Where Do You Download Music From?

[hojam]

I have not downloaded any music over the internet in a very long time. I was curious to know where some of you (if any of you) like or don't like to download from. I have tried sources such as ITunes and MSN Music but was not happy with the results after paying for the files. ITunes sold me music files that were not compatible with my Nero CD burner and I was never able to transfer the songs onto a CD.....also, the songs could not be burned to a CD-R because of copyright protection, even though I PAID FOR IT.....very frustrating. I even once tried using Kazaa but it filled my computer with all kinds of spyware and popups, so I quickly removed it.
Any advice would be very appreciated! Thanks!

[sandi]

I use ITunes and download all the time and have no problem burning cd's and transfering the songs onto my IPOD, but I am using a Mac and spyware doesn't bother them.

[Rush862]

I have used Itunes and the legal Napster with no problems transferring the files to cd. I have also used the Canadian service Puretracks several times with no problems.

[kim]

I picked up a new puter back in November.

At the same time, a friend gave me the "Sharaza" program which allows a person to download music for free...no fees, no sign up, simply install and hope for the best. It's illegal of course and no wonder why you get what you download.

The program is pretty much surfing the net for free music like having sex "bareback"...better watch out...you don't know what's coming down the pipes, regardless of your Antivirus or Internet Security progs.

I did manage to download a couple of songs that I had been looking for over the last couple of years.

Here's what I can tell ya...It sucks! The quality is terrible! The chance taken in doing so isn't worth it as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know what the hell these kids that own Ipods are getting for 99 cents a piece, but I'll tell ya this, the crap that seems to be available on line is garbage... not musically, but sound wise!

I'll admit, I'm no audiophile, but I'll say this...I will not compromise my integrity when it comes to musical quality. If it doesn't sound good, and is full of "hisses, pops,scratchy, hollow" sounding downloads", I don't want it! I want music that was recorded in the way it was meant to be and I won't settle for anything less!

Seriously, I have witnessed the deterioration of music since the advent of "downloading". It's just not the same as the albums that you pay for. Ohhhh I'm sure there are many out there that are willing to put up with the lesser quality, I'm just not one of them. I need to hear the subtle nuances that any artist has that takes the time to spend hours and oodles of cash in the studio to make their sound come across as their own.

I have about 4 cds loaded with tunes I scarfed from the old days when Napster was alive and well before they got hauled into court. Got some great tunes, even with Win95!!!...however, the quality just isn't there. Sounds to me like it was recorded off of an FM radio station.

This hearkens back to a thread I posted on regarding musical quality and why it is that kids with "ear buds" seem to think the music of today is okay?...They probably don't realize that downloading Zep for example is different if you own the album or not??? These kids have probably never heard the true recording?...frankly, they don't even know what Zep is all about because they never had the chance of hearing the "real deal".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against "downloading"...I just don't think it's right for Me! It can't be...I appreciate music too much to make the compromise quality wise.

...and here's something to consider... I spent the early part of today hooking up my old "analog" stereo system from the 80's. A Sony receiver, cd player, tape deck with JBL speakers.
The system is rated at 55 watts. The speakers can handle 85 watts.

Why is it that this system blows the doors off the roof when turned to less than "2" on the dial, and sounds crisper than the same album played on the "newer" Sony system rated at 140 watts and cranked to "FULL"!!!!???Go figure?

I'd love to crank the old system to 5 on a scale of 10, but I'm afraid I'd be taken into custody for disturbing the peace!...I'd have a smile on my face though...hahahaha

Call me crazy, but the album "Crime of The Century" all of a sudden sounds so great...just the way I remember it?...why is that?

So my question is this...

Is the old technology better? Does 55 watts kick the shit out of the new technology and it's 140 watt Micro system? It must be...I'm witnessing it as I speak! I'm feeling it...I'm hearing it...I'm enjoying it terribly!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I am an audiophile?

Any one else out there feel the same way?

Thanks
Kim

[frehleyscomic]

I have maybe downloaded 5 full songs off the internet in the 3 years i have been on the internut. I have zero patience,and on dial-up ya need it to download a song that takes 20 minutes. I ususally listen to sound samples @ cduniverse.com/ and www.melodicrock.com/ to hear song samples before buying anything anymore. But i did for the last 3 years do ALOT of cdr trading and have aquired around 300 + cdrs not to mention around 300 cds and albums and around 200 cassette tapes. Although i did download and "pay" $11.00 USA dollars for Nine THE DARKNESS songs off their website that were B-Sides and not released songs on their first 2 albums! The only bands that i will blindly buy from without hearing anymore are JORN LANDE and BLUE OYSTER CULT and maybe *just maybe* if KISS put out a new studio album but i aint holding my breath on that one.

