Napster Is Back - And I Think I Like It

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.napster.com">http://www.napster.com</a><br /><br />Many of us use our PDAs for music and what better place to get music than the internet? Back in the go-go days of 2001, you could download anything you wanted from anywhere for free! Since then though, the granddaddy of them all, Napster, has been shut down and the RIAA is going after people that share large amounts of data. One of the <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2900">wisest members of this site has been waiting for this day for long time</a> - the chance to download songs for a buck a piece, hassle free. :wink: <br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2004/20040116-napster.gif" /><br /><br />Like the Phoenix, Napster has been revived from the ashes, 100% legal and legitimate. Earlier this week, I decided to give Napster a try. Within minutes of installing it, I was overwhelmed at the artists available. All of my favorites aren't there. No Lisa Germano for example, but many are. Everything is $.99 per song or $9.99 per CD downloaded when they have the full CD on the site. Somehow, they manage to leave one song off of "Greatest Hits" CDs meaning you have to buy 15-20 songs at $.99 each to get all they have. :? <br /><br />Still, they have tons of stuff from the Dexy's Midnight Riders, Depeche Mode, Psychedelic Furs and other staples from what is unquestionably the greatest decade of music the world has ever seen - the 80's!<br /><br />The timing of this is quite fortuitous for me. I have just bulked up my digital collection with a MiniDV cam, a hoss of a Windows XP Media Center Edition from Gateway and a big screen TV. Now I can go get that perfect track for background music for my home videos or photo stories. :rock on dude!:<br /><br />My trial was buying the new Sarah McLachlan CD, <b>Afterglow</b>. All 10 tracks downloaded in a DRM protected 128kb WMA format. I think I got ripped off by 9 cents though. I paid $9.99 for the CD and could have paid $9.90 for the songs individually. :oops: Oh well. I immediately burned them to a CD then re-ripped them back in an unprotected format so I could easily transfer them around my home WLAN and Pocket PCs without having to worry about license files. Don't worry Napster. I won't be sharing them. I uninstalled my last file sharing software sometime in late 2001 and have never looked back. I just am not going to fool with trying to get DRM protected music into Windows Movie Maker for home movies. The only problem was when ripping, Windows Media Player 9 only saw 10 untitled tracks. I had to manually tell it this was <b>Afterglow</b> and it promptly named all of the songs and downloaded the album art. :way to go: Everything is now in a VBR WMA format ranging from 49kbps to 65kbps and sounds quite nice in a cranked up 5.1 surround sound equipped system. I can hear it perfectly, and my neighbors can <i>feel</i> it just fine. :lol:<br /><br />For now, I'm not going to fool with Napster Radio, a $10 per month service to listen to whatever you want, even though Windows XP Media Center Edition <i>(is Microsoft not the most verbose company you've dealt with?)</i> has Napster Radio integrated into the Media Center interface. Maybe later. For now, I've "got the beat" and see a special VH-1 collection of the Go-Go's greatest hits that is beckoning me.

[JustinGTP]

Thats great - whats the selection of newer songs? Any new good pop/rock songs?

Playing music on our 7.1 Pioneer Elite THX NHT system is bliss :D

-Justin.

[SofaTater]

I played around with the new Napster when they first released it. However, I really do prefer Apple's iTunes -- music offerings/prices seem to be about the same, but the iTunes application just seems like an all-around better tool.

I guess the big drawback to iTunes is that you cannot use the WMA file format, and all downloads come in the AAC format. Not a big deal for me since I don't really do the MP3 thing, and if I decide to down the road, I'll probably get an iPod anyway...

[darius779]

after recently trying both itunes and napster I felt more comfortable using itunes. It has a better ui and (atleast for what I was looking for) a better selection. however emusic has them both beat in terms of price and rights but not in selection of mainstream (read: riaa) labels

This being said, I still cant get away from the 'try before you buy' way of thinking.. If I like something I have no problem buying the cd and getting the extras that come with it (a spiffy see though case, some artwork and sometimes lyrics)

my ideal online music store would be a combination of itunes and cduniverse. I buy the music online, download and listen to it while they send me the cd. :)

[JackTheTripper]

You know, I'm the "REAL" Napster. My dormmate stole the idea from me.


Anyway.....


Napster is not yet available in Mac format. What's with that? :evil: At least iTunes has a Windoz version. And they have a HUGE collection. Maybe you can find your missing "best of" tracks there. ;)

Just venting.

[bblock]

For those Canucks out there, I just found out about a company in Canada - www.puretracks.com - that offers songs for $0.99 CANADIAN and albums for 9.99 CANADIAN. It's nice that even with the low US dollar, we now have the same pricing as our friends to the south.

I can't comment on their selection of artists and music - haven't browsed enough, and my tastes are fairly eclectic (although they do have more of my stuff - Spyro Gyra, Incognito, etc. than I had expected). However, I can say this - all their songs are 192Kbps WMA 9! I read this was the best-quality music you could download from *anyone's* site. Can't confirm this, but that's a great way to encode if you care about quality.

I wondered about the ability to burn to CD, then re-rip to avoid license issues (I don't need to share either, but I see myself going through lots of devices and computers in the course of my life). Glad to see it works for you, Ed.

-Bryan

[Chris Spera]

I immediately burned them to a CD then re-ripped them back in an unprotected format so I could easily transfer them around my home WLAN and Pocket PCs without having to worry about license files.

How did this work for you? Did you bump into problems ripping the content on the same computer that burned the CD?

