

If you can do it regularly, then you should pretty easily be able to make thousands of dollars for a few hour's work by claiming any of the numerous prizes offered for people who can succesfully distinguish 256kbps VBR MP3 of a wide array of popular music from uncompressed originals in a double-blind A/B test.

Now, if you're just talking a handful of special-case horrible-for-mp3 recordings (like, say, the well-known Eig [hydrogenaudio.org] "LAME killer" sample) then that's another story; some people can certainly pick that one out at 320 kbps VBR.

You can easily start off using a free ABX program like PC ABX [pcabx.com] (Windows) or LinABX [beryllium.net], or a more expensive hardware solution. Just see if you can actually ABX them at home and if so, you should be good to go claim some cash.

It's pretty fun to see what you can actually distinguish, too. I have a nice setup with a good pair of Grados; out of my library of 4000+ songs there are maybe 3-4 I've found so far that I can pick out a 192kbps Ogg from FLAC. Before doing such testing, I was "sure" I could pick out the difference between the original and the 320kbps encodings I usually make. Most people who come over to my place can't distinguish 96 kbps from uncompressed except on a handful of nasty test samples, but if you actually learn what the common artifacts are it gets a bit easier for some people.

Re:

[Necreia]

You only download their software if you download a whole CD. Single tracks require no software download.

Re:Not exactly DRM free

[jumpingfred]

You do not have to install the software to buy one track at a time. You do to get the album discount though.

Do you have a site for the watermarking?

Re:

[ubernostrum]

Do you have a site for the watermarking?

Pop open a track you bought, look at the ID3 tags. There's an Amazon download id in there.

Yes, you can remove it easily. Yes, this is how iTunes "watermarks" their DRM-free tracks (plaintext metadata). No, it's nothing to get worked up about.

Re:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Pop open a track you bought, look at the ID3 tags. There's an Amazon download id in there.

That's not a watermark [wikipedia.org] you numpty - that's clearly visible identifying information.

Re:

[jpetts]

It *IS* watermarked, but only to tag it as having been downloaded from Amazon. There is no personally identifiable information encoded in the file. Do an MD5 on separately downloaded versions of the same track, and they are identical.

Re:

[BRSQUIRRL]

and you have to install their software

Um, I just bought a track and didn't install one byte of software.

Re:

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>They are watermarked, and you have to install their software.

Watermarking is not DRM. Watermarking does not restrict what you can do with the music in any way.
You are still free to share it all over the place, just now, in theory they can trace it back to you.

You only have to use their software for "whole albums", which is still weird, but still doesn's constitute DRM.
Once you have the album, you can do what you want with it without their software.

Not watermarked, it seems

[wdconinc]

Are you sure about the watermarking?
I bought the same song twice, with a different account, different credit card, different IP address. The files are identical!

# diff -s 1\ -\ Indigo.mp3 1\ -\ Indigo\ \(alternate\).mp3
Files 1 - Indigo.mp3 and 1 - Indigo (alternate).mp3 are identical

Record label needs to recoup investment*s*

[AHumbleOpinion]

$8-$9 is too much for an album. It's like they took the distribution costs of a CD, (which could be estimated at $5-$8,) chopped them off, and are still expecting to make the same profit. Why can't they charge much less and make up the profits on volume?

Well the main reason is the consumer's willingness to pay. But record labels also need to recoup their investments and one "successful" artist has to pay for many "unsucceful" artists.

Artists need a label if they desire a certain level of commercial success. It takes a lot of money to promote an artist and bring them to the attention of the mass national or world market. Artists can not afford to do this on the money they making playing in small venues, among their core audience. If they manage to feed themselves they are doing above average, if they can support a family they are so rare they are nearly an anomoly.

The label system persists because there will always be some artists who want large scale success. Of course these successful artists gripe when they think about the small percentage they receive themselves but the truth is they are getting a small percentage of a much larger pie. If you are only getting 5 cents on the dollar, but you are generating several hundred times (or more) the revenue then they are far ahead.. To be faiir to the labels they need a disproportionately large cut from one artist to pay for the dozens of other artists they had *speculatively* financed they did not attain large scale commercial success. Please understand that I am not saying the current label/artist split is correct, I have no way to calculate what the split should be. I am merely arguing that the label system is quite logical and it is economically justifiable for the labels to receive a large percentage due to the speculative nature of their investments.

