Buy.com's answer to Apple's music store - Buymusic.com - Update with review!

[MrBond]

Just saw this on Google news, apparently buy.com has started a music download service called BuyMusic.com.

Tracks are $0.89/ea, albums are $7.95. 128kbs WMA file with a DRM wrapper.

When I go home for lunch I'm gonna find a song or two and see how I like them. I don't usually use WMP9, so I probably won't buy more than a couple if I can't play them in Winamp.

BuyMusic.com

Edit: forgot the link

Second edit: Now with a review

OK, just bought a song. Ozzy Osborne - Crazy Train. $0.99 out the door. I actually own this CD (or owned) but it got lost in one of my many moving trips.

Sound quality is pretty good so far, but then I'm no quality-snob.

The order process was pretty simple. Made an account, checked out, clicked the "download" button and the song was on my drive quickly. Their server is pretty fast for me, I averaged ~175k/sec downloading it.

WMA is associated with Winamp on my box, I click play, and IE launches and tells me it needs a licence. I log back into the Buymusic.com site, it gives me the licence, but I get the same result in winamp. I fire up WMP, open the file, and it tells me it needs to update it's DRM stuff. The update is FAST, almost instant, and within 5 seconds I get "Allll aboooarrrddddd!!!!" blasting out the speakers.

Song selection is decent, not great. Couldn't find any Trapt songs.

Tonight after work I'll experiment some more with converting it and such. In the mean time my lunch break is almost over

 

[conjur]

128kbps, eh?

Why can't they give decent quality music? VBR baby...VBR at the max of 320 and a MINIMUM of like 112

 

[Digobick]

Originally posted by: conjur
128kbps, eh?

Why can't they give decent quality music? VBR baby...VBR at the max of 320 and a MINIMUM of like 112

I was under the impression that a 128kbps WMA file is better sounding than a 128kbps MP3?

 

[mpitts]

While they advertise tracks as being as low as $0.79, the most popular songs are all $0.99.

Same with the albums. They advertise them being as low as $7.95 but, again, the most popular music is $9.99.

I have already looked around buymusic.com and the iTunes Apple Store experience is MUCH better.

 

[rpc64]

Why the heck aren't they using mp3s? This sounds cool and is a step in the right direction but don't you think they would be more successful using mp3s?

Edit: typo

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: Digobick

Originally posted by: conjur
128kbps, eh?

Why can't they give decent quality music? VBR baby...VBR at the max of 320 and a MINIMUM of like 112

I was under the impression that a 128kbps WMA file is better sounding than a 128kbps MP3?

Yes, 128 on a WMA is -much- different than 128 on an MP3

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: rpc64
Why the heck aren't they using mp3s? This sounds cool and is a step in the right direction but don't you think they would be more successful using mp3s?

Edit: typo

Might be a bit more successful, but, afaik, using wma with drm gives them better security and assurances that the files wouldn't just be copied to who knows where.

 

[prontospyder]

thanks for the link!
what's a DRM wrapper?

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: conjur
128kbps, eh?

Why can't they give decent quality music? VBR baby...VBR at the max of 320 and a MINIMUM of like 112

Because 128kbps WMA, unlike 128kbps mp3, actually sounds good.

Originally posted by: rpc64
Why the heck aren't they using mp3s? This sounds cool and is a step in the right direction but don't you think they would be more successful using mp3s?

Edit: typo

Because wma offers drm features.

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: prontospyder
thanks for the link!
what's a DRM wrapper?

Digital rights management.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: Digobick

Originally posted by: conjur
128kbps, eh?

Why can't they give decent quality music? VBR baby...VBR at the max of 320 and a MINIMUM of like 112

I was under the impression that a 128kbps WMA file is better sounding than a 128kbps MP3?

Yes, 128 on a WMA is -much- different than 128 on an MP3

Yeah...but it's a damn WMA! My car stereo won't play that...I'd have to convert it.

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: rpc64
Why the heck aren't they using mp3s? This sounds cool and is a step in the right direction but don't you think they would be more successful using mp3s?

There's no copy protection on mp3s.

I was always under the impression that 128kbs wma was about a 256kbs mp3 file. I encode songs to 64kbs wma to cram more on my ppc storage card and they sound at about as good as a 128kbs mp3.