This is the biggest concern I have and why I haven't used any of the new download services/ stores. Like you I WON'T go sharing the music around; and really didn't do the Napster thing when it was popular back in 2000. I just don't need or want that kind of headache, and living in Nashville like you and I do, Ed, we have lots of musicians around who give every music sharer dirty looks. I don't need ANY of that either. :roll:

If I can burn CD's with the files that I purchase and then immediately turn around and rerip the CD into a VBR WMA and play them on my Pocket PC's and (hopefully, in the near future) a WMA compatible iPOD, (if you haven't read Paul Thurrott's WinInfo today, then you need to jump over to the WinInfo HP-iPOD Article (http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/41446/windowspaulthurrott_41446.html) and give it a read. Its a good opinion piece) then I'm all about that! I don't have any problem paying for music, and would love to have a larger collection. The reason I don't is because of the hassle involved in getting off my @ss and getting to the store, or the worry of the RIAA suing me and the rest of the world for playing digital music... :roll:

Anywho, if this works without any problem, I may just have to give this a shot. Please let me know in a post here, or via private message or e-mail if you reripped this on the same 'puter that burned the CD.

Thanks!


Kind Regards,


Christopher Spera

[humor]

BTW, that "Napster Radio" in Win MCE is actually a full version of napster. You can surch, buy, download songs, listen to napster radio, etc. The only thing u can't do is create new playlists...but it's a cool interface to allow guests to search for there favorite music using a remote control. I love it!

[Pat Logsdon]

You know, I'm the "REAL" Napster. My dormmate stole the idea from me.
:rotfl: IMHO, he was the best part of that movie. I like how they had Fanning stealing the disk while he was "napping"... :mrgreen:

Back on topic, I think it's cool and all that Napster is back, but I'll stick with iTunes. Same prices, better UI, and the same steps to get non-DRM music...

[Ed Hansberry]

Chris - no problems downloading/burning/ripping on the same PC. I set Napster to download to a folder outside of WMP9's My Music folder. Once I had reripped it, it was now in WMP 2 times - the download and the ripped folder. I then manually deleted the downloaded files from WMP's library but told it to leave the files on my PC.

So far, so good.

[Pixelnose]

Oh I hate to be grumpy... but ok I will. :devilboy:

Granted, 128aac is nothing to write home about in terms of how good it sounds (comparing to the cd you could buy in the store), but sheesh, it does sound better than 128wma.

I dunno, I've just never liked wma. Sounds icky to me. For the same price, or a little more expensive, you'd be better off with the cd.

Of course, assuming the cd itself isn't protected. I don't buy those on general principal.

[Ed Hansberry]

I dunno, I've just never liked wma. Sounds icky to me. For the same price, or a little more expensive, you'd be better off with the cd.
But if you want just one song from a CD, do you pay $.99 or buy the whole CD?

[KH]

I carry my IPAQ everywhere and have no interest in carrying a dedicated device for music when I have a 1GB CF card and a 512 MB SD Card. iTunes appears therefore not to be an option and Napster may be interesting. Two questions though. I personally rip to WMA 192 and that sounds better to me than 128 - does Napster offer higher bitrate options?
And how does any of this compare to BuyMusic.com?

[James Fee]

I've got personal issues with Roxio software so I'm not really interested in trying Napster (well that and I have an iPod), but competiton has pushed iTunes into being a better solution than it was 6 months ago. I think as others have said the layout and selections on iTunes is better, but this as with music is a personal choice.

You do bring up a good point though. I can either get off my ass and go to the store and buy a CD (and pay at least $10), go to Amazon.com and wait at least a day (if I want to pay for overnight shipping) or I can download them and enjoy them right away.

[Scott R]

So does the MCE interface allow for easy transfer to a PPC? I recently got my MCE PC (jury's still out as to how much I like it). I'd like to download the songs through the MCE interface, sort them via remote control however I like, and be able to send them to an SD card in my HP MCE's 6-in-1 "reader". Can I do this? How well does it work? The $10/month applet sounds cool, but what can I do for free (by free I mean just the price of downloading individual songs)?

Guess I should just peruse through my MCE interface and see if there's some sort of trial a remote control click away.

On an OT rant...MS is really messing up IMO with this whole Mobile Media Center stuff. What they ought to do is fix up the PPC OS/UI and convince some of their hardware partners to release a HD-equipped PPC. Then, build in all sorts of PPC support into the MCE interface (e.g. - easy transfer of songs, easy transfer of movies, software for the PPC that lets you control your MCE from anywhere in the house, etc.). I know Bill doesn't use a PPC, but you'd think he'd at least recognize that they exist.

Scott

[OneAngryDwarf]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here... how can u say everything u did (original post) and actually like Napster. I was really excited about its release and tried it out only to find it to be absolute rubbish. I'm sorry but I'm not going to pay an overpriced amount ($1 a song is a rip-off) only to jump through hoops to let my music play on any device. One of the beauties to mp3's and such is that it is so easily transferred to a multitude of devices. Take that away, like Napster has w/ all its DRM stuff and you might as well buy the cd or just wait it out and download the music for free.
What they really need to do is make it a subscription service for like 10 bucks and let u have unlimitted downloads and maybe not let u use them once your service is cancelled (feasibility pending). Napster is a rip-off, I-Tunes is a rip-off and they all wreak of the RIAA.

[sub_tex]

I'm cringing just thinking about taking an already compressed audio file and re-ripping it to an even worse sounding compressed audio file. :idontthinkso: It's like recording SP VHS tapes to LP........and then again to EP. :twak:

I don't I'd ever do the download music thing until I could get a wav or shn or something that would be equal to what I'd get from a CD.

And yeah, it's dumb to have to buy a whole CD to get one song and I"ll admit to just ripping a track from a friend's CD to get it, but I don't ever wanna hear compressed audio through a good stereo system.

But when you get away from the one, two track idea, the pricing is just way off. At Virgin downtown they sell new releases on sale for $10-$13. That'd get me unrestricted audio that I can rip or use at my discretion without any loss of quality, plus artwork/lyrics, etc.

I understand where the studios are coming from, I'll just stay away from these stores until something better is out.

