Yahoo Music songs are in 192kbps wma?!?

vbimport

#1

I just downloaded a few albums from YahooMusic and it appears they’re all encoded at 192kbps wma…That’s a surprise…

Are all the YahooMusic tracks encoded at 192kbps wma? That would be a BIG improvement on the other wma services, all of which offer 128kbps tracks (and many of those sound like they’re actually < 128kbps…REALLY harsh).

On the other hand, any time I try to look at the list of tracks for ANY album, YahooMusic hangs and I have to kill the program. I guess they’re calling the software 1.0beta for a reason…


#2

Big improvement?

PureTracks also uses 192kbps WMA the last time I checked. And that was nearly a full year ago.


#3

I stopped using legal pay music services. I pay nearly as much (Like $7 per album) on Allofmp3 for lossless, I would be happy to pay a few dollars more for it to be legal if they would just make it lossless, I dont want 128/192kbps WMA, I then have to re-encode it to mp3 to play in my iPod anyway, losing yet more quality. Its not even that I dont want to not pay them for my music, I am happy to, but I am not allways able to get my music on a real CD. But I can only buy what they sell.

Happy to pay good money for good quality music.

As soon as MSN/iTunes/Napster offer lossless they will certainly get my money.

I just emailed them, wonder what there reply will be…

Ok, I just realised I kinda repeated myself by posting the email :wink:

Ben :slight_smile:


#4

Yes, they are at 192. I honestly don’t notice a terrific difference though. The telltale giveaway of compression issues is cymbal hits. They get muted and the high end is trashed when using significant compression. It’s the biggest problem the current compression algorhythms at common bitrates have.


#5

Does PureTracks offer 1,000,000+ tracks for subscription download at $5/month?

I guess I should have been more clear: This is the first SUBSCRIPTION, LEGITIMATE download source using 192kbps. AllofMP3 is certainly not the former and probably not the latter in the US.


#6

i agree with you ben , lossless or no money :iagree::iagree::iagree:


#7

I just signed up for Yahoo on their trial. I like it, but I’m with you, and rather have lossless or some better encodings. I feel so restricted. The problem is, I really don’t want to pay for each individual track. I like the subscription thing, I can play anything I want really.

Doesn’t AllofMP3 pay by the MB?


#8

Yep, and allthough illegal, it isnt much cheaper than the legal sevices (around $7 per album).

Ben :slight_smile:


#9

Only if you order in lossless. For 192 kbps, it’s usually around $1.5 per album or even less for short albums. And who said it’s illegal :wink: ?
AFAIK, there were attempts by the music industry to outlaw it, but these attempts failed due to loopholes in Russian law.


#10

just buy the cd… anymore it’s like $10 if you get it the first week


#11

I’m with you. I have 3.5 months left on my Napster subscription, but jumped on a year at Yahoo for 59.00. The sound quality of their files is MUCH better. Napster is encoded at 128KBS WMA, but even worse, many of their tracks use the WM 7 and 8 codecs. Yahoo uses WM 9, which is a very, very big improvement even without the raised bitrate. Yes, they are still compressed files (so is a CD), but they are a big move in the right direction for a MUCH lower price.


#12

Maybe we should all keep our money until lossless but DRM is still a problem because not all players support WMA. I do agree that the 192kbps bit rate is a step into the right direction we need more options like the user can select the format they want providing the DRM is out of the picture. There is many quality problems on all aspects of the digital music like one person said it’s the WMA quality and the other is the DRM limitations. What good is it to have higher quality files when they won’t play on all your devices??? doesn’t make sense.