matt_90048

Is the sound quality of allofmp3.com better than itunes? Better than directly ripped CDs? Anyone one here knows the answer?

matt_90048

Originally Posted by matt_90048

Is the sound quality of allofmp3.com better than itunes? Better than directly ripped CDs? Anyone one here knows the answer?

so has anybody actually used their services?
anybody compared their sound quality with iTunes?

ya1950

I don't use iTunes but I can address the allofmp3 vrs ripped CD's part of your question. The sound quality will not depend on the site itself but rather on the way the music is encoded. Very briefly music can be encoded as lossless (flac, shn) or lossy (mp3). Lossless encodes the music note for note as it is on the CD. Lossy compresses the music somewhat in order to create a smaller file for portable players. Depending on how much the music is compressed (this is called bitrate), the quality of your equipment, and the quality of your hearing you may or may not be able to hear the difference between a compressed and a uncompressed file. The same applies to how much compression is applied to the music file you download. At a certain point most people can not hear the difference between music compressed to say a 320 bitrate and the original CD. Below that it depends on your ears and your equipment. So the question you are asking is not site dependant but rather how the music is compressed. Allofmp3 for instance allows downloads of different bitrates - the larger files (higher bitrates) will have better music quailty than the lower bitrates. If you rip the CD yourself using proper technique you can chose what bitrate is best for you. This will probably produce the best quality music for your particular setup and hearing. For more information you can look over at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=28124.

Hope this helps.

red_ak_ranger

The thing with allofmp3 is have fun using it. All the major credit card companies block allofmp3. Basically what you're doing is using a country with arcane copywrite laws to almost steal music.

Not that I'm against stealing music.

matt_90048

thank you for your reply. seems many people either choose to ignore this topic or just like me don't know much about audio quality.

I read the link you sent me. And I also did a little bit of research myself, I found at WIKI the following:

'AllOfMP3 has been criticized for its use of transcoding to deliver custom encoded files[citation needed]. Transcoding in audio involves the re-encoding of an already compressed file, and is known to diminish audio quality and introduce compression artifacts; files ordered under AllOfMP3's "Online Encoding" service are transcoded from a 384kbit/s free format to the format of the user's choice. Most listeners cannot hear the encoding artifacts, however some believe that the recompression artifacts can make the audio "grating."'

So I guess to be more specific, my question is whether transcoding from 384kbit/s free format to 320 mp3 format going to produce significantly lower quality of music as compared to ripping a CD directly into 320 mp3 format?

angrymoose

You get a choice of bit rates and formats to download at this site, so go with whatever you want. I've had 128 k/b wma files in the past for my mp3 player to save as much memory as possible, and they sound great.

One thing I would say though is that it's getting pretty difficult to add funds to the site in order to download. Seems the record companies don't like the fact that we're not being ripped off for CDs :soap:

Craig

matt_90048

Originally Posted by red_ak_ranger

The thing with allofmp3 is have fun using it. All the major credit card companies block allofmp3. Basically what you're doing is using a country with arcane copywrite laws to almost steal music. Not that I'm against stealing music.

its getting off topic but I just felt that i need to get my frustration across here and why i am going to use allmp3.com services

1. DRM
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...609_532973.htm
I don't believe its fair for people to buy a song and be able to install it only on 5 computers. That means after 10 years when my 5 computers die, I will be left with songs that are not playing and iTunes will charge me again. I believe it is illegal in this country (U.S.) to charge people for the same product more than once? Or am I wrong here?
2. DRM
I don't believe its fair, to only be able to play videos and mp3s on apple ipods.
3. encoding. I am not an expert in this area and thats why I asked here. As far as I know the quality of 128kb/s mp3s is inferior to CD quality, yet I am being charge the same price. that means we get ripped off.
4. http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/index.html
according to this source artists don't make money off iTunes sales or they make next to nothing. if this source is actually true that mean there is not much difference between allofmp3.com and iTunes except that you pay more.

sto-helit.de

Originally Posted by matt_90048

I don't believe its fair for people to buy a song and be able to install it only on 5 computers.

Hey, there are worse limitations out there. Just think about Napster. Though the model doesn't quite compare, it's more like PayTV with a huge number of channcels imho.

Quote:

I believe it is illegal in this country (U.S.) to charge people for the same product more than once? Or am I wrong here?

I don't know US laws, but:
1. you're buying a product with known limitations, so when these limitations are reached, you've got to buy it again. You're charged for a 2nd car when your first one doesn't drive anymore, too.
2. you're not buying the music (it still belongs to one who has the copyright) but a license to play this music. Like with shareware and trials, limited licenses are allowed...

Quote:

I don't believe its fair, to only be able to play videos and mp3s on apple ipods.

