esa
Member
Amazon. The only time I venture elsewhere is a) when it's not available on Amazon; b) a lossless (FLAC/ALAC) version is available elsewhere (usually bandcamp.)
Where do you buy your digital music?
- Thread starter General Zod
- Start date
Amazon. The only time I venture elsewhere is a) when it's not available on Amazon; b) a lossless (FLAC/ALAC) version is available elsewhere (usually bandcamp.)
Youtube downloader? Really? Enjoy the quality there.I just don't think spending money on music is smart when you can get it free.. Sorry I was really baked yesterday
Youtube downloader >
To actually add something to the topic..I haven't bought a physical CD in years. I use damn near anything. iTunes, Amazon, Google Music, used to have a premium Spotify account but I found I didn't use it enough to justify the price. I don't illegally download anymore except for on occasion. I had a moment of weakness and downloaded Silverthorn but I am getting it on Tuesday anyway.
I was curious to see what others are doing. Been on the fence for a while and keep swaying back and forth.hmm...so what was the point of this thread then? Just to see how many people you could goad into going off-topic?Or was this thread the first time you learned that the major vendors don't distribute in FLAC format?
No loss in fidelity, for when I'm listening to it on a home stereo.
Yes... I understand FLAC is just a container. However, when most people speak of FLAC, they speak of it in the context of an original copy of the audio data.
Anything below 192Kbps. That said, if space is not an issue, why wouldn't I want the best audio quality possible?
Nope.
I suspect that as the death of the CD nears, FLAC will become more prominent. I would think artists and audiophiles will always push to be able to obtain a lossless form of the music.
True. But technology is always evolving; cheaper disk, deduplication, better streaming algorithms, etc.
SkiBumMSP
Member
I've been reading through this since my last posting! Holy shit, there are some serious misconceptions that I am reading on here. Were to begin.... (ignoring the jackass suggesting we just rip everything from YouTube - yeah, if you want 96kbps quality)
I'll start with this one....
You were pretty much correct until this statement. Itunes and Amazon are indeed actually different formats. Amazon uses MP3. I think they are now starting to deliver it 320kbps MP3 now. ITunes uses 256kbps AAC, which is a different format. Yeah, it is easy enough to convert one from the other (although doing so entails taking a hit on quality as going from one lossy format to another will always loose quality), and most modern equipment will now be able to support both formats, but don't think that you can replace one for the other (i.e, renaming the file from .m4a to .mp3), and expect the file to still play on something that does not support AAC.
Yes, FLAC is simply a container, but what makes it so special is that it is a LOSSLESS container, in that none of the actual data is "thrown away" in the compression process (like what is done for MP3 and AAC). As for what particular fidelity is the minimum to be accepted? In my case, it is at least 16bit/44.1khz, which is the standard "Red Book CD" audio quality. I would LOVE to get things in higher resolution, but so far very few places offer that. I did find 24/96 versions of both Dream Theater's and Rush's latest on HDTracks.com, though. I am tempted to get them and do a comparison to see how much better it actually sounds compared to the CD itself (as I do have the gear capable of playing it back).
In fact, there in lies one of the major problems with offering high-res files. Most typical consumer equipment does not have the capability to play back files like that. As far as I am aware, I don't think any of the current smartphones as well as most portable MP3 players such as the iPod can playback such high resolution files, plus I doubt anybody except the most anal of audiophiles playing it back on high-end gear would even be able to discern any real, appreciable, difference. Also, it is very unlikely you will see streaming available in high-res formats such as this as it will take up considerably more bandwidth - more than most typical WiFi or cellular connections are able to offer. That is why I have my Pioneer N-50 unit hardwired through gigabit Ethernet instead of through WiFi, as WiFi just cannot handle streaming something like a 24/192 file across the network. Thus, this pretty much relegates such to a small, niche market and most services and major labels unfortunately just don't see any real money there and not worth the expense to offer such on a regular basis.
I am sorry dude, but this is where I call BULLSHIT! Who really cares where the actual software comes from? As long as you have a valid license key, you are entitled to use that software. the little sticker on the back of your machine is your license key - that is why MS requires manufacturers/PC builders to put that there. And BTW, it DOES NOT EXPIRE just because the warranty on your machine ran out. That license is valid for as long as that machine exists, and is still valid even if you sold the machine to another person. However, when you do sell off a machine like that, you are no longer entitled to that license and it must be transferred to the the new owner of the machine. Just like if you junked a machine in the dump, that license is no longer valid and cannot be used to install the software on another machine (unless it was a retail copy of Windows, in which case you can re-install on a new machine)
I was given the run-around in the past about trying to get recovery/install disks for a machine in which the hard drive crapped out and needed to be rebuilt. I eventually gave up on them and not wanting to buy another copy of Windows when I know the license key for that machine is perfectly good and just decided to go and torrent an OEM copy of Windows to install on that machine. Entered the license key from the back of the machine, and it activated no problems and continues to work to this day. Yeah, people will try to tell me that it was "illegal" to get a copy of windows that way, but to be honest, I really don't give a shit. I have a valid, legitimate license key, and even if I did get taken to court, I would not be surprised that, despite what the EULA says, as long as I had a valid license key the judge would more than likely dismiss the case saying "he has as valid license, so what difference does it make where he obtained the actual files themselves". In MS' defense, I can see they would want to control where the software itself comes from, as it is risky to get something from God only knows where it originally came from. But hey, I've been building/repairing machines as well as developing software for over 20 years now, so I know what I am doing here.
