Amazon MP3 Purchases

  • Thread starter Thread starter spantini
  • Start date Start date
spantini

spantini

COO of me, inc.
I want to download a music CD in MP3 format from Amazon to use as reference material and I'd like to get some clarification from anyone familiar with buying MP3s from Amazon.

I understand Amazon automatically stores copies for future access. When you buy their MP3 CD albums do you also get copies downloaded to your system as well to be utilized as you see fit?
 
You should be able to access the MP3s at a later time if the need arises. I remember buying a Sting CD on Amazon. It also included the MP3s which I could download immediately. The CD arrived several days later. When I look at my account, it has all the albums I've purchased from Amazon. I have the option of either streaming them, or downloading them. Of course I also have the physical CDs on the shelf.
 
(Not that you asked, but...) If you are collecting "reference tracks" it's generally better to start with non-lossy audio. For current stuff, I'll look around on Bandcamp or artist sites to see if they have FLAC downloads, and if not, then I try to find a used CD, unless I am a fan and then I'll buy a new CD. (I trash used CDs I buy for this purpose, but new ones sometimes get given to friends with similar tastes, though failing that, they too go in the trash - wish everyone had a non-lossy download option.)
 
I have no idea if this CD is non-lossy or not. It's a remaster of a 1969 album.

I purchased the CD in MP3 format only, I no longer have any use for physical CDs. Everything downloaded nicely - very quick - in a zipped folder which unpacked as MP3s ready for playing. I verified they made it into my Amazon Library. Pretty slick system. Kinda bugs me though that this order doesn't appear in my order history with all the 'regular' online stuff.
 
Last edited:
spantini said:
I have no idea if this CD is non-lossy or not. It's a remaster of a 1969 album.

I purchased the CD in MP3 format only, I no longer have any use for physical CDs. Everything downloaded nicely - very quick - in a zipped folder which unpacked as MP3s ready for playing. I verified they made it into my Amazon Library. Pretty slick system. Kinda bugs me though that this order doesn't appear in my order history with all the 'regular' online stuff.
Click to expand...

If you click "Digital Orders" at the top of your Regular Orders, you'll see them.
 
This album I downloaded as MP3s has been remastered by one of the bandmembers. I was a bit leery it being remastered because one of my all-time favorite albums has been remastered and it now sux. This one sounds pretty good, though it seems 'clearer', if I may use that term. Not cleaner as in noise, scratches and dust removed. . . just 'clearer'. I don't know what was involved in it's remaster, whether it's source was the original tapes, or from a new vinyl pressing from those tapes, or what. I'd like to think it was remastered from the original tapes. I looked for a new copy that hadn't been remastered but no luck.
 
spantini said:
This album I downloaded as MP3s has been remastered by one of the bandmembers. I was a bit leery it being remastered because one of my all-time favorite albums has been remastered and it now sux. This one sounds pretty good, though it seems 'clearer', if I may use that term. Not cleaner as in noise, scratches and dust removed. . . just 'clearer'. I don't know what was involved in it's remaster, whether it's source was the original tapes, or from a new vinyl pressing from those tapes, or what. I'd like to think it was remastered from the original tapes. I looked for a new copy that hadn't been remastered but no luck.
Click to expand...
One of the things that happens when either remastering or mastering for digital from previous analog recordings is limiting. In order to increase the level to modern levels for the most part.

The problem with limiting is that it is still a form of compression, and like any compression, it affects the ratio of loud parts to quiet parts which ultimately changes the frequency balance from the original mix. I personally have noted that most of these updated/limited tracks tend to have the reverb much more prominent than the original mix. Sometimes to the point of annoyance to my ears.
 
If it was coming from the vinyl era, then it was already squashed, rolled off and bass centered to fit into the grooves. I've heard some things that were remastered and it wasn't to bring it up to "modern levels" but to give the instruments more breathing room in the mix. If anything, the recording was more open, more "instruments in the room" as opposed to music coming from between the speakers.

It depends on who is doing the remastering and why.
 
TalismanRich said:
If it was coming from the vinyl era, then it was already squashed, rolled off and bass centered to fit into the grooves. I've heard some things that were remastered and it wasn't to bring it up to "modern levels" but to give the instruments more breathing room in the mix. If anything, the recording was more open, more "instruments in the room" as opposed to music coming from between the speakers.

It depends on who is doing the remastering and why.
Click to expand...
That better explains what I'm perceiving when I described it as 'clearer' in my earlier post. The album is Led Zeppelin II, remastered by Jimmy Page.
 
spantini said:
I have no idea if this CD is non-lossy or not. ....
Click to expand...
"CD" format is "non-lossy" PCM audio, 44.1kHz/16-bit. (I.e., assuming it's from a label, and not a data CD with a bunch of MP3.) A remaster, presumably, started with some original tapes or digital content.

"Lossy" is referring to encoding like MP3 or AAC (iTunes). These are not compressed files, like a ZIP file (contains all the original data, just organized/cataloged/packed into a smaller format), but a format that literally tosses ("losses?") away much of the original data to create a smaller file. For most listeners and/or listening environments, it's fine and indistinguishable, though it depends on a lot of things, with the kind of content is being compressed and the amount of compression used. Those folks with "golden ears" and equally priced studios and equipment can tell the difference pretty reliably (I've seen it done).