But for millions of people who plan on just listening to the music on earbud headphones or onboard sound systems on their PC/Mac, I can definitely see it's appeal.

[cmorris]

This online music business in its current state really only makes sense for singles as Ed says. By the time you buy the album and blank CD, you could have the real CD with w/ uncompressed quality, artwork, no DRM for just a few bucks more new or less if you buy used.

The music companies must be laughing though, people paying that much for digital music that it costs them very little to distribute. Make it .79 per song and 7.99 per album and then maybe we'll talk. After all, its digital so more volume sold = more money at the cost of bandwidth (cheap).

Oh well, on a sidenote, I was reading an article the other day stating that there is/will be about 3 times as many online music stores as the market can bear. Should be interesting to see which ones survive. Hopefully we will see Napster, Buymusic and other WMA supporting sites consolidate into a better site that can rival iTunes.

[Ed Hansberry]

What they really need to do is make it a subscription service for like 10 bucks and let u have unlimitted downloads and maybe not let u use them once your service is cancelled (feasibility pending).
that is what Napster Radio is.

[Ed Hansberry]

So does the MCE interface allow for easy transfer to a PPC? I recently got my MCE PC (jury's still out as to how much I like it). I'd like to download the songs through the MCE interface, sort them via remote control however I like, and be able to send them to an SD card in my HP MCE's 6-in-1 "reader". Can I do this? How well does it work?
You have to minimize or turn off the MCE interface and use the “copy to CD or Device” button in WMP9 so the license file transfers. If the WMA/MP3 file is unprotected you still need to use Windows Explorer. MCE's UI just isn't set up for device sync... yet. :-)

[Ed Hansberry]

I'm cringing just thinking about taking an already compressed audio file and re-ripping it to an even worse sounding compressed audio file. :idontthinkso: It's like recording SP VHS tapes to LP........and then again to EP. :twak:
Glad my hearing isn't as good as yours and I am not an audiofile elitist. I'm having fun with this. Sorry it makes you cringe. :roll:

[gai-jin]

The one thing I'm waiting for is the ability to download MP3's so my tivo can play them. (Or, conversely, for tivo to build in an option to play wma's)

I have considered subscribing, then converting to mp3, but . . .

Also... re-ripping. Wouldn't it be easier/faster/smarter to use a virtual cd for that? I should think that using something like the image drive option from nero, you could make media player THINK it's burning to a cdrw drive, then THINK it's ripping from a cdrw drive, w/o wasting a cd, and in probably half the time.

No?

Gai-jin

[sub_tex]

I'm having fun with this. Sorry it makes you cringe. :roll:

Hey don't take offense to what I said. I'm just giving my take on what I see is poorer quality music and a service that attempts to dictate what I can or can't do with my purchase.

I know I'm not in the majority here (the 400 bazillion downloads iTunes Music Store has sold is proof of that), but I also never implied (at least I think I didn't) that you can't be having fun with the service at all. If I did, I apologize.

I'm a big supporter of online music sales, I just don't like the way they're being handled right now is all.

And I know how this comes off sounding elitist or whatever and that's usually why I don't get into these kinds of discussions. You can't make a bad audio quality comment in threads like this without the "audio snob" comments coming out. Oh well.

[CameronK]

I have to agree with sub_tex. Ripping from one lossy format to another will almost always give you a really crappy sound in the end. The best advice I can give you, assuming that you still want to convert the music files, is to convert to the same bitrate as the file you're ripping from (ie, if you're converting a 128kbps wma to mp3, you should make the mp3 file 128kbps also. This will give you the best fidelity you can get.

[theone3]

I'm cringing just thinking about taking an already compressed audio file and re-ripping it to an even worse sounding compressed audio file. :idontthinkso: It's like recording SP VHS tapes to LP........and then again to EP. :twak:
Glad my hearing isn't as good as yours and I am not an audiofile elitist. I'm having fun with this. Sorry it makes you cringe. :roll:May I suggest that you burn to a CD image, then mount the image to a drive? saves a few cents and a bit of time ;)

[CameronK]

Oh, and I thought I'd just add that I personally think Napster is terrible in comparison to Rhapsody. And before anyone asks, yes, I've subscribed to both. Napster only streams at 96kbps, while Rhapsody streams at a slightly higher 160-192kbps. Artifacts are VERY noticeable with Napster. Plus with Rhapsody, it only costs 79 cents to buy songs...not 99. Just thought I'd let you know of another option that's out there, and that (in my opinion) is a lot better than Napster.

[Ed Hansberry]

I have to agree with sub_tex. Ripping from one lossy format to another will almost always give you a really crappy sound in the end. Why can't people understand that this is a subjective thing? I cannot tell the difference between a 128kb MP3 and a 64KB WMA. I know a certain site admin that runs this site that told me the very same thing about transcoding. I plugged my Pocket PC into a mondo sound system MS had hooked up for their 2001 Mobility Tour and we listened to my stuff. A bit later, I looked at him and said "So, 64KB WMA doesn't sound so bad does it?" Some was natively ripped from a CD and some was transcoded from 128KB MP3 files. It sounded good.

As for transcoding 128KB MP3 to 128KB WMA being the best transcoding, I've not seen any evidence of that. Bitrates in MP3/WMA files are as incomparable as comparing MHz between a StrongARM and Pentium III chip.

theone3 - not sure how to create an image in WMP9 and I needed a CD for my car anyway. Plus, it gives me that "permenant" offline storage. :-)

Subtex - no offense taken, but when you are giving people a :twak: and speaking of cringing, you are inviting the elitist snob comments. It is subjective. You may be able to tell - heck, you may cringe at a CD in the loss of quality over reel to reel tape. Some people can hear that. Thankfully, I cannot. It allows me to enjoy more music at various quality levels. My achille's heel is automobiles. I am very picky about the kind of auto I'll own and some cars that many people fine totally acceptable make me cringe. It has nothign to do with image, it is the build. You can blindfold me and stick me in a car and in a few minutes of riding, I can tell you if it is Asian, American or European. Usually I can tell by the sound and feel of the door shutting. However, I don't tell my friends I am cringing riding in their car. :wink:

[Jason Dunn]

For those Canucks out there, I just found out about a company in Canada - www.puretracks.com - that offers songs for $0.99 CANADIAN and albums for 9.99 CANADIAN. It's nice that even with the low US dollar, we now have the same pricing as our friends to the south.