You can play Videos and MP3s on lots of other devices, too. It's something different with WMA and AAC, but MP3 doesn't have DRM (yet).
I don't think it's fair to limit music to such a small collection of devices, too, but then, nobody's been forced to use iTunes. It's the customers who made this concept a success. If any other company would have tried to sell download music that will only play on the devices of the company itself, for almost the same price than the CD, it'd probably be a flop (like the Zune). But it worked great for Apple.

Quote:

3. encoding. I am not an expert in this area and thats why I asked here. As far as I know the quality of 128kb/s mp3s is inferior to CD quality, yet I am being charge the same price. that means we get ripped off.

AFAIK, most audio download shops offer far better quality than 128kb/s MP3s. Most don't offer MP3s at all, because there's no DRM for them. Other codecs do have DRM, but also better quality at the same bitrate. E.g. an WMA or Ogg Vorbis file with 128kb/s often has about the same quality as an MP3 with 192kb/s.
But yes, you get far less for the same price. But, as said, enough people do buy it...

Quote:

according to this source artists don't make money off iTunes sales or they make next to nothing.

Most artists don't make much money from CD sales, too. Afaik, only about 10-20 Cents per CD go to the artist(s) of most big labels, everything else goes to the CD shop, the label, marketing, production (studio, mix, etc.), ...
But then, if you listen to artists, most seem like they don't make any money at all. CD/online sales? Just a tip. Gigs? Everything's spend for hotel, food, traffic, and stage rental. Merchandising? Too few customers, and stockkeeping's expensive... (Worst thing is: It's really that way for many. Most artists make their money with an everyday job.)

Quote:

if this source is actually true that mean there is not much difference between allofmp3.com and iTunes except that you pay more.

You forgot the main difference: The labels and (non-russian) shops don't get any money! (Well, they could get a bit if they'd take the what this russian association offers, but they're afraid it would legalize them...)
And to be fair to the labels, you've got to admit they're a kind of insurance agency for artists, too. They also spend thousands of dollars to produce CDs that don't sell at all, and not all of those just because the chose terrible artists.

red_ak_ranger

Well I have 6600 songs in my itunes right now and if I bought all that music I'd be seven types of poor.

If there was a service that had no restrictions downloads for a yearly fee I might buy into that. Like 15 a month to download all the music I want? Because sure, for a while, I would download a crap load. But if I was locked into a two year contract there'd be months where I never really downloaded much music.

matt_90048

Originally Posted by sto-helit.de

Hey, there are worse limitations out there. Just think about Napster. Though the model doesn't quite compare, it's more like PayTV with a huge number of channcels imho.

and of course there are compaines with less limitations or none at all. its like thinking whether a bottle is half full or half empty.

Originally Posted by sto-helit.de

I don't know US laws, but: 1. you're buying a product with known limitations, so when these limitations are reached, you've got to buy it again. You're charged for a 2nd car when your first one doesn't drive anymore, too. 2. you're not buying the music (it still belongs to one who has the copyright) but a license to play this music. Like with shareware and trials, limited licenses are allowed...

this is true, the limitation have to be known. As far as a I know apple has not told me when I purchases music and videos from them that I won't be able to play them on non-apple devices. Or that after using 5 computers I am going to have to buy music from the again.
its like if you bought a new BMW and 6 months down the road the car dealership would ask you to pay them again the full price. this is stealing and not lending.

Originally Posted by sto-helit.de

You can play Videos and MP3s on lots of other devices, too. It's something different with WMA and AAC, but MP3 doesn't have DRM (yet).

MP3s from apple have DRM and you cannot play them on other mp3 players except for iPOD.

Originally Posted by sto-helit.de

AFAIK, most audio download shops offer far better quality than 128kb/s MP3s. Most don't offer MP3s at all, because there's no DRM for them. Other codecs do have DRM, but also better quality at the same bitrate. E.g. an WMA or Ogg Vorbis file with 128kb/s often has about the same quality as an MP3 with 192kb/s. But yes, you get far less for the same price. But, as said, enough people do buy it...

Just because people do buy something doesn't mean that the product is of good quality or nature. For example I can start making drugs and sell them to the people. Yes, they will buy it, but it doesn't mean that the drug should be sold. As a matter of fact a lot of drug companies make all kinds of drugs, run questionable trials and sell them to the public only to discover 1 year down the road about the side effects of this drug. Yes, people do buy but it does not imply that the product should be sold the way it is.

Originally Posted by sto-helit.de

You forgot the main difference: The labels and (non-russian) shops don't get any money! (Well, they could get a bit if they'd take the what this russian association offers, but they're afraid it would legalize them...)

