http://www.emusic.com/ is running a promotion where your first 30 days is free. Just cancel before 30 day trial and you won't be charged. They have alot of full albums of bands you probably know and like. Unfortunately, its limited to the first 100 songs and they enccode at 128 kbps. I know this isn't very hot considering some of us can get ANY mp3 we want through a variety of sources, but some good things about this service is that its legal, and they have some good stuff I haven't seen around much.
About 10 mp3 Albums for Free
- Thread starter deftron
- Start date
Hey thanks man....
I guess this is what Napster is to become. Seems like a nice site, has some cool stuff.
The plus with this kind of organized download is the quality....they won't have songs which cut off 3/4 of the way through
I'll give it a try
I guess this is what Napster is to become. Seems like a nice site, has some cool stuff.
The plus with this kind of organized download is the quality....they won't have songs which cut off 3/4 of the way through
I'll give it a try
Audiophile often say that 128k (vs. 160 or higher) is too much compression, and effects the quality dramatically. I don't believe this is the case for the majority of users. I certainly don't have the best equipment, but the stuff I have is rather nice. I also consider myself to have a better than average ear for listening. I notice only a very slight difference between 128 and 160. From 128 to an original CD is more noticable. Of course getting the best quality copy is one goal, but I have an in dash MP3 player (kenwood) so I look for smaller file size to get as many songs on one MP3 disc as possible. I would rather have everything encoded at 160, but 128 seems to be a standard that everyone uses to achieve a comfortable balance between file size and quality. Would others care to comment on the differences they perceive between the 128 and 160 formats?
Burn one of your favorite songs at both bitrates and listen to both of them on your equipment. If you can't tell the difference, and i'm betting you can't, go with 128k. 128K bitstream is probably the most widely used, and the best trade-off on size vs quality. If you assume the average MP3 is 4mb, the average CDR is 650mb, then you can fit approximately 162 +/- songs on EACH disk, giving you almost THREE hours of music per.
I have used eMusic.com in the past, nice selection of indie and fringe rock, plus some major headliners.
If you join eMusic, MAKE SURE you download Southern Culture On The Skid's new album "Liquored Up and Lacquered Down." You will not be sorry you did. Check out the S.C.O.T.S. website here. She really did have the biggest hair in town...
I have used eMusic.com in the past, nice selection of indie and fringe rock, plus some major headliners.
If you join eMusic, MAKE SURE you download Southern Culture On The Skid's new album "Liquored Up and Lacquered Down." You will not be sorry you did. Check out the S.C.O.T.S. website here. She really did have the biggest hair in town...
Maverick,
I think the math is a little off there. If each of the 162 songs were only one minute each THEN it would equal almost three hours. Considering songs average somewhere around 3-5 minutes then you're talking EIGHT to THIRTEEN hours per disc.
I think the math is a little off there. If each of the 162 songs were only one minute each THEN it would equal almost three hours. Considering songs average somewhere around 3-5 minutes then you're talking EIGHT to THIRTEEN hours per disc.
Jamey,
Do you have the Kenwood Z919? I read a review on this unit and it only got 2 out of 5 stars. They said the interface wasn't very good and the mp3's were hard to find once you were trying to navigate the disc. How do you feel about it?
Also, as far as mp3's go, I think 128kbps mp3's quality is horrible. I can't listen to them if it's a song with half way decent post production. A lot of the 80's songs etc I can listen to just fine at 128 because the studio production simply isn't what it is today. Try listening to Nine Inch Nails or Deftones at 128 on a decent stereo, then listen to the same song at 192 on the same stereo, and I guarantee, if you aren't deaf, you will hear significant differences. Personally I LOVE mp3's encoded at 256kbps, above this the differences are very minute. As far as quality goes though, 256 is about as good as it gets until you get REALLY high end.
divinemartyr
Do you have the Kenwood Z919? I read a review on this unit and it only got 2 out of 5 stars. They said the interface wasn't very good and the mp3's were hard to find once you were trying to navigate the disc. How do you feel about it?