Sweet - thanks for the head's up. I just bought 34 tracks! I wish they had more than one Finger Eleven song though...

[gai-jin]

This is actually a very timely article... I was just recently thinking of trying itunes or napster, but as I mentioned above, I was really hoping to find a service that would be compatible with my tivo, so I could download as mp3's and not have to convert them.

Anyone know where I could find a side by side type review of the various services mentioned in this thread?

Gai-jin

[gai-jin]

For those Canucks out there, I just found out about a company in Canada - www.puretracks.com - that offers songs for $0.99 CANADIAN and albums for 9.99 CANADIAN. It's nice that even with the low US dollar, we now have the same pricing as our friends to the south.

Sweet - thanks for the head's up. I just bought 34 tracks! I wish they had more than one Finger Eleven song though...

And why is this service not available to users in the US? I was hoping to save some money! :)

Gai-jin

[Jason Dunn]

And why is this service not available to users in the US? I was hoping to save some money! :)

Pure, sweet revenge :twisted: - no one outisde the good ol' US of A can use iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, or any of the other services I've been hearing people talk about for months. I just roll my eyes when everyone talks about how great iTunes is, because I can't use it. I personally found the UI atrocious - they're foisting that cheap "metal" look on people, the same one they've been flogging with Quicktime for 3+ years - while preserving the nice UI for Mac users. Earth to Apple: PC users like snazzy UI's too!

If it makes you feel any better, this is the second time the download from Puretracks has died on it - it does one or two songs, then the download stops. *#&@(*#@#* :evil:

[ctmagnus]

fwiw, I knew about Puretracks months ago (the info I submitted on it went unanswered) and they had at that time a few unreleased tracks (or so they claimed - the actual downloads didn't seem to exist) unavailable elsewhere. I have yet to pay for anything from it though.

[Jason Dunn]

fwiw, I knew about Puretracks months ago (the info I submitted on it went unanswered) and they had at that time a few unreleased tracks (or so they claimed - the actual downloads didn't seem to exist) unavailable elsewhere. I have yet to pay for anything from it though.

Well, at the moment I'm not pleased - I could only get five of the tracks that I paid for downloaded...their system is bombing out on me. I've sent a few terse email messages - hopefully it's just a temporary glitch and tomorrow everything will be working. More than a little frustrating though!

[gai-jin]

I played with napster long enough to d/l one song. Tried and tried to get it copied to my ppc, but it kept getting to 100%, then came up with an error.

Finaly, I upgraded to wmp9 on the PC and it seems to work now.

Perhaps I'll buy more songs later. Perhaps not. Anyone know of an easy way to convert these drm wma's to mp3, w/o burning and re-ripping?

Gai-jin

[gai-jin]

Oh, one other thing I found disappointing about napster... it seems to me all of the newer (and longer) albums are only available to buy track by track. If I want to buy Alan Jackson's Greatest hits II album, I can buy every song, but can't get the 9.95 rate. :(

Gai-jin

[Janak Parekh]

I personally found the UI atrocious - they're foisting that cheap "metal" look on people, the same one they've been flogging with Quicktime for 3+ years - while preserving the nice UI for Mac users.
I'm not a fan of the brushed metal "theme" either, but the UI itself is very, very good - especially the browse panels. BTW, iTunes looks exactly the same on PCs and Macs. Many components on OS X use brushed metal.

Ed -- quality issues aside, what gets me about buying, burning and reripping is the hassle. It is scary how ridiculously easy it is to buy music from iTunes and put it on the iPod. You hit buy, and the next time you plug in your iPod, iTunes automatically figures out the songs you downloaded and just copies those. Literally takes seconds from purchase to installed. No file management, no album management, it does it all for you behind the scenes.

I just wish it would do the same for every music player. :( I think online music is the way of the future, but for now whenever I need a full album I'm buying the CD for full flexibility... I'm just using iTunes for individual tracks.

--janak

[klinux]

&lt;snip> sounds quite nice in a cranked up 5.1 surround sound equipped system &lt;snip>

&lt;snip> Playing music on our 7.1 Pioneer Elite THX NHT system is bliss &lt;/snip>

Since these WMAs are compressed audio that come in stereo only, isn't saying how nice they sound on your 5.1/7.1 Elite/ES/Mark Levinson/THX Super Mega Ultra II just bragging/spec whoring? :wink:

Since everyone is doing it, I might as well. I like my Sony ES 5.1 system and the Maggie speakers even more. :D I use iTunes/iPod/AAC now but did play with 64kbps VBR WMA/PPC for a while though.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I personally found the UI atrocious - they're foisting that cheap "metal" look on people, the same one they've been flogging with Quicktime for 3+ years - while preserving the nice UI for Mac users.
I'm not a fan of the brushed metal "theme" either, but the UI itself is very, very good - especially the browse panels. BTW, iTunes looks exactly the same on PCs and Macs. Many components on OS X use brushed metal.

I'm using iTunes on a business trip to see how I get on with it. I still prefer MusicMatch though. I like viewing by Artist - with all Albums displayed - rather than the two click that this requires in iTunes. I don't want to see EVERY song title in iTunes - just the albums - with the ability to drill down.

