Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Amazon 'cloud' music VS the CD


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-07-2013, 12:14
Soundbox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Posts: 3,223

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.
Soundbox is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 09-07-2013, 13:10
chrisjr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 22,587
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.
chrisjr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 13:24
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.
flagpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 13:30
flagpole
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,524
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
flagpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 13:37
diablo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fylde Coast
Posts: 7,928
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).
diablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 13:48
flagpole
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,524
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.
flagpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 13:59
Philip Wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: South Wales
Posts: 3,683
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.
Philip Wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 13:59
diablo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Fylde Coast
Posts: 7,928
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.
diablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 14:13
scooby1970
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Neath
Posts: 2,319
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
scooby1970 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 15:25
chrisjr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 22,587
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.
chrisjr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 14:45
Shall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 82
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.
Shall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 15:00
chrisjr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 22,587
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.
chrisjr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 15:00
Blackjack Davy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 675
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.
Blackjack Davy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2013, 18:45
flagpole
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,524
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.
flagpole is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:40.