This is my first post, so if this is in the wrong place for my questions or I otherwise write something stupid, then by all means let me know. I have searched these forums for information about RealNetworks Rhapsody, but so far I have not come across enough specific information to answer my questions.

MyCokeRewards.com is now offering one free music download from Rhapsody for every 15 Coke points (5 20oz caps) entered for a limited time. I have several hundred Coke points built up from my unhealthy soda habit, so I would like to give this a try.

From what I understand, Rhapsody was once a term for RealNetwork's subscription-based music service, while the Real Music Store was the name used for their a la carte purchased music. Now it appears that the two services are being combined under the Rhapsody name. A few years back I purchased a few tracks from the Real Music Store, but ended up discarding the tracks and discontinuing use of the store because of the largely unsupported .RAX files I was stuck with. The only option for transferring these files to a portable device was to either let RealPlayer transcode the files to another encrypted format or burn the tracks to a CD and do the transcoding manually. I wasn't particularly thrilled with either option.

After doing some research, it now appears that Rhapsody has changed a bit. For one thing, it will now give you a choice between two download formats: 192kbps AAC (Helix encrypted .RAX files I was used to) or 160kbps WMA (PlaysForSure). This appears to be a bit more flexible, since PlaysForSure WMA files are supported on a lot of portable devices, including the one I own (SanDisk Sansa c140). Also, I have a TiVo S3 DVR in my living room that claims it offers Rhapsody support.

That brings me to my questions. First, does anybody know if Rhapsody will still let you burn its encrypted tracks to CD? If it does, is there still a 10 burn limit per track? Does anybody know if purchased tracks will play on a TiVo, or only subscription tracks? I read a rumor on the Web somewhere that said burning tracks through RealPlayer further degraded the sound quality, is there any truth to this?

Finally, would a 320kbps LAME mp3 transcoded from a 192kbps AAC file be better or worse than a 160kbps WMA?

Thanks in advance to anyone with answers.

I guess nobody knows that much about Rhapsody. Oh well.

If anybody cares, I did find some more things out about the service as well as the MyCokeRewards promotion. First off, the Real Music Store is still a separate entity from Rhapsody. You can access the Real Music Store using RealPlayer 10 or newer, while you have to separately install the Rhapsody software to gain access to its content. RealNetworks requires you to create accounts for both, if you want to use both. Rhapsody allows you to choose between 160kbps WMA (PlaysForSure) or 192kbps AAC (Helix encrypted RAX) for its purchased downloads, while Real Music Store only offers the latter format.

The purchased music files can still be burned to CD using RealPlayer. I haven't seen any limits on the number of times you can do this, but I haven't started burning yet. I have seen no further substantiation to the rumor I read that RealPlayer further degrades the sound quality before burning to CD. I'm guessing that this was just the ramblings of an overly paranoid person who dislikes RealNetworks for whatever reason. I haven't looked at whether or not I can burn CDs using Rhapsody, but I'm pretty sure you can.

MyCokeRewards allows you to redeem 15 points per music download from Rhapsody, but I have found that the coupon code it gives you can also be used at the Real Music Store. If you enter the code at Rhapsody, however, then you have to purchase your free track using Rhapsody, and the same idea if you enter your code at the Real Music Store.

The 192kbps AAC files encoded by RealNetworks sound transparent enough for my ears, at least on my CA computer speakers. I think I will convert these over to FLAC files for playing on my home stereo and for archiving. That way, I won't have to worry about quality loss through transcoding. If I need them for my portable player, I will probably just encode them down to 320kbps MP3 using LAME. My guess is that the resultant MP3 will still sound better than a 160kbps WMA.

The 192 kbps AAC files are not DRM'ed?

No, they are DRM'ed. But you can still burn them to CD and rip them. From there, if you create a FLAC from the rip, it should have the same quality as the original 192kbps AAC file. I realize there will be another quality degradation if I choose to create a 320kbps MP3 from this FLAC, but I think it will still be better than a 160kbps WMA, which is the other option I can choose from Rhapsody. I don't know for sure, though, because I haven't done any listening tests yet.

But you said "The 192kbps AAC files encoded by RealNetworks sound transparent enough for my ears, at least on my CA computer speakers. I think I will convert these over to FLAC files for playing on my home stereo and for archiving. That way, I won't have to worry about quality loss through transcoding."

That's why I was asking because I couldn't see any scheme for going from DRM'ed AAC->CD->FLAC that wouldn't involve some kind of transcoding. What am I not getting here?

I think he understands that he will have to transcode, but since he will not be transcoding to a lossy codec, no further quality loss will occur.

Drm'ed AAC -> CD (No quality loss)
CD -> FLAC (No quality loss)

If he does go from FLAC -> MP3 further quality loss will occur at this point. Whether it will be audible or not is an entirely different discussion.


To the OP: If you have any experience with virtual drives, it might be possible to 'burn' the AACs to an image file, and then re-rip them from that image. It would save you the cost of the blank CDs.

Christopher, I would steer well clear of anything tainted with DRM. Full stop.

You can get more help in RealNetworks' support forums.