I'm also not crazy about the look of iTunes and there are a few UI issues - when iTunes is maximised and I hover my mouse over the (unintuitive) buttons, the tooltips display UNDER the task manager at the bottom of the screen i.e. you can't read them. You need to normalise the window so that the tooltips can be read in the smaller window. Small point, but the whole UI just does not work too well for me.

I still like whole albums so I buy CDs and rip them. I’ve been stocking up on cheep Canadian CDs recently. :-) I rarely want just one song – if I like an artist I generally want to have everything they put out.

I have ripped all my MP3 at 192kb in order to have the best sound when I eventually hook my computer up to my stereo system. I can hear the difference between 128 and 160 kb, and think I can between 160 and 192. I can’t hear any difference between 192 and 256, so 192 it is for me then. 8)

[Janak Parekh]

I'm using iTunes on a business trip to see how I get on with it. I still prefer MusicMatch though. I like viewing by Artist - with all Albums displayed - rather than the two click that this requires in iTunes. I don't want to see EVERY song title in iTunes - just the albums - with the ability to drill down.
You can easily do this. In the Library, hit the Browse button in the upper-right. You'll get a three-pane browser. Click on the artist in the middle column, and you'll see exactly what you want. Unless you mean you don't want to see the lower pane?

I'm also not crazy about the look of iTunes and there are a few UI issues - when iTunes is maximised and I hover my mouse over the (unintuitive) buttons, the tooltips display UNDER the task manager at the bottom of the screen i.e. you can't read them.
Yeah, that's true. iTunes doesn't follow Windows conventions, for sure. If you're talking about those aspects of the UI, then you'll have no argument from me -- they could do it better.

Personally, though, I find MusicMatch far less intuitive...

I can’t hear any difference between 192 and 256, so 192 it is for me then. 8)
Similar for me. I now rip in AAC 160kbps, which is similar to a higher-bitrate MP3. 160 VBR MP3s aren't too bad, though.

--janak

[dean_shan]

This online music business in its current state really only makes sense for singles as Ed says. By the time you buy the album and blank CD, you could have the real CD with w/ uncompressed quality, artwork, no DRM for just a few bucks more new or less if you buy used.

Or this makes perfect sense if you live over 100 miles from the closest store that sells music. For me it is much easier to use iTunes then going and buying the physical CD.

[sheltem]

I have to agree with sub_tex. Ripping from one lossy format to another will almost always give you a really crappy sound in the end. The best advice I can give you, assuming that you still want to convert the music files, is to convert to the same bitrate as the file you're ripping from (ie, if you're converting a 128kbps wma to mp3, you should make the mp3 file 128kbps also. This will give you the best fidelity you can get.

No, mp3 and wma all have very different way of taking out audio data to make the resulting music file a lot smaller than the original wav. Thus a 128 wma will take out different stuff than a 128 mp3 would. Your best bet would be to encode it in lame vbr, for the most space efficiency. Either way it's a bad idea to transcode in the first place. Like what other users have said, $9.99 is way too much considering you get a inferior compressed copy. While for a few bucks more, you get the actual cd, artwork, bonuses and the uncompressed originals.

[surur]

As an interim solution, after buying a protected track, download the ripped mp3 from kazaa et al, without the complication and quality loss caused by cross converting. And it is legal too, as long as you leech and dont share :)

Surur

BTW, im very interested in burring tracks into an image file. IS that possible from inside e.g Rhapsody. Currently Im using a CD-RW disk (as you cant buy music in rhapsody without immediately burring it) but that is very tedious, and you have to replace the lost mp3 tags manually. Cutting out the cd would at least save one step.

[Ed Hansberry]

Ed -- quality issues aside, what gets me about buying, burning and reripping is the hassle. It is scary how ridiculously easy it is to buy music from iTunes and put it on the iPod. You hit buy, and the next time you plug in your iPod, iTunes automatically figures out the songs you downloaded and just copies those. Literally takes seconds from purchase to installed. No file management, no album management, it does it all for you behind the scenes.
Napster tracks will do the exact same thing. WMP9 has no problem transferring any DRM protected Napster track to your Pocket PC.

I just want the protection off so I can pull the tracks via my WLAN and don't ahve to worry about backing up/restoring licenses when I get a new computer.

[Ed Hansberry]

&lt;snip> sounds quite nice in a cranked up 5.1 surround sound equipped system &lt;snip>

&lt;snip> Playing music on our 7.1 Pioneer Elite THX NHT system is bliss &lt;/snip>

Since these WMAs are compressed audio that come in stereo only, isn't saying how nice they sound on your 5.1/7.1 Elite/ES/Mark Levinson/THX Super Mega Ultra II just bragging/spec whoring? :wink:
Uhmm.... YES! :mrgreen:

[bdegroodt]

Or this makes perfect sense if you live over 100 miles from the closest store that sells music. For me it is much easier to use iTunes then going and buying the physical CD.

Or...if all of the local music chain stores are going out of business because they failed to embrace what is becoming standard. Let's see, Wherehouse (bought out of bankruptcy and many stores closed) Tower in bankruptcy, Sam Goody closing all stores, Virgin records few and far between. None like my iPod/iPaq or any other digital device...Hmmm...I think I'll use iTunes. Suits my life just fine and as Janak mentioned, it's scary how easy and good it is (I'm down a few hundred dollars in a couple of months.).

So, not to blow this thing wide open, but I hear a lot of complaining about DRM. As somebody that works in a DRM-interested industry (business publications), I support DRM with certain fair use concepts embraced. What I'm real curious about (and what I rarely see answered by the opponents) is what would the right business model be that would make you think DRM is acceptable? It can't be unlimited use/any machine/any P2P server I want to load my music to. That's not fair to those that worked and invested to make the product. But, I also agree it's not one device of our choosing and nothing else. What's the right model? :?:

[Ed Hansberry]

What's the right model? :?:
Somethign that ties the protected property to me! Not a device.