Also, as far as mp3's go, I think 128kbps mp3's quality is horrible. I can't listen to them if it's a song with half way decent post production. A lot of the 80's songs etc I can listen to just fine at 128 because the studio production simply isn't what it is today. Try listening to Nine Inch Nails or Deftones at 128 on a decent stereo, then listen to the same song at 192 on the same stereo, and I guarantee, if you aren't deaf, you will hear significant differences. Personally I LOVE mp3's encoded at 256kbps, above this the differences are very minute. As far as quality goes though, 256 is about as good as it gets until you get REALLY high end.
divinemartyr
As I said earlier, I do recognize a difference going higher than the 128k standard, but it isn't that large nor important on the majority of songs. For my favorites, I will rip them in 160, but I wasn't sure that the 919 was going to play them. It WILL play 160s. I haven't tried any higher.
As far as the 919, I think it's an AWESOME cd player, that can play mp3's. The interface DOES SUCK. No fast forward or rewind exists for mp3's; only track skipping and directory changing. It is slow but bearable (about 5 secs) between songs. The song naming (no ID3 tag support) and directory structuring must be carefully done when making the disc. That is to be expected though. No Joliet support, but it does support 27.3 file names. With all this said though, it's a first generation product, and the best one out there (Aiwa really doesn't even compare).
I would give it 4 out of 5 stars for the Cd player, features (crossover built in), display quality, functionality, and sound quality. I would give it 2-3 stars for the Mp3 support and interface. Overall, it is a solid 3 stars unless you're really wanting to play tons of mp3's. I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't get it at cost (a friend in the business). No way would I pay the $700 Crutchfield and CC wants for it. If you have the money to burn, or you can get it sub $500; go for it. If not, wait til next year. At least 3 more units will be released (alpine, kenwood, sony). All should be cheaper than the $700 that the 919 is.
As far as the 919, I think it's an AWESOME cd player, that can play mp3's. The interface DOES SUCK. No fast forward or rewind exists for mp3's; only track skipping and directory changing. It is slow but bearable (about 5 secs) between songs. The song naming (no ID3 tag support) and directory structuring must be carefully done when making the disc. That is to be expected though. No Joliet support, but it does support 27.3 file names. With all this said though, it's a first generation product, and the best one out there (Aiwa really doesn't even compare).
I would give it 4 out of 5 stars for the Cd player, features (crossover built in), display quality, functionality, and sound quality. I would give it 2-3 stars for the Mp3 support and interface. Overall, it is a solid 3 stars unless you're really wanting to play tons of mp3's. I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't get it at cost (a friend in the business). No way would I pay the $700 Crutchfield and CC wants for it. If you have the money to burn, or you can get it sub $500; go for it. If not, wait til next year. At least 3 more units will be released (alpine, kenwood, sony). All should be cheaper than the $700 that the 919 is.
To help everyone with a conversion if theywere wondering:
162 songs per cd @ 128kbps = 130 songs per cd @ 160kbps
<Enter your own comments about whether 32 more songs is worth that drop in quality here>
162 songs per cd @ 128kbps = 130 songs per cd @ 160kbps
<Enter your own comments about whether 32 more songs is worth that drop in quality here>
That's 2 albums, so I say yes...give me the space. I have 5 led zepplin discs, 2 Who discs, 3 Rolling Stones discs, and 2 Doors discs on one CD. I love having an mp3 player in my vehicle. On my favorite music though, I would have the extra space because of the way I organize. I might would use 160.
I'd have to say 192 kbps is the best for audio quality/file size ratio. 128 is OK, but noticeably less quality compared to the original CD. It's pretty good if you've never heard the album on CD before. I lost a bunch of my favorite Cd's in a car fire once. I wasn't about to go out and buy new ones. I replaced what I could by recording ones off friends', and then downloaded MP3's for the rest. I wasn't happy with the MP3 replacements unless they were encoded atleast 192 kbs or High Quality VariableBitRate. It also depends on the encoder used. Xing is suck unless doing HQ VBR. Lame and Blade are probably best.
What encoder does everyone else prefer?
Also, regarding that Kenwood in-dash car MP3 player. How does it compare to some of the portable Mp3 cd players that cost about $500 less ?
What encoder does everyone else prefer?
Also, regarding that Kenwood in-dash car MP3 player. How does it compare to some of the portable Mp3 cd players that cost about $500 less ?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter