Rhapsody Software as a source.
Refefer
Posts: 1,280
I don't know how many of you have tried out Rhapsody, the online music service from Real. I've been playing around with it all day and I must say, I'm very impressed. The concept, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, is that you pay $9 a month to "rent" music from them. If you stop paying for the service, the songs you've downloaded (with the exception of the ones you've outright purchased) will stop working.
You can stream the full songs and download any music on the Rhapsody network, around 1 million songs or so, uploading them to a compatiable mp3 player or play them off your computer. Still not the best source, but it's not too bad.
You can make Radio stations and make playlists using their software, or import the downloaded songs into Winamp (my player of choice) and maybe iTunes (havn't checked it, so perhaps not) or any player capable of WMA DRM-encoded files.
I felt real joy after I discovered that they provide all their music at 160 kbps compression, not 128kbps. I've found that unless I'm listening to a very high quality rig, I barely notice a difference between compressions of wma at 160 kbps or higher (after I've burned them to cd and am comparing using the same cdp as source), with the exception of a slightly diminished soundstage whereas at 128kbps I've notice much bigger distortions between the original and compressed files.
What I'm essentially trying to say is that I can listen to music off of Rhapsody through a relatively highend 2 channel setup and be reasonably pleased with it's sound. Using a Usb soundcard with the dac outside the computer does wonders to improving the quality of the sound (away from the clicks and crap inside the computer).
Figured I'd let the community know about it and give it a try. I saw a promotion in my local bestbuy for 1 free month if you sign up soon, so it's an easy test.
www.rhapsody.com/bestbuy
You can stream the full songs and download any music on the Rhapsody network, around 1 million songs or so, uploading them to a compatiable mp3 player or play them off your computer. Still not the best source, but it's not too bad.
You can make Radio stations and make playlists using their software, or import the downloaded songs into Winamp (my player of choice) and maybe iTunes (havn't checked it, so perhaps not) or any player capable of WMA DRM-encoded files.
I felt real joy after I discovered that they provide all their music at 160 kbps compression, not 128kbps. I've found that unless I'm listening to a very high quality rig, I barely notice a difference between compressions of wma at 160 kbps or higher (after I've burned them to cd and am comparing using the same cdp as source), with the exception of a slightly diminished soundstage whereas at 128kbps I've notice much bigger distortions between the original and compressed files.
What I'm essentially trying to say is that I can listen to music off of Rhapsody through a relatively highend 2 channel setup and be reasonably pleased with it's sound. Using a Usb soundcard with the dac outside the computer does wonders to improving the quality of the sound (away from the clicks and crap inside the computer).
Figured I'd let the community know about it and give it a try. I saw a promotion in my local bestbuy for 1 free month if you sign up soon, so it's an easy test.
www.rhapsody.com/bestbuy
Lovin that music year after year.
Main 2 Channel System
Polk SDA-1B,
Promitheus Audio TVC SE,
Rotel RB-980BX,
OPPO DV-970HD,
Lite Audio DAC AH,
IXOS XHA305 Interconnects
Computer Rig
Polk SDA CRS+,
Creek Audio 5350 SE,
Morrow Audio MA1 Interconnect,
HRT Music Streamer II
Main 2 Channel System
Polk SDA-1B,
Promitheus Audio TVC SE,
Rotel RB-980BX,
OPPO DV-970HD,
Lite Audio DAC AH,
IXOS XHA305 Interconnects
Computer Rig
Polk SDA CRS+,
Creek Audio 5350 SE,
Morrow Audio MA1 Interconnect,
HRT Music Streamer II
Post edited by Refefer on
Comments
-
It's still compressed, and 160 kbps is a long long way from a normal .cda or .wav file @ 1411 kbps. Youa re loosing alot of important info during compression. You should be able to her a huge difference on a relatively high-end system. Mp3's are not compatiable with high fidelity listening, IMO of course.
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
I forget who did the test, but I remember reading somewhere that even the head sound tech at Bose (while perhaps you don't like their speakers, this guy has ears like nobody I've ever heard of) couldn't discern noticeably a 192kbps mp3 vs. one straight from the cd, so I was willing to give it a test. It's worth a try: compress your own music, reburn and play head to head.
Also note that I am not claiming this for use as reference listening, far from it. However, it works nicely if you want something far better than XM/FM/AM radios.Lovin that music year after year.
Main 2 Channel System
Polk SDA-1B,
Promitheus Audio TVC SE,
Rotel RB-980BX,
OPPO DV-970HD,
Lite Audio DAC AH,
IXOS XHA305 Interconnects
Computer Rig
Polk SDA CRS+,
Creek Audio 5350 SE,
Morrow Audio MA1 Interconnect,
HRT Music Streamer II -
Refefer wrote:I forget who did the test, but I remember reading somewhere that even the head sound tech at Bose (while perhaps you don't like their speakers, this guy has ears like nobody I've ever heard of) couldn't discern noticeably a 192kbps mp3 vs. one straight from the cd, so I was willing to give it a test. It's worth a try: compress your own music, reburn and play head to head.
Also note that I am not claiming this for use as reference listening, far from it. However, it works nicely if you want something far better than XM/FM/AM radios.
A Blose quote is quite laughable. As far as testing compressed music head to head I've done it many times and it mostly sucks and is marginal at best. To each their own.....I get where you are coming from about it being satisfactory over FM radio. But, I don't think one should ever consider using them in place of real high fidelity. Even listening to 320 kbps on my computer system I can tell a big difference over a regualr .wav file
H9"Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass Pass Labs XA25 | EE Avant Pre | EE Mini Max Supreme DAC | MIT Shotgun S1 | Pangea AC14SE MKII | Legend L600 | BlueSound Node 3 - Tubes add soul! -
Refefer wrote:I forget who did the test, but I remember reading somewhere that even the head sound tech at Bose (while perhaps you don't like their speakers, this guy has ears like nobody I've ever heard of) couldn't discern noticeably a 192kbps mp3 vs. one straight from the cd, so I was willing to give it a test. It's worth a try: compress your own music, reburn and play head to head.
Also note that I am not claiming this for use as reference listening, far from it. However, it works nicely if you want something far better than XM/FM/AM radios.
um excuse me tests on bose speakers dont countvsnares -
If I recall, he was using a set of Sennheiser HD600s... not bose speakers...Lovin that music year after year.
Main 2 Channel System
Polk SDA-1B,
Promitheus Audio TVC SE,
Rotel RB-980BX,
OPPO DV-970HD,
Lite Audio DAC AH,
IXOS XHA305 Interconnects
Computer Rig
Polk SDA CRS+,
Creek Audio 5350 SE,
Morrow Audio MA1 Interconnect,
HRT Music Streamer II
