Amazon 'cloud' music VS the CD

I have ordered many CD's from Amazon and now I have been told by Amazon that all the CD's I have ordered are available on 'cloud'. I suppose with the correct equipment I can play them from the Amazon website.

What is the quality of the cloud version compared to the CD? Has anyone tried this feature?

I have my Denon CD player working most evenings and if the music is available in another way then that is a plus. Is there anything I can use apart from the headphone out on my laptop to play the Amazon version?

Sorry to ask what is probably a very easy question but I am more at home with mechanical items.

Comments

  • chrisjrchrisjr Posts: 33,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Cloud player is mp3. So won't be as good as the CD. Mind you I don't ever use mp3's even though I have a music player that can quite happily play such files. I rip the CDs to WAV files instead.

    Now if Amazon could be persuaded to put WAV files or even lossless FLAC into the Cloud player than I might have more interest in the thing. As it is the Cloud player is a waste of time for me.
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    there is a thread on the new amazon autorip in the computing forum.
    http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1843245

    the autorip files are not the same as the digital download versions of the songs. but you can not only stream them from the cloud, you can download them too. and immediately.

    the files are MP3 encoded with lame 3.97 if you are interested the parameters are:
    -m j -V 0 -q 3 -lowpass 19.5 --vbr-old -b 32

    which is about as good as mp3 can sound.
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    chrisjr wrote: »
    The Cloud player is mp3. So won't be as good as the CD. Mind you I don't ever use mp3's even though I have a music player that can quite happily play such files. I rip the CDs to WAV files instead.

    Now if Amazon could be persuaded to put WAV files or even lossless FLAC into the Cloud player than I might have more interest in the thing. As it is the Cloud player is a waste of time for me.

    ripping to wav is pointless. it supports no tagging and the audio quality is the same as flac, or any other lossless codec that does.

    they would never even consider putting wav in the cloud. it is just a pointless waste of space.

    it is also worth mentioning that you do get the cd.

    as for mp3 quality. i wrote this little blind test if you are up for it.
    http://nigelcoldwell.co.uk/audio/#blind
  • diablodiablo Posts: 8,300
    Forum Member
    Very few people can tell the difference between a well made MP3 with a good bitrate and a CD, even if played on high quality kit.

    Though plenty will tell you they can (as long as they know which is playing). :D
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    diablo wrote: »
    Very few people can tell the difference between a well made MP3 with a good bitrate and a CD, even if played on high quality kit.

    Though plenty will tell you they can (as long as they know which is playing). :D

    it's true. and more importantly it doesn't matter if you can tell on high end kit. only the stuff on which you are listening to it.
  • Philip WalesPhilip Wales Posts: 6,373
    Forum Member
    Didn't the Gadget Show do a blind test some years ago with a group and they were played MP3's of their songs, and they could only just tell the differences, it was things like the odd "drum beat" missing here etc. Most people don't care as long as it sounds pretty good their happy.
  • diablodiablo Posts: 8,300
    Forum Member
    flagpole wrote: »
    as for mp3 quality. i wrote this little blind test if you are up for it.
    http://nigelcoldwell.co.uk/audio/#blind

    Lol, I picked the 320 and lossless as being a bit better (on fairly high quality kit) but got them the wrong way round. :)

    Though even the 64 would be fine if played as background music. Probably better than most pop DAB stations actually. :eek:
  • scooby1970scooby1970 Posts: 2,797
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've been using the Amazon MP3 app to stream my music I've bought via Amazon on my Samsung S3 and the whole thing works very well. Everything streams seamlessly, with no buffering using my phone, and the sound quality is very good. It's also brilliant that you can download songs instantly, I'd forgotten I'd bought a few songs, and re-downloaded them quickly and effortlessly.

    :) Mark
  • chrisjrchrisjr Posts: 33,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    flagpole wrote: »
    ripping to wav is pointless. it supports no tagging and the audio quality is the same as flac, or any other lossless codec that does.
    WAV can support tagging. It is quite possible to embed all sorts of extra data into the header of the file.

    Google Broadcast WAV Format for an example of how artist and title data along with other fields are added to a bog standard WAV file.
  • ShallShall Posts: 97
    Forum Member
    I would agree wav is a waste of space FLAC would offer identical quality but require less storage. However, just as some people will buy grossly over priced so called good quality HDMI leads, you'll get the odd mug that will buy into wav because they believe it to be the best!

    MP3 is compressed so there is a loss of quality, however, the challenge would be if you can hear a difference between MP3 / Flac on the system you usually use to listen to music. Personally I can't. So I have FLAC for the backup and MP3 (v2 vbr) for portable players.
  • chrisjrchrisjr Posts: 33,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Shall wrote: »
    I would agree wav is a waste of space FLAC would offer identical quality but require less storage. However, just as some people will buy grossly over priced so called good quality HDMI leads, you'll get the odd mug that will buy into wav because they believe it to be the best!

    MP3 is compressed so there is a loss of quality, however, the challenge would be if you can hear a difference between MP3 / Flac on the system you usually use to listen to music. Personally I can't. So I have FLAC for the backup and MP3 (v2 vbr) for portable players.
    I have 2TB of storage in my music player (and a simple disk swap can expand that as necessary). Plus it has two USB sockets on the back that can each take extra hard drives. So storage is not an issue.

    And as I don't have any sort of portable player I have no need to compress the music files I use.
  • Blackjack DavyBlackjack Davy Posts: 1,166
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Shall wrote: »
    MP3 is compressed so there is a loss of quality, however, the challenge would be if you can hear a difference between MP3 / Flac on the system you usually use to listen to music. Personally I can't. So I have FLAC for the backup and MP3 (v2 vbr) for portable players.

    its not the compression that causes loss of quality, its the fact MP3 is lossy compression, i.e. data is thrown away in the process. FLAC is compressed too but without the loss (thats why its larger) but can be uncompressed to a WAV without loss of quality.
  • flagpoleflagpole Posts: 44,641
    Forum Member
    its not the compression that causes loss of quality, its the fact MP3 is lossy compression, i.e. data is thrown away in the process. FLAC is compressed too but without the loss (thats why its larger) but can be uncompressed to a WAV without loss of quality.

    Shall knows that. read his post carefully.
Sign In or Register to comment.