online music

[skewiff]

I just received an mp3 player and I need some recommendations. Do any of you guys use an online pay music site

Musicmatch, Rhapsody etc. Free is better obviously, but I'm willing to pay if need be

Thanks

Tony

[Mr MidFi]

When iTunes first became available for PCs, I went hog-wild and downloaded 100 tracks on the first day. That was nearly a year ago, and I'd say I've grabbed about 20 more since then. It lost its luster for me pretty quick, for whatever reason.

I might go back and "rediscover" it when I get an iPod for Xmas. I do like the software interface.

[Davey]

I just received an mp3 player and I need some recommendations.

Tons of cool free stuff almost everyday at http://www.kingblind.com/ - full albums and lots of live stuff too. You gotta be quick though because it often doesn't stay available for long. I've snagged some real gems there.

[Troy]

What am I missing?

Aren't mp3 players and iPods just glorified Walkmen . . . that cost $300+?

Isn't mp3 the first music consumer playback technology that sounds WORSE than the previous one?

Sure, you can carry 10,000 songs in it, but it's up to the CONSUMER to download, install and keep some kind of catalogue system. How do you find stuff in a mix of 10k songs? It's an entirely differentmethodology of finding songs to play. Do I really need to have 10,000 songs with me at all times? Am I that indecisive?

And what if you drop the damn thing? All lost. Start over.

What about cover art? Lyrics?

I suppose that someday, mp3 will be replaced with essentially a CD quality wav or aiff file and that all liner notes can be put on your tv screen or computer monitor, but the system as it works now holds absolutely ZERO appeal for me.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Isn't mp3 the first music consumer playback technology that sounds WORSE than the previous one?

Uh no...that honour would belong to the Compact disc

[Troy]

Uh no...that honour would belong to the Compact disc

That's very open to conjecture. A lot of the early CDs were harsh and brittle, but through no fault of the media. It took a little time to maximize it's potential.

Now, had you said 8-track . . .

But there's even arguments for that too.

[Stone]

What am I missing?

Aren't mp3 players and iPods just glorified Walkmen . . . that cost $300+?

Yes, but they do hold thousands of songs, are smaller than the cassette Walkman, and significantly smaller than the CD Walkman. They're great (IMO, of course) for working out or having on an airplane.

Isn't mp3 the first music consumer playback technology that sounds WORSE than the previous one?

See ELT's response. Plus, what I use it for mostly is working out and having a high level sound quality is not an issue for me then.

Sure, you can carry 10,000 songs in it, but it's up to the CONSUMER to download, install and keep some kind of catalogue system. How do you find stuff in a mix of 10k songs? It's an entirely differentmethodology of finding songs to play. Do I really need to have 10,000 songs with me at all times? Am I that indecisive?

The iPod has a pretty good interface and sorts by artist name, song name, album name, and genre. It keeps the information in alphabetical order. Plus, you can create your own playlists (the equivalent of mix CDs).

And what if you drop the damn thing? All lost. Start over.

That's a valid point, but I'm just as careful with my iPod as I am my digital camera (IOW, very careful).

What about cover art? Lyrics?

I agree with you. 99% of what I have on my iPod is from my CDs. I haven't joined an online service (and I know that's what this thread is about generally), but have downloaded a few free MP3s for a preview.

I suppose that someday, mp3 will be replaced with essentially a CD quality wav or aiff file and that all liner notes can be put on your tv screen or computer monitor, but the system as it works now holds absolutely ZERO appeal for me.

If it looks like I'm defending MP3 players, I guess I am, but I'd never want to have that as my sole, or even main source of music. I think the players serve a very useful purpose, but at home I listen to CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, or vinyl.

[KEXPMF]

I use MusicMatch and like it. I think most people use itunes.

I'm on the VERGE of buying an MP3 player and going through the 'hmmmm. ipod vs creative zen xtra' debate right now. I'm confused. 1/2 my friends are ipod worshippers and practically act as though I will be a some sort of traitor if I get ANYTHING but their precious ipod. Geez.
Another small group of friends all have the Creative Nomad and all of them like it and they tell me calmly (unlike the pod people), "go ahead and get the ipod, you'll have exactly what I have and will have spent more money for a bunch of hype, that's the only difference, but you'll be happy with either player."
One Ipod guy said, "You might as well get an ipod because if you don't, you'll only end up buying one later." Eek. It's like a cult.