It is arguable in some cases "the difference" is not much more than that, i.e., it's different, but is it really worse - that can be subjective. BUT, generally, in a recording/mixing/mastering context, your "reference tracks" are what you compare your non-lossy mixes/masters to, and so you probably want to be listening/comparing to CD tracks, or other non-lossy content. Like all things "home recording" though, compromises have to be made. This is one I have tried to at least start with non-lossy stuff, but I've decided for what I do, I can save 320kbps AAC from a non-lossy original and it's fine.
 
What I received/downloaded was a .zip folder containing the MP3 songs from the remastered CD.
 
I checked some of my Amazon mp3 downloads and they were 256kbps mp3. I'm guessing that they use a good encoder (some are better than others). My hearing is degraded enough that a lot of subtle differences are lost on me. There used to be a few songs that were used for evaluating LAME MP3 development, as they were very difficult to encode without degradation. Unfortunately I can't remember what they were any more.

It's a shame they don't include FLAC format files, which are more akin to a zip file. It's lossless, but still compresses, though not as much a MP3 or AAC. FWIW, if you watch MPEG video, you're probably hearing AAC, which is included in the mpeg specifications. Opus is the latest compression scheme for audio, superseding Ogg Vorbis. I haven't run into many instances of Opus yet, just an occasional Linux user.
 
A bit off topic, but there are some very good records out there that were transferred to CD, and utterly sucked in the format. I'm thinking of Court Of The Crimson King by King Crimson and The Idiot by Iggy Pop. Both of the CD versions I have of those records are un-listenable. I can't put my finger on it exactly (for of course I gave them a single listen and then never again), but the songs sounded harsh, flat, and out of whack. I know Court was remixed and then mastered some time ago for CD properly, and I'd like to get my hands on that version. The Idiot I don't know. That's a great record and I remember it blasting out of an old analog stereo with trick custom speakers that a friend owned, and I also remember when I picked up the CD and put it on good system and my God it was not good. I'm pretty sure that thousands of records weren't properly re-mastered in the rush to get them on the glorious CD back in the day, and it probably still happens.
 
TimOD said:
. . . I can't put my finger on it exactly (for of course I gave them a single listen and then never again), but the songs sounded harsh, flat, and out of whack . . .
Click to expand...

I know what you mean.

One in particular for me is Santana III. I had the original vinyl, then years later bought the CD - they were virtually identical to me. Then on YouTube, I found the original album and it sounded like the original vinyl and my CD - just fantastic. Then the Santana III Remastered popped up on YouTube and it sounds like crap. Like all the breathing life was sucked out of it.
 
TalismanRich said:
I checked some of my Amazon mp3 downloads and they were 256kbps mp3. I'm guessing that they use a good encoder (some are better than others). My hearing is degraded enough that a lot of subtle differences are lost on me. There used to be a few songs that were used for evaluating LAME MP3 development, as they were very difficult to encode without degradation. Unfortunately I can't remember what they were any more.

It's a shame they don't include FLAC format files, which are more akin to a zip file. It's lossless, but still compresses, though not as much a MP3 or AAC. FWIW, if you watch MPEG video, you're probably hearing AAC, which is included in the mpeg specifications. Opus is the latest compression scheme for audio, superseding Ogg Vorbis. I haven't run into many instances of Opus yet, just an occasional Linux user.
Click to expand...
The nine mp3 songs I downloaded show bit rates ranging from 255-274kbps. I don't know what the significance of that may be. I'm only comparing listening to these in my BT headphones to faded memories of a vinyl album on my old home stereo speakers or Koss Pro 4AA headphones.

267 kbps
258 kbps
265 kbps
264 kbps
274 kbps
268 kbps
268 kbps
255 kbps
260 kbps
 
Last edited:
kbps is a measure of how much data it takes to create one second of sound (music, in this case). The bigger the number, the less lossy the compression. 256kbps (what Amazon promises, and is typical for Apple Music), is very good, but still, you look at the size of the files and you know something has happened. Here's the same file in non-lossy WAV, lossless, compressed FLAC, 320kbps AAC, and 256kbps MP3. Pretty sure I'd be hard pressed to hear the differences here with my 30 year old headphones and the A/C blowing light a freight train right now, but you can see that some data must have disappeared in the lossy versions.

p.s. (edit) link so you can listen to these (google drive) - see if you can hear a difference.

Screenshot 2023-07-16 at 3.15.18 PM.webp
 
I went straight for the opposites: .mp3 then .wav, and I noticed a definite difference. That 5.7 MB vs. 36.7 MB is sobering.
 
You shouldn't hear any difference between FLAC and Wav. FLAC is lossless, more akin to Zip than MP3. I thought the MP3 and M4A both sounded slightly louder, maybe very slightly compressed. I can't hear above about 10-12K anymore, so if there's a difference there, it's lost on me.

That said, there have been studies as to what lossy compression does. Here is one study from Stereophile. It clearly shows that noise floor can be severely affected negatively by both AAC and MP3 encoding. Whether the psychoacoustic masking is enough to bury the noise and some distortions is another matter.

Analysis of WAV, FLAC. AAC, MP3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top