Best music download site

superscaper

wolfman wrote:

WMA over Mp3! Mp3's at around 220Kbps (variable) using the LAME encoder will give a decent output. Not quite transparent, but still very good. I'd never use WMA though.

Ogg Vorbis or AAC is the way to go if you want the best lossy encoders. Preferably Ogg as it's open source, although it has less support.

And if you start getting near 320Kbps, you may as well just use lossless compression, like FLAC.


Buying the CD is still the best option. You can often get some very good prices if you look around. There is one site I'd recommend, but we're not allowed to mention such russian sites on here.

I'd use ogg vorbis if I got around to converting my cds, but I think I've mentioned in other threads I no longer download music as I find it cheaper to buy the cd and as you say you can't beat that for bitrate. I prefer wma over mp3 because for the same bitrate I can fit almost twice as much music on my mp3 player.

superscaper

trets77 wrote:

1000's upon 1000's of hard copy mp3's for you to choose !!!!

If you're talking about cds then they're not mp3 format.

trets77

my samsung mp3 player is playing them just fine

superscaper

trets77 wrote:

my samsung mp3 player is playing them just fine

???? You mean you ripped the cds to mp3 which is a conversion process? Audio cds are not in mp3 format!!! Any cds that have been burned with mp3 music files cannot be legally sold.

stevemcol

yes, the napster track I downloaded was WMA. It looked like any other WMA file in exploer and played fine on my PC. Wouldn't play on MP3 player though.

It does seem a bit odd.
Agree 79p per track is a premium fee for a whole album. I'm just looking for the odd track.

superscaper

Is your mp3 player meant to be able to play wma?

marleyboy

I'd think the whole point of someone buying a track to download, would be to play on their personal mp3 players, should I pay 79p for some music that is limited to my pc, its the equivelant of buying a cassette tape that cannot be played on a walkman. It makes me realise why so many people would opt to illegally downloading music, not just for the cost, but for its ability to be played on an mp3 player. Theres a certain amount of trust that the music industry has to place onto the general public. If for example I was to buy a DVD movie, that wont play on my dvd player simply because its anti piracy blocks it from playing on certain dvd players, I would return it and get my money back. But its a sure bet that there is software out there that would allow me the privilage of converting the disc or (ripping) so as to be accessable in any dvd player. The same applies to music.

superscaper

marleyboy wrote:

I'd think the whole point of someone buying a track to download, would be to play on their personal mp3 players, should I pay 79p for some music that is limited to my pc, its the equivelant of buying a cassette tape that cannot be played on a walkman.

If it was mp3 format then you could play it on almost anything but if you are talking about proprietary formats then it would be the equivalent of buying a cassette and expecting it to play on your cd player. AAC tracks bought from itunes won't play on mp3 players other than ipods. That's Apple's perogative. If you have an ipod fine, if you don't, shop elsewhere. Market forces at work I think in OP's case it must be more to do with compatibility rather than copy protection as I've never heard of a download shop that restricts you from putting it on portable players at least once.

marleyboy

My mp3 player plays both mp3 and wma files, I have a vast cd and vynil collection, that I have converted to both mp3 and wma. (prefer mp3 format to wma). I have noted that some of my cd's have copy protection, but my software overrides it, the software is legal (Nero) I'm assuming the conversion isnt. I can remember back in the days when both music and video was analogue, (magnetic strips of tape). and any copies were justified of being of poor quality.

Now with the digital age, its indistinguishable, so they justify piracy now by claiming the proceeds go towards drug dealers and organised crime. The fact is you can buy a disc for as little as 10p, copy and even print off the covers. In effect you can have a movie or album for a good 90% discount and still have it as good as the original, that tells me a lot about just how much money the music and movie industry cream off the public, as it is costing them a lot less to mass produce a product, and sell it off as an original. putting the loss revenue and legalities aside for a moment, can anyone convince me a Jo bloggs, why I need pay over £20 for a product, when I can get the same quality of product for less than £2.

Anything created digitally, no matter how many anti copy devices are crammed into it, can still be manipulated and re-created back to a digital format, and no matter how many reasons, excuses and legalities are thrown at it, it still boils down to cost, if they want Jo Bloggs to stop buying a ripped version of a product, either music, DVD or Games software, the only solution would be to match the price the back street dealers charge. I could buy a fake football kit and know it falls to pieces within a couple of weeks, thats quality. The same does not apply to digital formats. Unfortunatley thats the way things are. Every Jo Bloggs would think the same, and certainly not feel guilty about buying it, because there is a fine line between quality and extortion.

Wesker

stevemcol wrote:

yes, the napster track I downloaded was WMA. It looked like any other WMA file in exploer and played fine on my PC. Wouldn't play on MP3 player though.

Cant you just convert it to MP3 with something like dBpowerAMP