[frehleyscomic]

kimbaman said:

I picked up a new puter back in November.

At the same time, a friend gave me the "Sharaza" program which allows a person to download music for free...no fees, no sign up, simply install and hope for the best. It's illegal of course and no wonder why you get what you download.

The program is pretty much surfing the net for free music like having sex "bareback"...better watch out...you don't know what's coming down the pipes, regardless of your Antivirus or Internet Security progs.

I did manage to download a couple of songs that I had been looking for over the last couple of years.

Here's what I can tell ya...It sucks! The quality is terrible! The chance taken in doing so isn't worth it as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know what the hell these kids that own Ipods are getting for 99 cents a piece, but I'll tell ya this, the crap that seems to be available on line is garbage... not musically, but sound wise!

I'll admit, I'm no audiophile, but I'll say this...I will not compromise my integrity when it comes to musical quality. If it doesn't sound good, and is full of "hisses, pops,scratchy, hollow" sounding downloads", I don't want it! I want music that was recorded in the way it was meant to be and I won't settle for anything less!

Seriously, I have witnessed the deterioration of music since the advent of "downloading". It's just not the same as the albums that you pay for. Ohhhh I'm sure there are many out there that are willing to put up with the lesser quality, I'm just not one of them. I need to hear the subtle nuances that any artist has that takes the time to spend hours and oodles of cash in the studio to make their sound come across as their own.

I have about 4 cds loaded with tunes I scarfed from the old days when Napster was alive and well before they got hauled into court. Got some great tunes, even with Win95!!!...however, the quality just isn't there. Sounds to me like it was recorded off of an FM radio station.

This hearkens back to a thread I posted on regarding musical quality and why it is that kids with "ear buds" seem to think the music of today is okay?...They probably don't realize that downloading Zep for example is different if you own the album or not??? These kids have probably never heard the true recording?...frankly, they don't even know what Zep is all about because they never had the chance of hearing the "real deal".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against "downloading"...I just don't think it's right for Me! It can't be...I appreciate music too much to make the compromise quality wise.

...and here's something to consider... I spent the early part of today hooking up my old "analog" stereo system from the 80's. A Sony receiver, cd player, tape deck with JBL speakers.
The system is rated at 55 watts. The speakers can handle 85 watts.

Why is it that this system blows the doors off the roof when turned to less than "2" on the dial, and sounds crisper than the same album played on the "newer" Sony system rated at 140 watts and cranked to "FULL"!!!!???Go figure?

I'd love to crank the old system to 5 on a scale of 10, but I'm afraid I'd be taken into custody for disturbing the peace!...I'd have a smile on my face though...hahahaha

Call me crazy, but the album "Crime of The Century" all of a sudden sounds so great...just the way I remember it?...why is that?

So my question is this...

Is the old technology better? Does 55 watts kick the Sh*t out of the new technology and it's 140 watt Micro system? It must be...I'm witnessing it as I speak! I'm feeling it...I'm hearing it...I'm enjoying it terribly!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I am an audiophile?

Any one else out there feel the same way?

Thanks
Kim

I agree dude, put an 8 track tape in a car and it sounds LOUDER than any CD ever will.

[Pete]

I don't download anymore but used to use Kazaa lite or Limewire.

...and Kimbaman you can get CD quality or higher you just have to make sure the you have a quality bit rate.

4 kbit/s — minimum necessary for recognizable speech (using special-purpose speech codecs)
8 kbit/s — telephone quality
32 kbit/s — MW (AM) quality
96 kbit/s — FM quality
128 kbit/s — Typical "acceptable" music quality
256 - 320 kbit/s — Near audio CD quality.

If I noticed something wasn't 300 kbs or higher I wouldn't download it. When you buy an .mp3 from a legal source it is usually CD quality.