This is why I love Palm Digital Media's DRM - it is my CC number and I can change that. This device limit stuff is just stupid, especially for people like us that have literally 7-8 computing devices at home among computers, PDAs, gaming machines and smartphones.

[dma1965]

What I want is a way to download music onto my PDA.
The stability of my 4155 is so good I now use it for about 90% of my total computer time. Give me a way to use these services on the handheld! 0X

[Cameron_Talley]

I only recently began to rip my CD collection onto my PC. I just use *.wma at 96kps. I am hearing impaired, and I really can't tell the difference between this and higher bitrates, or even some lower ones. I only have a 128MB SD card for my iPaq, so I don't have a whole lot of room. However, this is usually enough for one album, which I listen to as I walk to class (college student, ya know).

So, bitrates are a very subjective thing. I have friends that would cringe from listening to 96kps, but it works for me.

As for the whole downloading music thing: call me crazy, but I like having the real, physical album. I don't buy a lot of music anyway, but my taste are such that most online services probably won't have a lot as it is. Does napster or iTunes have 15th and 16th Century English choral music (chants and whatnot)? Also, I don't prefer any modern rock at all, so only stuff written before the mid 70s is good.

Also, I like the feeling of buying a CD, getting the liner notes, etc, for the same reason I still prefer paper books and magazines: I like the reality of it, the tangibleness.

I guess I'm just old Fashioned, but I will stick to simple Windows Media and buying CDs when I want them.

[Janak Parekh]

Napster tracks will do the exact same thing. WMP9 has no problem transferring any DRM protected Napster track to your Pocket PC.
No, I mean iTunes can sync the music to your iPod, very much like how ActiveSync synchronizes PIM data. My other problem with WMP9's setup is that you must copy music through ActiveSync, and AS is very slow over USB. I guess AS-over-WiFi would work as an alternative though.

I just want the protection off so I can pull the tracks via my WLAN and don't ahve to worry about backing up/restoring licenses when I get a new computer.
This is my other pet peeve about WMA's DRM. There aren't any licenses to back up or restore with Apple's AAC DRM ("FairPlay") -- you just log into the machine, and the only rule is that, at most, you can be logged into three machines at once. You just copy/move the AAC files around -- that's it. If anything, the analogy is a lot like MS Reader's "device activations" to Palm Digital Media's "unlock" mechanisms. Now if AAC were supported on any other device, I'd be completely happy.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

The stability of my 4155 is so good I now use it for about 90% of my total computer time. Give me a way to use these services on the handheld! 0X
As Ed mentioned, if you buy DRMed WMA files you can copy them over to a Pocket PC through WMP9 while your Pocket PC is cradled. People have also reported success doing this with MusicMatch's service.

Or do you mean a Pocket PC Napster client? ;)

--janak

[Jonathon Watkins]

I don't want to see EVERY song title in iTunes - just the albums - with the ability to drill down.
You can easily do this. In the Library, hit the Browse button in the upper-right. You'll get a three-pane browser. Click on the artist in the middle column, and you'll see exactly what you want.

Not quite - I want to see all the albums - aranged by artist - just the way I have the physical CDs. I know I can click on the atrist pane to see thier albums - it's the way I currently have it set up. But, you need to click on the artist - it's not all there by default. True - it's not the MusicMatch default setup, but you can do it.

There does also not seem to be any way to display the library and the current playlist, so you can see what is playing and what will play as well as all the tracks availible.

I now rip in AAC 160kbps, which is similar to a higher-bitrate MP3. 160 VBR MP3s aren't too bad, though.

Never said they were. :)

Have a look at this though: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13677

It's a big reason why I won't touch paid downloads for a while.

Coke online music site plays $ worth £ game
Exchange rape

......Lawson points out that on Monday mycokemusic.com launches here in the UK, with a catalogue of 250,000 music tracks, each of which can be downloaded for 99 pence.

Yes, it's another online music site. But, as Lawson points out in his article, 99 pence is not quite the same as 99 cents.

Indeed, it's nothing like it. If the Coca Cola was playing fair, the price of a track should be 55 pence, and not the £1 it wants to charge the long suffering British public.

We've already pointed out that Apple is charging a huge premium on its wildly successful iPod music player outside its home market.

Perhaps one of the guardians of democracy, better known as UK members of parliament, would care to raise this widespread habit of gouging money out of the Brits up in the Mother of all Parliaments?

With music companies endlessly whining about piracy of online music, shouldn't firms selling online music be encouraging people to pay a reasonable price rather than playing this cynical exchange rate racket?

[Janak Parekh]

Not quite - I want to see all the albums - aranged by artist - just the way I have the physical CDs. I know I can click on the atrist pane to see thier albums - it's the way I currently have it set up. But, you need to click on the artist - it's not all there by default. True - it's not the MusicMatch default setup, but you can do it.
OK, I think I know what you mean. Well, different tastes for different people -- I like the three-pane view. 8)

There does also not seem to be any way to display the library and the current playlist, so you can see what is playing and what will play as well as all the tracks availible.
If you're running iTunes 4.2, you can launch "new windows" by just double-clicking on an entry in the left. So if the library is up, just double-click on the playlist. Not perfect, but better than nothing.

It's a big reason why I won't touch paid downloads for a while.
That sucks. :evil:

--janak

[ctmagnus]

Or do you mean a Pocket PC Napster client? ;)

Zamar (Formerly OpenNAP CE) (http://www.nuclearelephant.com/projects/zamar/). ;)

Unfortunately, it's now defunct.

[Janak Parekh]

Unfortunately, it's now defunct.
Right - I'm assuming he meant a client for Roxio's Napster.

