I imagine a lot of people, especially audio geeks, will be interested in this.

Looks like EMusic, a company that sells MP3 downloads for $9.99 per month (1 year subscription) is using LAME 3.92 and alt-preset standard for the MP3's on its web site. In the past, one of the few complaints against this service was the use of 128kbps MP3's.

EMusic Press Release

EMusic VBR Factsheet

EMusic VBR Factsheet: What type of encoder is used for VBR?

"They forgot THE -Z!!111"

Hah I'm impressed that they were willing to change it at all. Hopefully other places will follow suite. This makes me wonder though, are all the older mp3's the previously had available still at 128, or did they rerip everything with LAME APS?

Probably transcoded them.

Unless they give a detailed extraction log like what EAC can create I wouldn't be interested in the least.

Why do people have to be so anal @ HA? Unless they were dumb, of course they didn't transcode! People are still bitching about extraction logs and what not while lame -aps is getting MAJOR recognition. Some people are never pleased. Granted most of the releases on emusic.com are indy, but that's what I mostly listen to anyway I'm going to give them a try and possibly subscribe.

90% of the music currently on EMusic is already re-ripped and encoded using alt-preset standard. The other 10% will be shortly.

This is very nice news IMHO, APS is getting recognition, yay

Really? I'd be mighty impressed if this is the case. I downloaded lots of stuff in the last few months and I remember seeing a lot of 128 kbps Xings.

They have a lot of older files. I can see them using LAME APS going forward but I'd be surprised if they re-ripped/re-encoded their whole catalog. That's a lot of music. If they had it stored losslessly already though ...

Figures that they'd announce this just as I cancelled my subscription two weeks ago. Still not worth it to keep it going though. I downloaded too much stuff already, now I gotta listen to it!

EDIT: According to their press release:Can anyone refer me to an album page where it says what bitrate it's in?

From their VBR Factsheet: Why is an album only available at 128k and not VBR?

Why is an album only available at 128k and not VBR?

The EMusic.com site has about 90% of the entire EMusic catalog encoded at VBR. In the near future, all titles on EMusic will be available at VBR.

Does anyone have information about the encryption used for the new .emp file format at emusic.com? I'm only asking because their new "Download Manager" isn't available for my platform. In the past I used a custom python script to process the .emp's (they were plain xml until today), but now emusic is essentially useless for me unless I can somehow decode the new .emp's.

I downloaded Immolation - Close to a World Below, and it doesn't sound like it's a transcode from 128kbps Xing at all. It is loud death metal, and the bitrate is at 243kbs (ouch!), but sounds flawless .

Yes! I was pestering them about this over 2 years ago. I'm signing up...for this quality its well worth it and their selection of music is amazing (if you're into indie stuff...).

great to see LAME and -alt-preset standard get such major recognition!

on the other hand, I think this really shows off how pathetic eMusic and most companies out there are. They don't give a flying fuck about the user if it doesn't hurt their sales. Had Apple not opened the iTunes Music Store (a much better, and more robust service then any of it's kind) then no doubt eMusic would still be using 128Kbps MP3's. And now, the iTunes Music Store, a great service that was very elegantly designed, fucking ruined what could have been a near flawless service by using 128Kbps CBR files. Hopefully with enough complaining, maybe Apple will listen and give the option of higher bitrates, or even (gasp) VBR.

Back to Kazaa Lite.

Well, they're not lying. I downloaded a few music samples and in looked at them with EncSpot. They are identical to my own --alt-preset standard mp3s. This is truly great news not only because one music download site is using APS, but it also puts pressure on all of the other competing sites do the same.

Apple expects many of the iTunes users to transfer the AAC files to iPods so they erred toward space savings instead of high transparency.

128kbps CBR AAC isn't THAT bad, really. Much better than MP3.

Remember iTunes Music Service is more for the online music fan that regularly downloads from Kazaa and company whatever MP3 they can find with no consideration for bitrate. That is by far the biggest untapped protential user base Apple has at the moment.

If Apple can get those people hooked, then the next logical step will be better quality downloads to convince audio nuts like us to sign up. This is Apple remember. I have yet to see a company that works so hard to make its fans happy. Generally you don't see Apple piss off its userbase, unlike Microsoft.

Maybe EMusic did feel the pressure from Apple. This is exactly what competition does. If this service really takes off, I would like to see what Microsoft does with WMA and its restrictions.

