Hot? 10 cent Music Downloads

[Salvador]

I wouldn't pay anything for an mp3. My problem is that mp3 files are lossy files. Until I can download a full quality uncompressed file, I'm not paying for online music downloads. People paying a buck a song for an mp3, must be smoking crack. Let's say you get 10-14 songs on a cd. You'd end up paying for an entire album and you wouldn't get the sound quality or the fancy packaging that you get from just buying the cd at the store.

Sal

 

[Dataman]

This site works good for me. I can preview the songs and download what I want.

@ 128k, mp3 is same as cd. @ 192, it's better. an LP would be better than both but try buying a new one today.

Nice site. Nice prices when they have a special like the one that started last week where everything went back to 30 cents per song.

They got my vote...and money!

 

[Salvador]

@ 128k, mp3 is same as cd. @ 192, it's better. an LP would be better than both but try buying a new one today.

You're kidding, right? 128k mp3 is NOT the same as a uncompressed song that you'd get on a cd. I think the compression ratio is something like 11:1. Is that cd quality to you? A 192k song isn't even the same. Maybe that's why these sites can actually get people to pay for a download. I bet you listen to all of your music either on a portable player with cheap headphones or your crappy computer speakers. I guess you wouldn't be able to tell the difference this way.

MP3's are nice if they are free, so you can evaluate the music, but I'd never pay for an mp3. When you can download a non lossy music file, that's when I'll pay for it.

MP3's had their day when hard drives were still expensive and internet connections were slow. Now that a lot of people have high speed connections and cheap, big hard drives, there is no need for all that compression. That's all that I'm saying here. If these companies, and the RIAA want to charge a buck a song, give us the real non-lossy file to download for it.

.10¢ is MUCH better than a $1 a song, but it's still too expensive for a compressed song file.

Sal

PS.. You should look into FLAC and Monkey's Audio. They are a good lossless compression scheme. Too bad that more people don't use it though. It's just like Windows or PayPal. Everyone seems to use it, so you feel that you have to as well.

 

[aphex]

Overall i've been very impressed with the site.... MANY songs are around $0.30/song which is reasonable in my opinion...

Picked up Josh Groban - Closer album for $3.90

Id rather pay $8-$10 less than retail for a slight loss in quality anyday. And to be honest, they dont sound that bad at all (Playing on my Klipsch Promedia 4.1's). I've heard much worse 128k mp3s in my day.

 

[Salvador]

Id rather pay $8-$10 less than retail for a slight loss in quality anyday. And to be honest, they dont sound that bad at all (Playing on my Klipsch Promedia 4.1's). I've heard much worse 128k mp3s in my day.

To each is own, I guess. Also, as good as the Promedia's are for computer speakers, they aren't the greatest fidelity wise.

Sal

 

[npohnl]

First site I have found to have Metallica CD's.

I lost my first cd for S&M and can get both cd's for $6.30. I'm in.

As for the quality, it's fine for me, but to each their own. I listen to most of mine on mp3Pro 64kbps through my IPAQ on my car stereo.

 

[Dataman]

Sal,

Easy guy! Music is to be enjoyed but it's just what's perceived in the listeners'(or listener's if only one person) head that's going to be enjoyed.

The biggest change in audio happened with flash converters and other HS DATs. Audio would never be as good since discrete samples can never be analog.

The guys @ Fraunhofer Institute did make assumptions about human hearing but that goes all the way back to the db which is weighted to reflect the reaction of human audio nerves to variance in pressure. It's just math.

The worst thing, and there are plenty of bad things about mp3's, is the choice of sampling speed for mp3 and the quality of instrument used to handle the analog portions of the conversion. That and they are, as you say simply samples of the original.

The worst thing about CD is they're not analog but a ~44k sampled number that will produce(for instance when sampling a ~22k sine or more complex waveform) a triangle wave of equal or lesser power level or a digital silence depending on just when the sample occurred(digital silence was "sold" as something really cool but it's just the same number over and over) That and although you didn't say, they're just samples of the original. (~44 k /sec numbers limited to 16 bit resolution for amplitude after all is said and done.)

Why do you think the latest ideas in audio are higher sample rate cd with larger number size? Less missed audio information and less amplidute distortion are two good reasons. The bigest one, of course: Marketing and the additional profits that millions of people rushing away from them old trashy CD's to the newest format will bring.

try:"http://www.emt.iis.fraunhofer.de/ " for some amusement.

Let me apologise now for any technical altercations in any of the preceeding.

Sal, you are saying more than you claimed to say in your response. You also made fun of my $700 speakers but that's all I could afford at the time. You also assume I only use Windows which I really don't like when I have GOS(not DOS), Dos, VM, UNIX and machine code.

I don't feel I have to use anyones' OS or Pino's OS2 for that matter I use whichever I have on the machine I must work on at the time.

I will, however look into FLAC and "Monkey's Audio" but these will still be digital an so they will depend on an already corrupted source if a person is that much of a purest. I will probably enjoy this also so, thank you.

I usually reconcile real problems with audio by turning it off and I have been know to drink much beer before listening to it. The world has far worse problems than MP3's. I start singing along and then there is really something to pay not to hear.

Thanks again for the leads!