If they don't want the money then its not really my problem. And honestly they could negotiate some kind of middle ground (for example more money) from the radio broadcasting rights. The reasons why this has not happened is because Record Labels would loose money and they would not renew any contracts with the artits.

ya1950

I can't contribute to the direction this thread is taking since I don't use either service. I can comment on your original question:

Originally Posted by matt_90048

So I guess to be more specific, my question is whether transcoding from 384kbit/s free format to 320 mp3 format going to produce significantly lower quality of music as compared to ripping a CD directly into 320 mp3 format?

From the Wiki:

Compression artifacts are cumulative, therefore transcoding between lossy codecs causes a progressive loss of quality with each successive generation. For this reason, it is generally discouraged unless unavoidable. For instance, if an individual owns a digital audio player that does not support a particular format (e.g., Apple iPod and Ogg Vorbis), then the only way for the owner to use content encoded in that format is to transcode it to a supported format. It is better to retain a copy in a lossless format (such as TTA, FLAC or WavPack), and then encode directly from the lossless source file to the lossy formats required.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcoding

My understanding is that better to rip from CD directly rather than transcode from a higher to a lower bitrate.

Tyborg

you aren't stuck buying more tracks after your computers die. You are only allowed 5 authorized computers at a time, but you can deauthorize computers and reautorize others. If you are in iTunes go to the store menu and if gives you both options to authorize or deauthorize the computer. You can also from a different computer deauthorize an entire account under the advanced menu if all your 5 computer blow up at the same time and then start reauthorizing new computers.

However all this authorizing deauthorizing talk is irrelevant if you strip the DRM from your music that you buy from the iTunes store. Just download QTfairuse from this link. It is updated within days from the time that Apple updates their DRM. It is so easy to run. When you launch the application it sorts through your entire library and finds any DRM music and displays it to you. Then you just click a button and it starts stripping the DRM song after song and it saves a copy of your DRM version in a seperate folder. Then it redirects your library file to look at the newly DRM stripped files instead of the old DRM ones. Your playlists and everything stay the same. An important note is that it strips the DRM from the music but not your iTunes account information so I wouldn't recommend sharing the music after it is stripped.

If you want to play your AAC music in WMP download this plugin. It is right at the top of the page where it says "GET IT HERE". Unfortunatley WMP will not let you sync aac files to your WM device even though you can listen to them and make playlists of them in WMP with this plugin.

you can even sync your playlists from iTunes to WMP or WMP to iTunes with musicbridge explained here.

I made another thread that explains how I sync iTunes playlists and podcasts to my Axim here.

In the end if you are concerned about playback and degrading quality from lower bitrates then you should just buy the CD and rip it at high qualities and you are free to do what ever you please with it after that.

matt_90048

Originally Posted by ya1950

I can't contribute to the direction this thread is taking since I don't use either service. I can comment on your original question: From the Wiki: Compression artifacts are cumulative, therefore transcoding between lossy codecs causes a progressive loss of quality with each successive generation. For this reason, it is generally discouraged unless unavoidable. For instance, if an individual owns a digital audio player that does not support a particular format (e.g., Apple iPod and Ogg Vorbis), then the only way for the owner to use content encoded in that format is to transcode it to a supported format. It is better to retain a copy in a lossless format (such as TTA, FLAC or WavPack), and then encode directly from the lossless source file to the lossy formats required. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcoding My understanding is that better to rip from CD directly rather than transcode from a higher to a lower bitrate.

thank you, that was my original question. and yes the other discussion is off topic.

hypes

As a possible former customer of AllOfMP3 (all of this is alleged JIC the **AA is lurking), it was a nice "grey area of the law" way to get mp3's without DRM.

I might have enjoyed the very brief time I may have allegedly used the product when my alleged credit card was still usable there.

There are still ways to get credits for AllOfMP3, but I'm not interested in going thru all those shennanigans.

Besides...I find listening to my XM Satellite Radio better than my mp3's any times. I stick to XM and only fall back on my Axim+8 gig CF card+4 gig SD card as a standby when I can't get a satellite signal / wifi connection for XMRO.

-hypes

__________________
Meega Na La Kueesta!!

el12

I have downloaded MP3 from ALLofmp3
I 'm not a music fan/enthusiast or anything like that
but I can tell you the sound quality is very good
but not as rich as a regular cd
I have try both the high quality and the lower quality
but to use with my axim this is perfect and as for the price you can not beat that unless you download it free
as for the legality or illegality I'm not a lawyer
They comply with RUSSIA law and they are still up and running
If they were that illegal they would have been off line long time ago
I use my AMEX for payment at it's not blocked contrary as stated above

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ May Peace be upon You ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~