[HARD ROCK UNIVERSE]

Mp3's being compressed, definitely don't sound as good as a CD, and CD's don't have the warmth of vinyl. So many kids and other folks these days are doing themselves and the artist a disservice by only downloading tracks and albums in MP3 form. It's not how the artist intended the music to sound like. They're selling themselves short, and probably don't even know the difference in terms of sound quality. A lot of artists spend much time and money in production only to have people download it and listen to it in an inferior format. Downloading for me works in a pinch, if I want to hear something RIGHT away and don't have it yet, but I'll usually go and buy the album anyway.

[EugenicScum]

Torrents are the simplest and the easiest way to get illegal mp3s. Try a client like Bitcomet. I usually have shitloads of albums downloaded and copied from other friends who download. That helps me explore and sample a lot of new music. I can't afford more than 15-17 cds a month so piracy keeps me going. Quality is inferior so keep it at 128 kbps and above. But yeah, you'll buy the CD if you like the album.

[eilene]

Kim Ia gree with you on the music sound..My old stereo Blew any of the ones I have now...I still can be heard from up the street though...I dogs hear me coming...

[Pete]

nightwatcher said:

Mp3's being compressed, definitely don't sound as good as a CD, and CD's don't have the warmth of vinyl. So many kids and other folks these days are doing themselves and the artist a disservice by only downloading tracks and albums in MP3 form. It's not how the artist intended the music to sound like. They're selling themselves short, and probably don't even know the difference in terms of sound quality. A lot of artists spend much time and money in production only to have people download it and listen to it in an inferior format. Downloading for me works in a pinch, if I want to hear something RIGHT away and don't have it yet, but I'll usually go and buy the album anyway.

You are right. .mp3s don't reach the quality of CDs but they do exceed that of FM radio or cassette by a long shot and you can still get really good quality sound listening to the radio with a good system. .mp3s can also reach what's called near CD quality. Some say the difference of a high quality .mp3 and a CD is not perceivable by the human ear because the sample rate is so high. Weather your ear can perceive the difference or not the quality of a high kbps .mp3 is still very good quality and maybe not better in most people's opinion but it is at least a truer reproduction than vinyl.

[kim]

...and Kimbaman you can get CD quality or higher you just have to make sure the you have a quality bit rate.

4 kbit/s — minimum necessary for recognizable speech (using special-purpose speech codecs)
8 kbit/s — telephone quality
32 kbit/s — MW (AM) quality
96 kbit/s — FM quality
128 kbit/s — Typical "acceptable" music quality
256 - 320 kbit/s — Near audio CD quality.

Hey Pete, thanks for the breakdown on that buddy!
I suspected that was pretty much the case but never had it broken down so well as you have taken the time to do so.

Makes sense. I do have some songs that were downloaded in the past and all of them seem to vary slightly if not greatly in degree as far as "quality" goes. Some aren't bad actually and for my needs, in some cases, will suffice.

Example however would be this, you'd never, EVER, catch me downloading Supertramps' "School" for my collection...I need to have the best...I want to hear the kids pissin' their pants when they scream as they kick into the song.

Although I'm not the biggest Pink Floyd fan on the planet, I do like their music and would only want to hear their music in it's originality through purchase of their commercial recordings...regardless of what it costs for the albums. To listen to artists of this calibre and talent in a lesser degree would be tragic!
Spitting into the wind, pissing on Supermans cape and downloading classic albums such as DSOTM is just something you don't do!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regarding the high end of the scale (256 - 320 kbit/s - near cd audio quality), call me fussy, but I'd still question it and not be totally satisfied. CD quality is fine and acceptable for the most part, but like most would agree, sometimes, it just doesn't seem to possess the same "warmth" of the old LP recordings?, therefore, if I get "near CD" quality, that just might not cut it...for me anyway.

These days, you can sometimes pick up a commercial CD and it sounds terrible.

Not because it's been "remastered" but the way in which they used the control board during the recording session of the album overall in the studio. Subtle nuances and clarity seem to have taken a back seat to other attributes of the recording spectrum in terms of noise, and in your face, balls to wall" volume at the expense of the former mentioned qualities that seem to get overlooked during final production.

I'll stick to paying for the majority of the music I listen to through commercial venues rather than the net version...not because I am against it one way or another...but cuz I'm a fussy bastard!... ;D

Thanks again Pete for the info! Greatly appreciated!

Thanks
Kim

[Pete]

.mp3s to me have the same type of purpose as cassettes. Cassettes were convenient and good enough but not the best. CDs actually give you a truer reproduction of sound than .mp3s and vinyl but still don't have the warmth that vinyl does.