Cost IS an issue for me. Right now, at Amazon, a 30 gig Creative Zen Xtra is $177.00.
A 20 gig Ipod is $299.00 If I will truly be AS happy with the Zen Xtra, I wish I knew that for sure.

Another issue... ALL of my music is in musicmatch. I know that the Zen Xtra is compatible with musicmatch. I THINK that I can get the musicmatch collection into itunes and therefore into the ipod but I haven't been able to verify this 100%.
Any help out there?

[Stone]

Another issue... ALL of my music is in musicmatch. I know that the Zen Xtra is compatible with musicmatch. I THINK that I can get the musicmatch collection into itunes and therefore into the ipod but I haven't been able to verify this 100%.
Any help out there?

I use MusicMatch exclusively for my iPod. It's the software that came with it, and I've never even attempted to use iTunes. I don't like MusicMatch much, but it works.

[KEXPMF]

Stone - or anyone -
Does anyone personally know someone who's bought a Creative and then bought an Ipod?

Stone- someone at the store told me that you have to convert you MusicMatch files into itunes first before you can transfer them to the ipod. But you use MusicMatch and transfering the songs to the ipod is no problem?

[Stone]

Stone - or anyone -
Does anyone personally know someone who's bought a Creative and then bought an Ipod?

Stone- someone at the store told me that you have to convert you MusicMatch files into itunes first before you can transfer them to the ipod. But you use MusicMatch and transfering the songs to the ipod is no problem?

I've only had an iPod (at least for the newer MP3 players), and I don't know anyone who's had a Creative.

The answer to your second question is: YES. I have, I believe the second version of the iPod and an older version of MusicMatch, but that's what I use to transfer MP3s to my iPod on my PC (through a FireWire connection). I've never used or even seen iTunes. It's the software that was supplied to me with my iPod when I bought it. I would think it wouldn't work only if they've changed the iPod software in the newer versions so that only iTunes can be used, but I really doubt they've done that.

[jack70]

It's JUST another tool. I don't like the concept of i-Tunes simply cause it's a proprietory type of media (I think?), and it's just such proprietory (commercial) things that diffuse & slow down technological advancement. It's why I don't use (WMA) media or music files (whenever possible) or even PSD (Adobe) graphics files... they all are fine within their environment, but cause problems when used in other systems.

One of my pet-peeves is the proliferation of SO MANY different technologies in consumer goods. Most disappear quickly, and most are not easy to convert to other systems without a lot of time & work. Even the web itself is a mess of "standards" that are more a joke than anything.

Sure, you can carry 10,000 songs in it, but it's up to the CONSUMER to download, install and keep some kind of catalogue system. How do you find stuff in a mix of 10k songs? It's an entirely differentmethodology of finding songs to play. Do I really need to have 10,000 songs with me at all times? Am I that indecisive?

I got a Nomad unit a few years ago. It's neat... but... I agree, it's a real pain to access tunes... a pain to simply "name/title" tunes so they can be easily accessed... a pain to charge batteries... etc. If I had a hundred tunes on it, it might be fine... but with thousands, it's a little like picking out a book in the library of Congress (w/ thousands of MILES of books.. LOL). It's just not something that makes a lot of sense for me.

I suppose that someday, mp3 will be replaced with essentially a CD quality wav or aiff file and that all liner notes can be put on your tv screen or computer monitor, but the system as it works now holds absolutely ZERO appeal for me.

Memory technology has been moving forward pretty steadily over the past decades, so it seems logical that storage of even larger files will replace todays accepted standards. You're already seeing it with the advent of Tivo (video) type memory storage. The technology (larger, faster memory) has been pushed by the military, games, and academic reasons.

Isn't mp3 the first music consumer playback technology that sounds WORSE than the previous one?

1/ Not necessarily.. and 2/ you're missing the point.

I still think MP3 is a fine compromise. "Compression," at least certain types, can be totally lossless, and even "lossy" types can exceed the playback conditions and equipment used to reproduce them (background noise floor, IM dist, etc).

45's and LPs were both technologically inferior to 78's, in many ways (really!). The reason most don't know that is because of the compromises made when both those new technologies came out. Since 78's used older, more inferior plastics (shellacs) and used inferior playback technology, they often sound poor. But in reality they have many advantages. (too technical to go into in depth here).

