Hey all,
New here, so sorry if I've posted in the wrong forum.
Anyways, I think this topic has been discussed before, but I find it really irritating how random the encodes are on Amazon MP3. They say on their site that they use variable bitrate wherever possible and CBR when not.
Now granted I have done my fair share of ABX testing and determined that I cannot hear the difference between a quality -V2 encode and a lossless copy. However, I just wish that Amazon would settle on one standard for all their MP3s. So far, I have obtained MP3s from Amazon in the following encodes:
LAME 3.97 -V0
LAME 3.91 cbr 256
LAME 3.98r cbr 256
Fraunhofer (FhG) cbr 256
LAME 3.98b ABR 256
LAME 3.96 cbr 256
The majority of the time I get one of the CBR profiles. I don't know about anyone else here, but I wish that either Amazon would settle on one standard, or show you what bit rate the files are at before you buy them. I would also like to know what software they use for their CD ripping, although I'm afraid that's not possible to find out. I recently got a song that was released in late 2011, and it says it was sold by Amazon Digital Services, and this song was encoded at 3.96 cbr 256. Also, I have found that all songs labeled being sold by Sony Digital Music Services are encoded with LAME 3.98b ABR 256. But I don't understand why Amazon would use an odd encoding setting when they have done -V0 in the past.
Well, just wanted to say my opinion, but aside from all this I do have to say that the Amazon prices are great and its very easy as well .
Thanks for reading,
-musicfan321
Because Amazon are not doing the encoding?
It doesn't matter what encoder as 256 CBR is pretty high quality. CBR/ABR 224..256 is not worse than VBR V0 in general. The major concerns were 128k encodings and some rare hard samples that might not sound good at 192k . I would be more worried about transcoding or some unsafe switches.
Perhaps all Amazon buyers (here) could pool their data and see which encoding concerns have a basis in reality.
That is one of the reasons why I stopped buying mp3s from Amazon. It isn't a sound quality issue on my part but, if I am going to buy from a service, I would like all of those songs to use the same encoder and setting just like everyone else. I know that if I go buy a song from the iTunes Store, it will be encoded at 256kbps VBR AAC while songs from the Zune Marketplace are 320kbps mp3. That way the amount of mixed material in my library is cut down. It is more of an OCD issue that irritates me. That is why I have since gone through and used iTunes Match to swap out my Amazon purchased mp3 files for 256kbps VBR AAC versions. It had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of one vs another (since I can't ABX a difference, even from the 256kbps CBR FhG files) but now my library is more consistent instead of having albums encoded using 39587 different mp3 encoders and settings.
My best guess is that the artists/labels are doing the encoding. There as a time when Apple would send artists/labels their software. They could then load the lossless masters (or even the masters used for pressing the CDs) and were given a few options. They could encode at 128kbps AAC (an option that is no longer there), 256kbps VBR, or ALAC. If they went with ALAC, Apple would do all of the lossy encoding for them on their servers so that the bands/labels didn't have to worry about that. I believe that is the only option that Apple offers now but I could be mistaken. My guess is that Amazon is implementing something similar and, when a band/label sends them lossless content, Amazon will encode it using their settings (which seem to vary).
Thanks everyone for the quick replies !
I thought that because Amazon doesn't do the encoding might be the issue. But one thing I don't understand is, since you said Apple sends the labels their software so everything on the iTunes store is encoded the same, then why can't Amazon do that?
I do agree that it's not a sound quality issue, it's more of the fact that I'd like most of my stuff to be encoded the same as kornchild2002 says. I have considered signing up for iTunes Match, but part of me thinks that it would be a waste of money since I really can't tell the sound quality difference. Is it worth the $25?
I didn't know the Zune marketplace sold MP3s at 320kbps. I may consider buying from them more often. The new Google Music service is also intriguing since they say theirs are 320k as well, but there is the bigger issue of them not having Warner Bros. music . I prefer the iTunes Store quality to that of Amazon MP3, but sometimes Amazon's prices are just too hard to resist .
I was going to say that Play.com also sells MP3s at 320 kbps, as this was the case with the several albums I bought from them; however, a quick search on Google suggests that this may have been changed to 256/192 kbps, or that their bitrate varies by release too. Still, I thought it was worth mentioning!
