Does anyone know what settings are being used for encoding of the MP3 files on Amazon.com ?

-

Another question, how are those mp3s ripped if they are at all? I sure hope Amazon doesn't use an unsecure ripper.

-------

The vbr files I have bought are encoded using different variations of Lame ~256

The cbr files are listed as MPEG 1 Layer III FhG.

I'd be up for buying a few tracks just to check it out, if they'd hurry up and actually start selling in Canada already

I'm pretty sure they're not ripped. They're most likely encoded from the original studio audio that would have gone to the CD. I know this from a friend of mine who distributes (legal) free music from underground artists online.

I have a whole bunch of them. What is the best way to gather that data?

---------

I don't have foobar but I have bought several albums from Amazon MP3 and according to iTunes here's what I have:

"Detours" by Sheryl Crow = unknown encoder, Stereo, 256 CBR.
"Seven Years" by ATB = Lame 3.97, Joint Stereo, it's VBR with rates spanning from 234 to 263 kbps.
"Under the Skin" by Lindsey Buckingham = Lame 3.91, Stereo, 256 CBR.
"Tri-State" by Above & Beyond = same as above.
"Songs of Mass Destruction" by Annie Lennox = Lame 3.97, Joint Stereo, VBR, bitrates in mid-200's

I just downloaded Tosca's "Chocolate Elvis Dubs" from Amazon two days ago, and the full LAME tag was present when viewed in Audio Identifier:

(Track 1)



So, in summary:

LAME 3.97 @ V0 (old/original VBR mode)

If Amazon is handling their encoding like iTunes does, they give an encoding utility to the labels that want to make their music available for download. The label does the encoding, and then uploads/FTPs/whatever the encoded and tagged MP3s to Amazon. As such, Amazon would define the encoding parameters in their utility, and I'm impressed that they at least use a method that preserves the LAME tag, or at least on VBR files...

it's how they rip the music which counts the most. certainly you wouldn't want --insane or even lossless copy with skips all over the place. but obviously encoding it with the right product and settings is also important. these big companies selling music probably never even heard or EAC or "secure ripping". i only hope most of their masters they get are via FTP upload from the labels who do know how to rip a CD properly. or better yet i should say i pray that they know how to rip a CD properly.

I wonder - given the increasing importance of downloaded music - if it might be becoming more common for mastering facilities to give CD-Rs containing WAV files to their clients along with the final burned audio CD, thus eliminating any possible issues with the ripping process, while at the same time taking advantage of the stronger error correction of data CD-Rs.

I certainly didn't hear any clicks or pops on "Chocolate Elvis Dubs," and the sound quality through my Triangle Titus ES speakers was excellent - exactly what I would expect from a LAME V0 encode. Also, since the LAME tags were present, gapless playback (it's a continuous mix album) was flawless in iTunes.

Can't go wrong with Tosca.

Indeed - while not as strong as an actual Tosca album (nor did I expect it to be, given that it's all remixes), it's still good, with a few excellent tracks (the "Uptight Version" is outstanding).

This was also the first album I've ever chosen to download instead of buying the CD (I've downloaded a few albums from iTunes, but those were all with gift cards). As I said above, I didn't expect this to be as excellent as a Tosca album, so I was "just interested" in it, as opposed to "I've gotta have this." As such, I didn't feel the need to have "the real thing," both from a psychological and practical (original pressed CD) standpoint.

The deal-maker was the difference in cost between the import-only CD and the download: $20.98 vs. $8.99 - no-brainer.

Given the overall smoothness of the whole process (Amazon's compact downloading application flawlessly added the tracks to my iTunes library as soon as each one completed downloading), and Amazon's use of LAME at a very good setting (although I won't be downloading "Herding Calls" anytime soon ), I can see me doing this more often, although CDs will continue to be my primary way of purchasing music, especially since Amazon has lowered the price on many of them to $9.97.

I've nothing but good luck using Amazon's service, over which I've purchased at least 20 albums now. The majority of those have been encoded using LAME 3.97 -V0, with only a few showing up as 256kbps CBR. Interestingly, almost all of the rock CD's I've bought have been CBR, while nearly all jazz albums have been LAME-encoded VBR. This must be due to the various labels encoding things differently (using different software, for example). I'm glad somebody agrees that Miles Davis or Wayne Shorter deserve the best

In 5 minutes, I can go from seeing an album online to listening to it on my car's MP3 player! I'd rip the CD to -V0 anyway, so unless I ever yearn for the lossless copy, it's not like I'll miss having a disc. If only it was a little cheaper, though....

------

Enya is only a step above digital silence - I'm surprised she even needs 160kbps

well the way it usually works is the mastering facility would send a demo back to the artist/a&r people who would in turn approve the final copy. that final master is sent by the mastering studio to the pressing plant. however, artists and engineers have the opportunity, and virtually all mastering studios do it these days, to transfer the mixed files to mastering via ftp. remember that the label retains all final masters. what i'm worried about the discrepancy and the "variety" of the encoders used. anything from possibly fastenc to lame 3.91 (who the fuck even uses that anyway?). obviously different software, as in frontends, are used to create the files, which is why i think amazon never receives any WAV files to begin with. instead someone at the label is making these mp3s with whatever handy p.o.s program they happen to have. or maybe amazon do receive WAV files and different employees with different software create the mp3 files that end up on the website. yeesh you can really get a headache. and yes it's all speculation but in either case what is true is this is very bad for the consumer because it shows there's ZERO quality control. it's a fact that some of these old encoders can produce dubious results.

You bring up a lot of potential issues, but the quality of the 100+ MP3's I've purchased is top notch. Only once did I get a scratchy MP3, and Amazon immediately let me redownload it, which fixed the problem.

I've downloaded many albums from amazon and have been very pleased overall. One thing that I don't like, though, is the way they number the files:
1. title
2. title
3. title

and so on, instead of
01. title
02. title
03. title

which doesn't work very well with my filename-based mp3 player. So I have to rename the first 9 tracks.

The recent NIN release was the best mp3 album package I ever downloaded -- good quality audio, different embedded art for each track, liner notes in pdf form. Hopefully more of the big guys like amazon will start to offer packages like this, not just the music.

It only takes a few clicks in Mp3tag or other similar tagging applications to fix that issue, zipr. Many have the capability to rename files based on tag data (track number with a leading zero in this case).