Excellent stuff! I felt really really sh1t last night and on the way in to work today... What with this and the "adminastrator acess" thread, my face is starting to light up B)

I know that's why they chose 128Kbps. But what I am saying is they could have atleast gave more than one choice of bitrate to download.

To me, AAC CBR 128Kbps sounds like MP3 CBR 160Kbps. Whould you pay 10 dollars for an album of 160Kbps MP3 (or even 192Kbps MP3) files that you will listen to both in your iPod and your home system? A lot of people will undoubtedly say "no".

If Apple was smart they'd atleast give the option of choosing either 128Kbps CBR or 160-192Kbps VBR.

Why don't they use Ogg Vorbis? Wouldn’t that give even better quality?

hmm, in trying to answer my own question, I suppose they do it because of lack of hardware support.

MPC would be better quality too, but most people don’t know what it is, or how to transcode….

Waahoo for LAME -alt-preset standard

Actually I imagine that a lot of people will say yes. Most people are quite satisfied with their 128kbps MP3's. So they will definitely think "Yes! I can buy even better quality files from my own computer legally with no hassle. No more finding wrong songs or half files of songs. Fast downloads and great organization as well, without any restrictions on my use (unless I really wanted to pirate stuff)."

Like I said before, Apple's service right now is more for Joe Sixpack instead of us. Give it time, with Apple's trackrecord I would not be surprised with added features and a choice of higher quality AAC files in the future. Apple heavily relies on big product announcements for sales and regularly revamps their product line.

I said "A LOT of people will undoubtedly say no", not MOST. obviously the vast majority of people will be more than happy with 128Kbps CBR AAC files.

and yes, I figured if anyone would do such a major revamp as adding mulitple bitrate chioces, Apple would. So I haven't given up hope on the service. I figure there will be enough people telling Apple to give higher bitrate chioces (me included) that will figure out that adding it would only increase sales.

10 bucks says that if they do add higher bitrates then they will also release a higher capacity iPod, both for that reason but also to compeate with Nomads new 60GB player. Apple will probably just go with 40GB, though (which is more than enough for me)

And if anyone is wondering, from http://www.macosrumors.com/ . Video support is comming, but not til the next generation of iPods.

I doubt people are buying "full albums" either. If I wanted the whole CD, I'd go and buy the actual CD! It's only useful if you want one or two tracks from an album, or material which doesn't exist on CD.

And of course it's only useful is you have a Mac, and you're in the USA.

Cheers,
David.

Well the price of the albums sold in the iTunes Music Store do cost less than normal CD's, so that could be an important benefit to many people. That, and the great benefit of getting everything imediately and not having to even leave the house. You could always accomplish that by getting a CD on Amazon.com, but it will cost more and take 3-5 days to get to you (or 1-2 for an extra cost). Instant is so much better then waiting.

And a version of iTunes is being developed for Windows and will be done by the end of the year. So the iTunes Music Store is not far off for Windows users.

The "Probably transcoded them" part wasn't to be taken seriously which you would have noticed if you had paid more attention to the smily at the end of the sentence, so lighten up already.

The whole extraction log thing while it constantly annoys the hell out of people to read it over and over again and in some respects can be seen as mundane bitching and overkill for the paranoid ripper's in the world is the only way to know when buying a license to play encoded audio that there are no errors in the encoded files.

Nonetheless I am glad to see that a major online distributor of encoded audio is finally getting this ass in gear and offering the consumer who purchases music what they have wanted for so long -- high quality encodings, and since they are using APS the service does seem all the more appealing, hence I rarely like the contents of a whole CD whereas some of the tracks are more desireable.

hmmm just had a quick, off-topic question...

i've heard some people in various boards mention that eMusic uses just plain MP3s. no "secure wrapper" or anything of the sort.

is it true? are they properly tagged?

Since they're charging money, why not offer lossless audio files and then let the people who download choose what format they want. I am guessing size is the issue and downloading time..

I thought they were 128kbps ABR files... Or am I wrong again?

With all due respect I think this is upside down, although it is a good pitch for the record companies. Since the problem is not really music or audio, but the music biz, this is a matter of marketing and since your comment thrusts that way -

My impression of the Kazaa user (i'm opennap if anything): they aren't collectors or users, they're guys who play x-box and build hot boxes. They couldn't possibly muster up the discipline to figure out what they're listening to let alone discriminate as to sound. They listen on the speakers that came with their first pc or they buy flat panel monsoons. They are computer guys, not music guys (sorry, ladies in the house).

