Download MP3 Store?

[scriptasylum]

i tunes is great, i use it for mp3 purchasing. it comes in protected thing so only itunes can play it. but you can also burn the songs with itunes and then rip to mp3 or ogg later on.

So, do you mean you can buy the mp3, burn it to disc directly (no conversion to CD audio/Wav) and simply copy it off the disc without having to decode/encode again? That sounds too easy, but if that's the way it is, then I'll have to check it out.

However, if you have to decode the mp3 from itunes to CD format, and then rip it back off and re-encode it, you are losing too much. Once the original MP3 is encoded, the missing data is gone. Period. Converting it back to CD (WAV) format won't bring the missing pieces back. Then ripping the CD audio and re-encoding just increases distortion. So, even if you started out with a 320 quality MP3, by the time you're done buring, ripping, and encoding again, you'll have the equivalent quality of a 128 MP3 (more or less) even though it may still technically be 320.

Bah, all this is making my head hurt. I guess I'll just browse those discount CD stores and/or garage sales once in a while and hope I get lucky and find a CD I want. Then I'll just rip/encode it myself and be done with it.

From what I'm hearing, the bottom line is that there is no online store that sells hi-Q MP3's (320) with no limit or restriction on use. Going through loops to re-encode/decode, etc is too much bother for the result. Oh well. Thanks everyone for their input; I'll still go out and check out some of your suggestions. Maybe I can find a way to work around the negative aspects without breaking any copyright laws. Being a law-abiding citizen is such a pain in the neck!

 

[muzikool]

I understand the frustration. As far as I know, there aren't any "legal" download stores that offer high-quality MP3s. Most people seem to be content with average-quality music, hence there isn't enough demand to qualify the kind of service that you and I want to exist. I understand how ridiculous it would be to offer millions of songs in different formats and bitrates... it just isn't a logical model for a company to follow, and that's why we're stuck being slightly discontent.

 

[scriptasylum]

I understand the frustration. As far as I know, there aren't any "legal" download stores that offer high-quality MP3s. Most people seem to be content with average-quality music, hence there isn't enough demand to qualify the kind of service that you and I want to exist. I understand how ridiculous it would be to offer millions of songs in different formats and bitrates... it just isn't a logical model for a company to follow, and that's why we're stuck being slightly discontent.

I understand that too, but you would think there would be enough people that want hi-q MP3's that at least one company would offer the format I'm looking for. As far as I can tell, each company is using similar crappy formats. Hell, I wouldn't even mind downloading a 50MB WAV file even though it would take about 10-15 minutes to download at ~200kBytes/sec. Then anyone can format it however they want. They could even use one of the lossless compression technologies to reduce the filesize. Since it's lossless, decompressing wouldn't detract from the quality and re-encoding to MP3 would be just like encoding from the original WAV file.

 

[dreamliner77]

Did I mention that anyone encoding mp3's should use the "best" mp3 encoder: LAME

Use it with the command line --alt-preset standard and you will have a "transparent to most people" mp3 that averages ~190-210 kbps depending on the style of music. No need for 320 kbps CBR.

 

[scriptasylum]

Did I mention that anyone encoding mp3's should use the "best" mp3 encoder: LAME

Use it with the command line --alt-preset standard and you will have a "transparent to most people" mp3 that averages ~190-210 kbps depending on the style of music. No need for 320 kbps CBR.

The MP3 encoder I have (Acoustica MP3 to WAV Converter) does use the LAME encoder. I just use 320 because it's the highest bitrate available. I get almost the quality I want with the filesize and compatibility I want.

 

[dreamliner77]

I betcha if you use --alt-preset standard, it will sound "better" and be smaller too. There are code level tweaks done to the progam that are accessed by using the --alt-presets. Highly recommeded.

 

[muzikool]

*wonders what "better" is*

 

[dreamliner77]

The alt presets had substantial testing at hydrogenaudio.org. It was proven to be "transparent" (what most people would call cd quality) in the vast majority of cases, thru thorough testing , with a few problem samples that show mp3's flaws as a format as a whole.

I'm not trying to be a zealot here (I personally use musepack for my compressiion). I've just spent a long time testing/researching in this area.

 

[Xie]

yeah most anyone that cares about audio and for some reason still uses mp3 will rip a cd using EAC w/ --alt-preset.

 

[dreamliner77]

Agreed.

 

[scriptasylum]

I betcha if you use --alt-preset standard, it will sound "better" and be smaller too. There are code level tweaks done to the progam that are accessed by using the --alt-presets. Highly recommeded.

Ok, um, what exactly is that (--alt-preset)? This is what I do when ripping: Rip to WAV @ 44.1kHz/16bit/stereo (CD-Quality) using "Free CD Ripper". Then I use Acoustica MP3 to WAV converter (which uses LAME compressor), encoding at 320kbps, stereo, constant bit rate.

 

[dreamliner77]

If you use a pure frontend for the lame.exe you can add all kinds of arguments to the command line. --alt-preset standard is one of these.

LAME

LAME setting and command lines

The Best CD ripper

An easy frontend for LAME

Various Frontends (GUI's) including a few that work very well with lame and include tagging