Artists have almost always needed patrons throughout history. Centuries ago it was the church, royalty, or the wealthy. Today the record label fulfills that role.

Re:

[Penguinisto]

$8-$9 is too much for an album.

...compared to $13-15+ at the mall, yes? (yes, I know you get physical media w/ a purchase in meatspace, but CD + jewel case + inserts can't be worth $4, let alone $7).

On a serious note though - some albums are damned well worth $20 and up, depending on what the songs are, who sang them, etc. The rest of them are either not worth the electrons burned to send it to you, or somewhere in-between. Value, like Beauty and Pornography, are strictly measured in the eyes of the beholder.

Why can't they charge much less and make up the profits on volume?

Hell, I'm just happy

Say what?

[Overzeetop]

You're going to purchase the pre-ripped and tagged version of the album, they're throwing out the "distribution costs" that aren't applicable, and you're mad they're not giving you a better deal?

This is what most people have been asking for: DRM-free, downloadable tunes that are priced without the distribution overhead.

I suspect you won't be happy until it's free. I hope you enjoy leeching the new Britney Spears album off of Bittorrent.

Re:Say what?

[frdmfghtr]

The music industry is willing to allow an all-you-can-eat subscription model for (based on memory) anywhere from $8-$15 a month. If you use portable devices that work with their DRM, you can essentially have all-you-can-eat music, all the time, even without an internet connection, for very little money.

This is why I'm saying $8-$9 is too much for a single album; when the industry is willing to do all-you-can-eat for slightly more per month. I'd be willing to pay $1-$2 to download an older album, and a few dollars more for a newer album. If the industry can make money on volume in all-you-can-eat, why can't they make money on volume for downloads a-la-carte?

I think it's because you can pay the $9 once and have the album forever. If I only buy a few albums per year, a monthly subscription is pointless and a waste of money.

As one who has never used a subscription service (I'm one of the low-volume types) I ask this: if your subscription ceases, do you still have access to the music you already downloaded?

Re:$8-$9 is too much

[shark72]

"Why can't they charge much less and make up the profits on volume?"

Well, first -- if by "they" you mean Amazon, my highly educated guess is that Amazon is making 15 points on the sale. They don't have much room to move.

Many people tend to put too much faith in unit elasticity: if you cut the price of oranges in half, you'll sell twice as many; double the price and you'll sell half as many. The real world seldom works that way, so lots of research is done on pricing theory. My industry (computer peripherals) does it, countless others do it, and it's a safe assumption that record labels and Amazon do it, too -- despite the fact that every Slashdotter just knows that music is overpriced and sold at obscene profits.

Putting costs of production aside (assuming that they have the ability to sell at any price and make a profit), it might simply be that they do not believe that they will double their sales if they sell albums at $4 rather than $8. I know it certainly wouldn't be the case in my situation; I would not spend appreciably more on music if prices were lowered. I buy all the music I could possibly want on iTunes (and I'll soon be trying Amazon). My interest runs out before my budget does. And, as nonsensical as this might seem, there are millions of other consumers just like me.

When you step closer to the real world and take into account the costs of sale, elasticity becomes even more of an issue. If (say) that album has a cost of sale of $3.90, then they'll make a dime per sale at $4, or $4.10 per sale at $8. So even if they double their sales by cutting the price in half, their net revenue would still drop by 95%. In this scenario, sales would need to increase by about 20X to make the same amount of money, and that's very unlikely to happen.

Re:

[Anita Coney]

I guess that it is too little too late.

Oh god yes. If this service would have been started back in 1997 the music business would be a lot healthier. P2P would never had a chance to grow as it did because it could not have competed to the quality and search capabilities that Amazon offers. Of course back then the music industry would have called this plan insane. Just goes to show you that it's being run by idiots with no vision.