Interesting, I've never heard of Play.com....still, I probably won't use the service, but it's good knowing the option's available.
I have small experience purchasing online, but even FLACs are dubious sometimes turning out to be sourced from lossy.
Since then I just stopped purchasing stuff online such as immaterial music: Unless it is really proven what is announced is really what it is.
I'm going to consider signing up for iTunes Match. I like iTunes and only use iPods now, so the AAC format compatibility isn't an issue. $25 for the year really isn't expensive at all, and I do have a couple of those old low-quality CD rips in my collection.
In a perfect world I would actually think Amazon selling music in either the MP3 format or the FLAC format would be awesome . But they'll probably never do that since most of consumers wouldn't know what to do with the FLAC format, and the file sizes are quite large.
At such a high bitrate I'm not sure it really matters what they use.
IMO old encoders are annoying specifically because people need to use higher bitrates, so you waste space to get transparency. If you're going to buy 256kbps audio and waste the space anyway, then it seems kind of irrelevant.
I agree in reality it doesn't matter what encoder they use, I can't actually hear a difference between any of the Amazon MP3 files. But just like kornchild2002, the OCD part of me wants everything to be the same.
I just don't understand why people still use old encoders today either. It's not like LAME costs money to upgrade the version, so why not? There really is no reason to have to use Lame 3.91 today.
I just don't understand why people still use old encoders today either. It's not like LAME costs money to upgrade the version, so why not? There really is no reason to have to use Lame 3.91 today.
They're probably using some program that links against an old version of the lame dlls and hasn't been updated.
That makes sense, but couldn't they just replace the lame dll in the old program with the new version, without upgrading the program? Or maybe that would cause compatibility issues....
I just wish that Amazon would settle on one standard for all their MP3s.
As others have posted before, AMZ don't do the encoding themselves.
That said, even if they did all the encoding themselves and "settled" on a single quality/bitrate, that wouldn't necessarily fix your issue as the release of new encoder versions would still result in discrepancies. New files would be encoded using the latest version while older files would be stuck on previous versions.* I don't think it's reasonable to expect a vendor to reencode their entire library on each version change if reencoding doesn't change the perceived quality/transparency of the output files.
IMO the only fix for this is a move to lossless downloads, in which case you'd be (effectively) downloading the same original data regardless of the encoder version.
*For an example of a music store that does this, see eMusic
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but what I meant by "standard" was one bit rate. The LAME version isn't as important, I'd just appreciate it if they settled on only V0. It would be a lot of work to upgrade everything to the latest LAME version (something I wouldn't be willing to do with my stuff, lol), and it wouldn't really make sense if the sound quality doesn't change.
I've decided to still go with Amazon MP3 if the price is cheapest, otherwise I'll go with another service. After all, everything sounds good, and that's what's most important IMO.
So much of this content goes through aggregators and third parties.
I've no specific knowledge of Amazon, but Spotify makes some info public...
http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/lab...sts/label-page/ (http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/label-page/)
http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/lab...ts/aggregators/ (http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/aggregators/)
http://fuga.me/ (http://fuga.me/)
http://www.ci-support.com/public/ (http://www.ci-support.com/public/)
etc
It's an interesting world out there.
Cheers,
David.
musicfan321 and I agreed it’d be best for readability and future discussion (of either topic) to split this, and so: “iTunes Match: discussion, experiences, issues (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92774)”
So much of this content goes through aggregators and third parties.
I've no specific knowledge of Amazon, but Spotify makes some info public...
http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/lab...sts/label-page/ (http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/label-page/)
http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/lab...ts/aggregators/ (http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/aggregators/)
http://fuga.me/ (http://fuga.me/)
http://www.ci-support.com/public/ (http://www.ci-support.com/public/)
etc
It's an interesting world out there.
Cheers,
David.
Interesting, never thought of that. So it sounds like we've come to a conclusion here that AmazonMP3 has various encodings because they don't do most of the encoding.
I seem to be getting mostly CBR files......very few VBR. From poeple's experience here shopping at AmazonMP3, have you gotten more VBR or CBR?
i've only got 59 tracks from amazon (UK) but 57 of those are encoded @ V0 with lame 3.97. the other 2 tracks are 3.98 ABR.