As far as pricing, I only looked at one album (Tom Petty - The Last DJ), the cNet article had songs at $0.79/ea while for that album they were $0.89/ea or $7.95 for the whole thing. There's not much "popular" music out right now that I'm interested in at the moment.

I'll try converting it and such when I get some time tonight, if I could download as a WMA then convert to an mp3 so winamp can play it, it might be actually worth it.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: Digobick

Originally posted by: conjur
128kbps, eh?

Why can't they give decent quality music? VBR baby...VBR at the max of 320 and a MINIMUM of like 112

I was under the impression that a 128kbps WMA file is better sounding than a 128kbps MP3?

Yes, 128 on a WMA is -much- different than 128 on an MP3

Yeah...but it's a damn WMA! My car stereo won't play that...I'd have to convert it.

What car stereo do you have? Is it an older model? Just about every cd-based headunit/cd player/dvd player that will play mp3 will play wma.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: rpc64
Why the heck aren't they using mp3s? This sounds cool and is a step in the right direction but don't you think they would be more successful using mp3s?

Edit: typo

They want DRM's.......which are really of no use anyway. ....to consumers that is.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: rpc64
Why the heck aren't they using mp3s? This sounds cool and is a step in the right direction but don't you think they would be more successful using mp3s?

Edit: typo

They want DRM's.......which are really of no use anyway.

Except my iPod can't play them. Therefore, they suck.

 

[loup garou]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: rpc64
Why the heck aren't they using mp3s? This sounds cool and is a step in the right direction but don't you think they would be more successful using mp3s?

Edit: typo

They want DRM's.......which are really of no use anyway.

Except my iPod can't play them. Therefore, they suck.

I am of the opposite opinion. I think the iPod sucks because it can't play wma!

 

[prontospyder]

Originally posted by: mpitts
While they advertise tracks as being as low as $0.79, the most popular songs are all $0.99.

Same with the albums. They advertise them being as low as $7.95 but, again, the most popular music is $9.99.

I have already looked around buymusic.com and the iTunes Apple Store experience is MUCH better.

How's the quality of the WMA compared to AAC? is it about the same?

 

[Rallispec]

has their been any news of when the Apple store will open to windows users? I know they were planning on it eventually.


as for buymusic.com... seems pretty cool... trying to find a song to DL now so i can check it out... however the selection is limited.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: werk

What car stereo do you have? Is it an older model? Just about every cd-based headunit/cd player/dvd player that will play mp3 will play wma.

It's a Sony...had installed about 18 mos. ago or so....maybe it does..hmm...could give it a try..

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: prontospyder

Originally posted by: mpitts
While they advertise tracks as being as low as $0.79, the most popular songs are all $0.99.

Same with the albums. They advertise them being as low as $7.95 but, again, the most popular music is $9.99.

I have already looked around buymusic.com and the iTunes Apple Store experience is MUCH better.

How's the quality of the WMA compared to AAC? is it about the same?

I have never used/listened to WMA files.

I don't want to start a techno-battle regarding format fidelity, but I like the sound quality of the songs that I have downloaded/bought off of the iTunes Music Store.

 

[Paulson]

I'd buy them and just convert them to mp3.... no quality loss because I'd be using the file and then transfering it into wave, and then finally into mp3.. so technically I don't think there'd be that much of a loss..

I'm happy though, this will be a good new way to download music legally..

 

[conjur]

btw, linked for the lazy

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: Paulson
I'm happy though, this will be a good new way to download music legally..

Yeah, even if the store isn't perfect, I'm going to at least support it a little to show the record companies that there ARE consumers out there willing to pay for music downloads.

 

[Derango]

I'll probably try it out when I get home...but I'm definitly not a fan of wma, so I can't see myself using this extensivly...

 

I think this is a HUGE step in the right direction for music lovers. I am not sure if I will download any songs from this site however, becuase they place limits on the amount of times you can download the song, and on the number of times you can burn it to CD.

I'd be so nervous about accidentally deleting the file that I'm hesitant to purchase any music. Although, I guess if I converted it right to MP3, I'd have the same quality and zero limitations.

What programs are available to do this?