--janak

[SassKwatch]

Or this makes perfect sense if you live over 100 miles from the closest store that sells music. For me it is much easier to use iTunes then going and buying the physical CD.
Gads, man..., where do you live? The Kantishna Roadhouse??!?! :)

[dma1965]

Or do you mean a Pocket PC Napster client? ;)

--janak

Yes I mean a Pocket PC Napster Client.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I just want the protection off so I can pull the tracks via my WLAN and don't ahve to worry about backing up/restoring licenses when I get a new computer.
This is my other pet peeve about WMA's DRM. There aren't any licenses to back up or restore with Apple's AAC DRM ("FairPlay") -- you just log into the machine, and the only rule is that, at most, you can be logged into three machines at once. You just copy/move the AAC files around -- that's it.
Despite not owning an iPod and not using iTunes as my regular jukebox (since I rip to CD and then conver to OGG), I have become a big fan of iTunes. While I do like the iTunes GUI and it's ease-of-use, it is this DRM flexibility that really won me over. The peace of mind of knowing I don't have to premeditate what computer I use to download my music makes iTunes worthy of my cash IMO.

I can't imagine considering any other service that doesn't provide me with this kind of flexibility.

Have a look at this though: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13677

It's a big reason why I won't touch paid downloads for a while.

Ouch! My condolensces!

[Phoenix]

I have very sharp hearing but regardless of that, I know that people's differences in ability to differentiate between one encoding and another can have a lot to do with what the music is being pumped through. It's one thing to have an Ipod with the stock earbuds, it's quite another to have an Ipod hooked up to a Total Bithead amp and some Ultimate Ears UE-10 earbuds, for instance. Absolutely huge difference.

On another note, I'm interested in downloading music, but it seems that MP3 is probably the smartest way to go, at least for now, just because practically every device out there, including the Ipod, supports it. AAC and WMA are too proprietary right now. I want the freedom to move my music to whatever device I want, and MP3 is the only way to do that right now without having to worry about whether or not your device will support it. As long as I can get between a 192 and 256 VBR MP3, I'm good.

The thing is, I'm not sold on iTunes software, although I'd like to try the iTunes MS, and it seems that you can't access the store without having to download and use iTunes software. What if I prefer using Anapod instead? I don't need both installed.

I think music stores should offer all formats and at differing rates according to a person's hearing and device. They should offer MP3, AAC, WMA, all at different bit rates (and VBR if it applies), along with the full WAV file. This way, people can decide what exactly they want. Some people want the full WAV so they can encode it themselves, others want it pre-encoded, and people differ in terms of what kind of format and at what rate something is encoded in. Some want to fit more songs on a device, others want higher quality. People are all different in that way, too... not just in what kind of music they listen to. In a clothing store, you don't just have different shirts, you have different sizes. Shouldn't it be this way at an online music store? Give people the flexibility to choose what THEY want. After all, it's their money. With a CD, you have that flexibility. It should be the same way online. And sure, people are paying less online than they would with a CD, but online their is nothing for the record companies to manufacture or print, so less cost shouldn't mean less flexibility. Until this is all ironed out, I don't feel good about investing a lot of money in online music. I don't know what device I'll be using two or three years from now, but I want the ability to download different formats and at different rates so that I can adapt later on if necessary. I want some security in my investment.

[Janak Parekh]

The thing is, I'm not sold on iTunes software, although I'd like to try the iTunes MS, and it seems that you can't access the store without having to download and use iTunes software. What if I prefer using Anapod instead? I don't need both installed.
Well, most of the music stores require their respective client (iTMS, Napster, Musicmatch, Real). I think Wal-Mart doesn't use a player, but I shudder at buying from Wal-Mart given their history of music editing. Neither does BuyMusic, but their DRM is too scary for me ("primary" vs. "secondary" computers, differing rules based on which songs you buy). The advantage is that bought music instantly integrates into your Library. Of course, the other reason companies are doing this to try and lock you into their solution -- I'm unlikely to switch from iTunes now. In your case, you can certainly use both, although I understand that it's a hassle.

I think music stores should offer all formats and at differing rates according to a person's hearing and device. They should offer MP3, AAC, WMA, all at different bit rates (and VBR if it applies), along with the full WAV file.
I don't think we'll ever see MP3 or WAV for major labels' music, since DRM wrappers have not been designed for them and there's no incentive to do so for Apple and Microsoft. There is work on an Ogg DRM wrapper (http://www.sidespace.com/products/oggs/), but I don't foresee widespread adoption.

Give people the flexibility to choose what THEY want. After all, it's their money. With a CD, you have that flexibility.
None of us will disagree with you, but good luck convincing the studio execs about this. They're more concerned about piracy and maximizing profits than giving you what you want. iTunes and the next-generation stores are a step forward, but DRM is embedded in them.

Until this is all ironed out, I don't feel good about investing a lot of money in online music.
Understood. I avoid buying whole CDs myself online -- I just use iTunes for singles, and get most of my music on physical media. However, I suspect it's only a matter of time before music CDs are all "computer-protected" and you'll lose the freedom to rip in any format from the source itself without tremendous hassle.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

The peace of mind of knowing I don't have to premeditate what computer I use to download my music makes iTunes worthy of my cash IMO.
Exactly. Does someone know what Napster's DRM rules are? I know WMA allows wide-ranging policies, so I don't know what Napster chose to implement.

--janak

[dave]

Pure, sweet revenge :twisted: - no one outisde the good ol' US of A can use iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, or any of the other services I've been hearing people talk about for months. I just roll my eyes when everyone talks about how great iTunes is, because I can't use it.

i will never understand this whole USA / Canada commerce situation, nor do i really care to. the politicos should just fix it. i'm glad to hear you Canadians have at least one bona fide competing alternative.

if you guys are willing to pay US$ for something, you should be able to do it. if it were my company, i'd figure out a way to take your money.