The AHRA begs to differ (although, admittedly, there seems to be some gray areas in this now-a-days in light of all the digital streaming and MP3s). A person was entitled to make an archival copy of his recordings, thus if somebody does already own a copy of the album, they are entitled to download a copy. The record industry and RIAA will want you to just buy a new copy, but AHRA does (as currently interpreted) permits personal copies such as that. I personally don't find this any different if that person taped his record to cassette or even using one of those new-fangled "USB" turntables, played it directly into his computer as a 'rip'.
I'll start with this one....
You were pretty much correct until this statement. Itunes and Amazon are indeed actually different formats. Amazon uses MP3. I think they are now starting to deliver it 320kbps MP3 now. ITunes uses 256kbps AAC, which is a different format. Yeah, it is easy enough to convert one from the other (although doing so entails taking a hit on quality as going from one lossy format to another will always loose quality), and most modern equipment will now be able to support both formats, but don't think that you can replace one for the other (i.e, renaming the file from .m4a to .mp3), and expect the file to still play on something that does not support AAC.
skryrefuge said:
Yes, FLAC is simply a container, but what makes it so special is that it is a LOSSLESS container, in that none of the actual data is "thrown away" in the compression process (like what is done for MP3 and AAC). As for what particular fidelity is the minimum to be accepted? In my case, it is at least 16bit/44.1khz, which is the standard "Red Book CD" audio quality. I would LOVE to get things in higher resolution, but so far very few places offer that. I did find 24/96 versions of both Dream Theater's and Rush's latest on HDTracks.com, though. I am tempted to get them and do a comparison to see how much better it actually sounds compared to the CD itself (as I do have the gear capable of playing it back).
In fact, there in lies one of the major problems with offering high-res files. Most typical consumer equipment does not have the capability to play back files like that. As far as I am aware, I don't think any of the current smartphones as well as most portable MP3 players such as the iPod can playback such high resolution files, plus I doubt anybody except the most anal of audiophiles playing it back on high-end gear would even be able to discern any real, appreciable, difference. Also, it is very unlikely you will see streaming available in high-res formats such as this as it will take up considerably more bandwidth - more than most typical WiFi or cellular connections are able to offer. That is why I have my Pioneer N-50 unit hardwired through gigabit Ethernet instead of through WiFi, as WiFi just cannot handle streaming something like a 24/192 file across the network. Thus, this pretty much relegates such to a small, niche market and most services and major labels unfortunately just don't see any real money there and not worth the expense to offer such on a regular basis.
AeonicSlumber said:
I am sorry dude, but this is where I call BULLSHIT! Who really cares where the actual software comes from? As long as you have a valid license key, you are entitled to use that software. the little sticker on the back of your machine is your license key - that is why MS requires manufacturers/PC builders to put that there. And BTW, it DOES NOT EXPIRE just because the warranty on your machine ran out. That license is valid for as long as that machine exists, and is still valid even if you sold the machine to another person. However, when you do sell off a machine like that, you are no longer entitled to that license and it must be transferred to the the new owner of the machine. Just like if you junked a machine in the dump, that license is no longer valid and cannot be used to install the software on another machine (unless it was a retail copy of Windows, in which case you can re-install on a new machine)
I was given the run-around in the past about trying to get recovery/install disks for a machine in which the hard drive crapped out and needed to be rebuilt. I eventually gave up on them and not wanting to buy another copy of Windows when I know the license key for that machine is perfectly good and just decided to go and torrent an OEM copy of Windows to install on that machine. Entered the license key from the back of the machine, and it activated no problems and continues to work to this day. Yeah, people will try to tell me that it was "illegal" to get a copy of windows that way, but to be honest, I really don't give a shit. I have a valid, legitimate license key, and even if I did get taken to court, I would not be surprised that, despite what the EULA says, as long as I had a valid license key the judge would more than likely dismiss the case saying "he has as valid license, so what difference does it make where he obtained the actual files themselves". In MS' defense, I can see they would want to control where the software itself comes from, as it is risky to get something from God only knows where it originally came from. But hey, I've been building/repairing machines as well as developing software for over 20 years now, so I know what I am doing here.
AeonicSlumber said:
The AHRA begs to differ (although, admittedly, there seems to be some gray areas in this now-a-days in light of all the digital streaming and MP3s). A person was entitled to make an archival copy of his recordings, thus if somebody does already own a copy of the album, they are entitled to download a copy. The record industry and RIAA will want you to just buy a new copy, but AHRA does (as currently interpreted) permits personal copies such as that. I personally don't find this any different if that person taped his record to cassette or even using one of those new-fangled "USB" turntables, played it directly into his computer as a 'rip'.
nailz
Member
Jesus fuck, you are so full of yourself it's almost funny. I think you're just being argumentative to be argumentative at this point. There are some battles you might be able to fight, but I'm not going to further engage you in this topic, because as Ski's already pointed out, you have no idea.
As an avid redditor, I am ashamed I missed that.