Apple's customer is that guy's aunt, the one who buys a lot of cds, but finds it harder and harder to go into a record store. She was the first one to show up for Thankgiving with a legit Eminem for her nephew, but she hasn't heard $.50 (whatever, neither have I). She will demonstrably buy cds if she buys tracks at $.99. Figure this person, very possibly a lady, has $75.00 a month for a couple of months to spend on cds and she hasn't a clue what to buy. She buys books on Amazon not music. She is uncomfortable walking into Tower (or whatever, where do people buy cds these days. I haven't bought a cd offline in three years).

She owns an iBook. It is the highest technology in her life and she loves it. She does not have digital cable or a flat panel screen. But she would like to buy some music without feeling like a schmuck.



I'm sorry to disagree with you again but this lady has no more the ears or the equipment to hear those nuances than her speeding nephew, and Steve Jobs counted on this when he courted the record cos. He told them he would *never* say these were cd quality, but they are "good enough." Has SJ moved with the times or what? The record cos only hold is that they have "quality controlled" original cds. Buyng and collecting those is a drag. Steve's offering a base on which to collect music, not a technology platform. If anything, it's an e-commerce platform.

Even better: if this were on windows, nephew would hack auntie's account and mayhem would break loose. As it is, the kid won't want to spend his precious leisure time in front of a Mac.

Unless, the Ipod turns out to be pam anderson if she never met tommy lee.

Ron

PS - I apologize for not showing whom I'm quoting. Pls chime in. This is the first time I've posted and the sw is a pia, imho.

Have you even looked at the selection there?
Hardly aunt material.

You gave yourself up at the "opennap" stuff. Yet another jaded dispenser of gratitous contempt (is that how you spell it?)

This thread is about TWO (count them) companies that are at least tryng to get a grasp of these new times in the music industry. I fell great that some "mainstream" music download service finally is offering real quality (and -aps is REAL quality in anybody's book) in sound. I do believe that Apple (and others) will follow suit. People WILL start demanding better quality in files is this services get popular enough. As I type this, maybe some average Joe browsing through Emusic is wondering "hmm, what is this VBR shit?" . Some of them will no doubt end up here (hey, we did!)

Of course there will always be people complaining that they should use Vorbis, MPC, lossless or that they should find a way to send the CD so it will materialize on your CD tray but the REAL thing here is that this is maybe one small step for you but nevertheless a giant leap on purchasing downloadable music.

hmmm... i'm debating about signing up because of this... if only we could get ape or mpc files...

but yeah, this is great news... i think i will sign up....

Wow ! This is good ! They seem to have a lot of discontinued albums.

I'm going to sign up. They have an incredible selection on emusic! Not only indies, but also a lot of jazz. I look at this as a great way to introduce myself to new bands/musicians and have decent fodder for portable mp3 players.

Destron

I hope you have a US credit card.

I belonged for a few months last year, and there was increasing trend towards Nth America only releases.
I was entitled to considerably less for my $9.99 than someone in the US.
It got to be very, very annoying to see album after album that I liked the look of but couldn't download.

Hopefully Apple will try to sort out a better deal for foreigners when they get around to providing their shop to the rest of the world.

Weblisten.com do a good job of supplying music from all of the labels in plain old mp3 format.
If they went to lame -aps I'd be over the moon. (Their user interface is slow and rubbish, but I've written a frontend if anyone else uses this service).

It looks like either Weblisten are legal in Spain - maybe other services should just up and relocate somewhere with easier legislation for this sort of thing - , or they're just _incredibly_ lucky not to have been targetted by US lawyers yet... Does anyone know which?

I did sign up to emusic.com...mostly because:

a) the sound quality is what I expect and am ready to pay $$$ for
b ) the music selection is in the genres I like (no Britney or other drivel like that)
c) it gives me tons of chances to find out new music I never heard about (e.g. Takeshi Muto)
d) the price is perfect: $10 for unlimited downloads. ($0.99 per song like iTunes is a total rip-off for
my taste)

The download speeds are amazing too...I can queue up 3 albums and 15-20 minutes later they're all there.

Compare that to Kazaa and maybe some record labels can figure out why some would actually be willing to pay for downloads to avoid the hassle and crap that makes getting complete albums from P2P such a pain.

Hmmm. Not according to some. But I won't go there now.

I signed up as well. Finally got broadband and it makes it worthwhile to use this service now.



Ditto. Lots of good stuff, I'm discovering.

A few I really like so far:

Burner
Solarized
JR Ewing
Caustic Resin <---- For me this is one great album. B)
The Atomic Bitchwax

And a ton more.