[Janak Parekh]

if it were my company, i'd figure out a way to take your money.
I'm pretty sure Napster, iTunes, et. al. are working on it, but they started in the US and there's a fair amount of legal legwork to be done to keep the two compatible within the same system. By restricting themselves to Canada, PureTracks was able to deploy a solution earlier. At least, that's how I read into it.

--janak

[Scott R]

Janak, is the auto-sync feature of iTunes configurable? It seems like a safe thing for it to do when you have a HD-based MP3 player, but if you're using a PPC you wouldn't want it to try and sync your entire MP3 collection automatically.

I'm an MP3 newbie. I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I've never downloaded or listened to any MP3s EVER! Can you believe it? It's partly because I've been stuck in the stone-age with my really old iPaq 3630 (which had no built in memory slot and I wasn't willing to carry it around with a sleeve) and my Treo 300 which had no memory slot either. I recently got both an HP iPaq h4155 and a Palm OS Zodiac 1 (went from having no slots to two slots in one device!).

Now that I have Win XP MCE, I'm even more interested in the whole MP3 thing, though my lifestyle is still not conducive to the whole thing. At home, I mainly like to listen to music (usually Jazz or Blues) during dinner. On my commute, I've gotten accustomed to listening to talk radio. I don't think I'm not one of those people that can listen to music and work at the same time, so I don't think I can listen to MP3's while I work, either. Pretty sad overall, as I used to be really into music (had my own home electronic studio during high school and college). I'm anxious to see whether or not these lossy formats will be good enough to my ears.

I'm definitely intrigued by it all. I'd like something that keeps things easy (ideally integrated into Win XP MCE), has a huge selection, and doesn't limit my usage of what I buy. I disagree with those that think that 99 cents per song is too expensive. I think this pricing is perfect. I'm not one of those people that think that everything in the world should be free. That said, while the $10/month Napster sounds like it has some nice things to offer, I think $10/month is too much for what I need.

Scott

[Janak Parekh]

Janak, is the auto-sync feature of iTunes configurable?
Yes. You can tell it to sync the entire library or just specific playlists, or you can turn off the automatic features completely. However, the sync won't work at all with Pocket PCs; it's designed just for iPods.

I'm anxious to see whether or not these lossy formats will be good enough to my ears.
Given sufficiently high bitrates, they should.

--janak

[bdegroodt]

while we are on the topic, I discovered Magnatune late last year. It's pretty cool (my opinion) because it isn't full of entirely common bands and is as close to artist-direct as reasonable.

http://www.magnatune.com

[denethor]

What do you guys think about ALL of MP3 (http://www.allofmp3.com). They are offering damn good and cheap service. Online encoding is unique. I am not a lawyer but it looks like legal. (At least according to Russian Laws) But what is the diffrence buying CDs from Russian retail stores while you visiting Moscow or buying mp3 from Russian Internet service?

By the way; Yes listening quality of various bit rates is subjective. But it really depands on your listenning environment and genre of the musical material. 64 kbps may be enough for headphones or desktop stereo. But if you are using some hi-fi device and loud speakers it s no longer subjective: its mathematical. I am using 240-355 Kbps VBR WMA9 for ripiping my Audio-CDs and I can really see -not feel 8) - the diffrence espacially in high volumes.

[mekmek]

The Puretracks.com wma's are 192Kbps encoded. I have seen other information that argues that these download websites use better quality source material than standard CDs such that the quality of the music is better than an equivalent encoding from a CD. I can't confirm this, but apparently there is some mention of this on the iTunes website.

As a test I downloaded a song and compared it to the same song I previously encoded from a purchased CD as a 160Kbps vbr mp3. I also tried the Ed Hainsbury trick and made a CD of the WMA, and then encoded it back to a 192 vbr MP3.

I spent a long time listening to these 3 files of the same song in WMP with headphones and could not hear a quality difference between them. There was a small difference in sound - the Puretracks wma sounded brighter. But it was similar to the differences often noted in different hardware or encoding schemes.

[Ed Hansberry]

Ed Hainsbury
Who? :confused totally:

[mekmek]

Ed Hainsbury
Who? :confused totally:

Sorry, I meant the esteemed Ed Hansberry. Interestingly, my own first name is Hans, and I am very used to having people confuse the spelling.

[Kevin C. Tofel]

I gave Napster a shot after reading Ed's glowing review....overall very impressed. One small problem though....and I'm sure there's a simple solution...I just don't know what it is!

I have a Creative Labs MuVo....one of the originals (which I still get a lot of use out of). Unfortunately, the early version of the MuVo is not capable of playing protected content. I purchased Sting's Sacred Love, but can't get any tracks to play on the MuVo. I have the tracks in 128kbps WMA on my PC and I also burned the CD through the Roxio interface in Napster. Do I have to re-rip from that CD in order to get the files in an "unprotected" mode so I can use them on my MuVo?

Thanks!
KCT

[Ed Hansberry]

Do I have to re-rip from that CD in order to get the files in an "unprotected" mode so I can use them on my MuVo?
I think so - unless you can get WMP9 to recognize your MuVo and transfer the content from there. WMP9 will transfer the license files for you, but that assumes that 1) WMP9 can see your MuVo and 2) the MuVo can use WMA license files.

Otherwise, rip to unprotected files.

[Citezein]

I too like Napster, but I've been disappointed with the quality of the WMA files it has. It advertises WMA 9, but in reality, many are encoded with WMA 7 or 8. Also, the bitrate is only 128.

I just tried Musicmatch's download store and while they don't have as many songs yet, the cost is the same and the quality is 160 VBR WMA 9. This is significantly better than Napster's offering.

When a store comes online with 192kbps files, I'll probably switch to that. I highly recommend switching to the highest quality you can find -- especially if you are then transcoding them to MP3.

So check out Musicmatch http://musicmatch.com/