)[/size]
i've only got 59 tracks from amazon (UK) but 57 of those are encoded @ V0 with lame 3.97. the other 2 tracks are 3.98 ABR.
(i'm too ashamed of some of the songs on there... )
That's strange because I've gotten more of those ABR files than the VBR. They sound the same to me though.
UPDATE:
Just purchased another album, and no surprise it was CBR. It's LAME though, at least:
(http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee420/mcdougal1/Capture-8.jpg)
I don't care about different bitrate deviances, since this doesn't harm the playback and there's no way to change it for the better once you download the right|wrong bitrate. If I was really needing to solve the problem, I'd buy the CD or find a FLAC somewhere instead. And that's exactly what I do sometimes.
But for the stuff that I do get off of Amazon occasionally, the only things that really bother me are:
* low-quality album artwork embedded
* wrong album artwork embedded
* wrong copyright date embedded
* terms like "[Explicit]" and "feat. nobody special" stuck into the tune and file name
* versions of hit tunes which are not the versions that I heard on the radio and liked
* versions of hit tunes which are not the versions that I heard on the album and liked
* versions of hit tunes which are not the versions that I heard on remix albums and liked
last but not least...
* joint stereo and the MP3 codec overall... FLAC and WavPack for the win!
* joint stereo and the MP3 codec overall... FLAC and WavPack for the win!
FLAC uses joint stereo
I don't care about different bitrate deviances, since this doesn't harm the playback and there's no way to change it for the better once you download the right|wrong bitrate. If I was really needing to solve the problem, I'd buy the CD or find a FLAC somewhere instead. And that's exactly what I do sometimes.
But for the stuff that I do get off of Amazon occasionally, the only things that really bother me are:
* low-quality album artwork embedded
* wrong album artwork embedded
* wrong copyright date embedded
* terms like "[Explicit]" and "feat. nobody special" stuck into the tune and file name
* versions of hit tunes which are not the versions that I heard on the radio and liked
* versions of hit tunes which are not the versions that I heard on the album and liked
* versions of hit tunes which are not the versions that I heard on remix albums and liked
last but not least...
* joint stereo and the MP3 codec overall... FLAC and WavPack for the win!
All of the tagging issues can be adjusted with an awesome program Mp3tag . Also where do you download FLAC albums? That would be awesome.....
FLAC uses joint stereo
I thought joint stereo was better than regular stereo?
It is. Unless astroidmist has simply delayed the provision of objective evidence that the converse is true, this claim is at best annoyingly persistent misinformation, probably based upon internet myth and FUD, and at worst a violation of TOS #8; either way, it is unwelcome.
So saying joint stereo is worse is like saying FLAC isn't CD quality, which certainly isn't true. Either way doesn't matter to me since starting at 192k things usually sound transparent to me .
Sorry guys, I misspoke. I meant the "intensity stereo coding", (which is a lossy form of joint stereo) of MP3 bothers me. The Mid-Side stereo coding of FLAC (which is a lossless form of joint stereo) does not bother me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_stereo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_stereo)
But with this correction, my opinion still stands and everyone ignored everything else I mentioned so you might want to consider those things too.
Sorry guys, I misspoke. I meant the "intensity stereo coding", (which is a lossy form of joint stereo) of MP3 bothers me. The Mid-Side stereo coding of FLAC (which is a lossless form of joint stereo) does not bother me.
As far as I'm aware Intensity Stereo in MP3s is very rare, most MP3 encoders use Mid-Side Stereo, just like FLAC. That said, I don't have any Amazon MP3s so don't know if they use some obscure/ancient encoder.
As far as I'm aware Intensity Stereo in MP3s is very rare, most MP3 encoders use Mid-Side Stereo, just like FLAC.
This is correct. And M/S stereo is a mathematically lossless transformation. Thus, using joint stereo where appropriate saves bits that can be used to increase quality elsewhere.
That said, I don't have any Amazon MP3s so don't know if they use some obscure/ancient encoder.
Users have provided several lists of encoders found in their Amazon-sourced downloads, so you can easily check this for yourself. Relatively recent LAME versions are used most of the time. Besides, intensity stereo, which is lossy but is only used (and at all useful) at very low bitrates (where good quality is unlikely anyway), certainly wasn’t the default mode in outdated encoders or anything like that.