Cassettes were not nearly as good as the Reel-to-Reel they replaced. (I used Ampex & Revox R:R decks, and only got a cassette deck years after they'd progressed to both Dolby & closed loop design advances. Even then, they were clearly inferior. But the main "advantage" of cassettes was their convenience (small size) and cost (Blank Reel tapes... cost A LOT). And that's one reason why I-pods are preferred over a PC or a computer notebook etc... they're smaller and cheaper. If you make 'em small enough, simple enough, and convenient enough, you make it appealing to many people.

Digital camera's were worse than film cameras when they came out, and still are (to some extent) at least compared to medium & large-format cameras. I'm not saying digital is bad (it isn't, I love it), just that it hasn't reached it's peak yet.

In a similar tech note, FM radio was one of the biggest mistakes made... they optimized it for mono instead of stereo, and we're stuck with it. Same thing with video tapes. Same thing with CDs. Even the DVD debate that's happening right now is a mess of competing proprietory "standards". And it seems every week a new one comes out.

So new technologies always have a shakeout/learning curve. The same thing could be said of early PC's... they were NOT as fast or powerful as the IBM mainframes they "replaced" from the consumer end. But they are much better today.

Tech "advancement" has always been a slow thing, and a bit of a mess. LOL.

[skewiff]

Thanks for the responses. I think having this player, is a convienience thing, i work midnights and I'm allowed to take in cd's,by having a vast amount of my music with me I think will be a cool thing.

The software that comes with the player is pretty easy to imput, sort, file and search for wharever's in there. Not a big deal.

I bought the Zen Xtra 40 gig $239.00 at Best Buy with a $30.00 rebate, then I bought the Creative carry speakers , so now I plug the Zen into the cradle and it fills the room with sound.

The ipod although it's the in thing is $499.00 it is indeed sexy, but the sound from the Zen is I think a little better, the complaint that the Zen is larger well yes it is , but its not like its a semi.

The ipod has a lot more accessories , but when you consider that this piece of equipment has really been the Major money maker(savior) for Apple it's easy to see why.

For the price I'm happy with the Zen, also when you check out the boards there are alot of ipod users with the same complaints as the Zen folks only they've paid twice as much.

Thanks for the Kingblind heads up Davey.

From a soon to be snowy lower Michigan.

Tony

[Ex Lion Tamer]

How do you, or is it even possible, to interface these devices with a car audio player. If I had an MP3-ready player in my car is it easy to transfer files, or use the ipod in the car?

[Dusty Chalk]

What am I missing?

What you're missing is, it's not intended to replace your music collection, but rather to supplement it.

Some people (myself only partially so) only care about the music -- so the medium, cover art, liner notes...L some peeps don't even care who does it, they just want to be able to listen to something (and hence the dark murk of quality which is top 40 radio).

So me, I use it for travel -- car, walking, etc. (Or rather, will use it, as I haven't entirely figured it out yet.) And it's good for that. And if you use lame compression (a collection of presets), it doesn't sound half bad, for what you're doing.

[Mr MidFi]

XLT:
There are accessories that plug into an MP3 player (or any other device w/ a headphone jack) and broadcast a low-level FM signal to your car's tuner. They're pretty cool. Abuddy of mine uses his to play tunes from his laptop onto his office stereo. Most will also plug into your car's power/lighter port.

[Slosh]

The only real use I have for mp3 is converting books-on-tape CDs to a single disc. I checked one out of the library recently, a ten disc, eleven+ hours affair, and converted to a single CD-R.

My soundcard's bundled software came with WMA 96/24 lossless compression (among other formats) so out of curiousity I converted one of my comps. Of course, starting from a standard 44/16 wav file I didn't expect an improvement in sound quality but what did surprise me was the digital output downconverted to 48/24 sounded better than the 96/24 files played back at full resolution through the analog outputs. Because the old pre/pro that I'm using as a PC DAC doesn't accept the 96 kHz sampling rate I had to downconvert at the digital output. Obviously the pre/pro has better DACs than the soundcard (as you would expect given the tremendous price differential) but I figured hearing the files at full resolution would erase that advantage. Guess not, and the original wav files at 44/16 sounded even better still.