Amazon 'cloud' music VS the CD

Soundbox · 09-07-2013, 12:14

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.

chrisjr · 09-07-2013, 13:10

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.

flagpole · 09-07-2013, 13:24

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.

flagpole · 09-07-2013, 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisjr

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

diablo · 09-07-2013, 13:37

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).

flagpole · 09-07-2013, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by diablo

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).

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 Wales · 09-07-2013, 13:59

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.

diablo · 09-07-2013, 13:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by flagpole

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.

scooby1970 · 09-07-2013, 14:13

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

chrisjr · 09-07-2013, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by flagpole

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.

Shall · 10-07-2013, 14:45

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.

chrisjr · 10-07-2013, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shall

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 Davy · 10-07-2013, 15:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shall

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.

flagpole · 10-07-2013, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackjack Davy

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.

09-07-2013, 12:14	#1
Soundbox Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The garden of earthly delights Posts: 4,509	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.

09-07-2013, 13:10	#2
chrisjr Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 27,916	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.

09-07-2013, 13:24	#3
flagpole Inactive Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,524	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.

09-07-2013, 13:30	#4
flagpole Inactive Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,524	Quote: Originally Posted by chrisjr 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

09-07-2013, 13:37	#5
diablo Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Fylde Coast Posts: 8,103	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).

09-07-2013, 13:48	#6
flagpole Inactive Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,524	Quote: Originally Posted by diablo 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). 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.

09-07-2013, 13:59	#7
Philip Wales Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: South Wales Posts: 5,866	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.

09-07-2013, 13:59	#8
diablo Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Fylde Coast Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by flagpole 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.

09-07-2013, 14:13	#9
scooby1970 Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Neath Posts: 2,468	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

09-07-2013, 15:25	#10
chrisjr Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 27,916	Quote: Originally Posted by flagpole 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.

10-07-2013, 14:45	#11
Shall Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 89	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.

10-07-2013, 15:00	#12
chrisjr Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 27,916	Quote: Originally Posted by Shall 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.

10-07-2013, 15:00	#13
Blackjack Davy Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,037	Quote: Originally Posted by Shall 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.

10-07-2013, 18:45	#14
flagpole Inactive Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 43,524	Quote: Originally Posted by Blackjack Davy 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.

DS Forums

Amazon 'cloud' music VS the CD