Music Subscription

[Mango Madness]

Is it really that hard for music companies to understand? What do users want? They want unlimited amounts of music. They want quality formats. They want a good selection. They want good transfer speeds. They also don't want ghost files or mislabeled files.

Would it really be that hard for 20 bucks a month or whatever to implement this? I'd personally want the ability to DL lots of music in a losslessly compressed format such as FLAC so that i could later encode to mp3, vorbis, mpc, aac or whatever my flavor of the day is. Then i'd be snug as a bug in a rug.

Just my rant for the day.

[Xethos]

you could use kazaa and get everything!

[Mango Madness]

not at the quality, speed, or quantity i want.

[BoNz1]

Yeah, I think that was his whole point, he doesn't want to use kazaa. I would pay a certain amount of money a month to be able to download music. However, it would have to be looseless, none of this crap that they try and sell you on mp3.com. Personally, I don't want to have to go on kazaa and download 9 different copies of songs to find one that wasn't encoded with xing or that I can at least listen to. I value my free time since I don't have much, the little that I do I have don't want to waste finding songs on kazaa. I don't want to buy cds either, I do buy a few every once in a while but only after I know that it is a good disc. I hate buying cds that only have one good song on them. Anyhow, that is my feeling on the matter. I am interested to hear what others think.

[kelproit62]

*spam and profanity deleted by the moderator*

[OvERaCiD23]

As to downloading music on KaZaA, search for 192kbps or higher. People who put out crap usually don't encode higher than 128kbps. Buying music is quite frustrating now days, when nearly the whole CD is crap and you question where your $15-$20 went. That is the reason I download music; if artists could produce more than one good song, they might get my money.

[ReTroAcTive]

for mp3s i find winmx is much better then kazaa or anything else as it has a bite rate filter so i dont even see anything under 160 or 192. i get about 20 times as many hits from winmx as i do from kazaa too, no spyware either.
if i find a cd i really like i will buy it but not for just 1 song. so i love mp3s so i can listen to the whole thing to make sure its worth buying. i think thats why they are so pissed off about mp3s we can weed through the crap before we buy the whole cd. they just want us to give them our money and if we arent happy with the cd we cant take it back because its already opened. cds are about the only thing that has no return and they do that because they know after you hear the whole thing youll know its not worth the 16.99 or whatever you gave for it.

"off topic" is every post by kelproit62 full of spam and profanity? "off topic"

[BoNz1]

Originally posted by OvERaCiD23
As to downloading music on KaZaA, search for 192kbps or higher. People who put out crap usually don't encode higher than 128kbps.

No, I have downloaded higher than 192kbps they still sound awful, like I said on average I have to download 5-9 copies before I find one that I can even listen to but even then they are not really any good. Most people still seem to encode their mp3s with xing or other crap encoders instead of lame which is pretty good. This is especially true on kazaa, winmx less so I guess. Anyway, I don't want mp3s, or ogg, or anything else for that matter except looseless. This is why I would like to subscribe to such a service.

[Mango Madness]

lossless would allow anyone to encode to any format they need whether it be the widespread mp3 format, vorbis, aac, mpc or whatever. And why do people use 128 CBR from ancient encoders? Perhaps some of us could make a lot of money setting up this business model :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by OvERaCiD23
As to downloading music on KaZaA, search for 192kbps or higher. People who put out crap usually don't encode higher than 128kbps.

You wish. On many p2p services there are files originally encoded at 64-80kbps that have purposefully been re-encoded to 192Kbps and up. All the way to 320Kbps. Bitrate != quality.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Mango Madness
lossless would allow anyone to encode to any format they need whether it be the widespread mp3 format, vorbis, aac, mpc or whatever. And why do people use 128 CBR from ancient encoders? Perhaps some of us could make a lot of money setting up this business model :)

1. Record companies as they exist today are not gonna touch anything new unless the words "restrictive DRM" are in the feature list. You have way to many rights as things stand being able to copy CDs you own for your own use. That's just wrong in so many ways. Right?

2. Lossless is a last resort. The record companies have gotten comfortable selling you albums you alreay own in new formats. They will give you low quality MP3 now and sell it to you again in a format they deem better with restrictive DRM later. They feel they dodged the bullet called "CDs" they nearly shot and killed themselves with. With all this rage about compressed PC media they have a new playing field to repeat their fleecing of the consumer.