Overall, the implication that the mode of joint stereo actually used by LAME (an optimal balance between M/S and L/R frames) is somehow undesirable is a false one (as has been said countless times). astroidmist can acknowledge this and withdraw the claim, or disagree with supporting evidence, whenever is convenient.
The album I just downloaded was yet again CBR. But this time fully equipped with Fraunhofer . Seems to me Amazon uses CBR most of the time.
I've bought a handful of tracks and only 3 complete albums from amazon.co.uk. All are identically encoded:
Writing library : LAME3.97
Encoding settings : -m j -V 0 -q 3 -lowpass 19.5 --vbr-old -b 32
2 of the albums are on the same label, worldcircuit, and the other is on a different label, Tinder.
It's likely that Amazon has a set of criteria for their mp3s that allows for a range of high quality encoding standards, and accepts from record labels files which meet those criteria, and otherwise Amazon obtain PCM or AIFF or even a pressed CD and do the rest themselves. I know this is the case with at least one other online retailer, Magnatune, because I corresponded with them after running into some quality issues and it became apparent that the catalogue was a mix of files supplied by the artists and CDDA extraction performed by the label (the correspondence was useful, the quality issues addressed, and new files made available where possible).
It's also possible that in different markets Amazon has different files for some artists. Distribution rights and agents often differ from market to market, as do consumer demands and perceptions of those demands: the people supplying the file for the same track in the USA, Germany and Japan might all be different, and doing it a little differently, or even specifying that it must be done in a particular way by the retailer.
If I remember correctly I heard from somewhere that all the MP3s at Amazon were originally encoded that way. I still have a couple of albums with that setting I got a while back.
Then they ran into some issues I think and had no choice but to get some MP3s from the record companies or other sources.
Could be wrong, though. lol.
Sorry guys, I misspoke. I meant the "intensity stereo coding", (which is a lossy form of joint stereo) of MP3 bothers me.
I seriously doubt you got a 256kbps intensity stereo mp3 off of Amazon (or anywhere for that matter).
The only standard Amazon has is that they will, "where possible", offer MP3s with an average of 256 kbps, and they explicitly say they can use CBR or VBR to achieve it. I remembered seeing this somewhere, and although it's buried in their help section, I finally found their "Media Formats" page again:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/dis...odeId=200389400 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_rel_topic?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200389400)
Beyond attempting to provide 256 kbps, Amazon has no standards, so you get what you pay for.
Yeah I did see that page a while back. It still confuses me tho why Amazon can't have a standard CBR setting if they can't always use VBR. iTunes, Zune marketplace, and the new Google Music all have one setting.
Not exactly a bit rate problem but another reason that may make me stop buying from Amazon MP3.
I recently purchased a song, and I tried to download it from Cloud Drive. After clicking the download button, I get the following error message:
(http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee420/mcdougal1/Capture.jpg)
I did some research on the problem and found out that multiple browsers, and computers are considered "devices". It has also been said that if you clear your cookies you will fill up your device limit very quickly. Now I run CCleaner on my computer regularly to keep peak performance which clears my cookies, and I haven't had this problem until now.
I haven't even been able to download the song I just purchased.
This system is clearly flawed and needs to be fixed. Hell, even iTunes' device limit isn't this bad, and they let you clear it. I will be contacting Amazon to resolve this issue and I may decide to stop buying from their MP3 store altogether. Just wanted to warn people about this problem.
I came across that on my Mac. Apparently it thinks my Droid X, nettop through FireFox, same nettop through Chrome, and Mac (Safari and Chrome) constitutes too many devices. I got the problem solved rather quickly but I had to re-activate my Droid X over again. I wish there was an option in my Amazon account that would let me clear all registered devices.
I e-mailed Amazon support explaining the problem. Hopefully they will be able to reset it and I'll be able to download the song.
I guess I could uncheck the cookies option in CCleaner for a while, hopefully it won't slow down my PC.
in ccleaner, look under options>cookies and you can tell it what cookies to keep. anything you don't whitelist will be deleted as normal.
Thanks for the tip marc2003, I wasn't aware of that option. I just unchecked cookies in my browser under the "Applications" menu.
Thankfully I got my problem resolved pretty quickly, Amazon has reset my devices .