Amazon flac or wav Downloads?

Wouldn't it be nice if you could buy flac or wav downloads from Amazon?

Is this a good idea? If you think so, contact them. If not, why not?

Just asking.

 

I would do flac if hi-res.

 

i doubt it would happen since flac is lossless, wave files are too large and it's easy enough to decode flacs to wave with many free programs.

 

I would like it. Probably won't happen though. They'd probably have to re-negotiate their contracts with the labels?

 

FLAC yes!

 

Other than this, I don't see a problem?

 

Amazon would have to go back to every record company and get hi-res files from them. That would be a huge undertaking!

 

well, if a flac file is a smaller lossless version of a wave, that would put less strain on the servers. waves would take much more space and time and flacs will serve the same purpose.

 

Where do the MP3s come from? Does Amazon create them? 16/44 flac would be fine by me. Since Amazon is sending CDR versions of CDs perhaps they have the capacity and mechanics to do flac.

I hadn't thought about hi-res (anything more than red book).

Pure speculation => Couldn't Amazon and HDTracks come to a business arrangement?

 

I once downloaded a purchase for my brother from Amazon. You have to load their software to pull it in, and then you only get an Mp3 @ 128 or 256Kps. Not even 320Kps!
Take it for what it's worth, most Amazon download purchasers are more concerned with hard disk real estate than sound quality.

 

Why?

 

They could just do everything new as Flac and still keep the Mp3's as well, until Flac become the precedent ?

 

I think they should "Flac it!" A great idea.

 

Every MP3 I've purchased from Amazon has been at least 256kbps.

 

The more I think of this the better I like it. What would be the downside?

 

FLACs would be a great idea. I don't see it happening anytime soon though, since the masses seem to be happy with mp3s.

 

Wish it would happen, but unlikely it will happen anytime soon.

Amazon is different than Apple, in that they are more system agnostic - they want their files to play on as many systems as possible. Apple, on the other hand, only cares about their own hardware so they could, in theory, swing to ALAC of even a transitional HD-AAC, if they wanted to.

What lossless codec should Amazon use? If FLAC, then they lose their iOS base. If ALAC, they lose most everyone else. Sure, it's easy to transcode... for you and me. But for Joe Consumer it has to "just work". HDTracks uses FLAC, but they are also a very niche group of users who likely know how to transcode + they're probably using specialized hardware or PC's to start with. But the mainstream user is a different story.

 

I never had to download any proprietary software, nor have i ever received anything below 256k.

As for FLAC...yes, please! In any rez.

 

They do not create the MP3s. The MP3s they sell are given to them by the distributors (aka the record companies).

 

In some cases they don't even have CDs. Plus, as I noted in my last response, Amazon doesn't encode the MP3s. They receive them already encoded.

 

I don't see any reason why a download store selling MP3s wouldn't be able to sell 16/44 FLAC files, in addition.

- file size, bandwidth? Come on, this is 2012 ...

- getting the files from the label? Same source as the MP3s: the original CD. No need to go back to tape sources, just re-rip the CD to FLAC this time

- confusing for the customer, compatibility issues? People can now figure out the difference between a DVD and a Blu-ray (which doesn't play in a DVD player), so I'm sure they can do the same for MP3 and FLAC.

 

I've been buying quite a few Apple Lossless albums from Murfie.com. Mostly filling out collections of older artists, making a majority of my purchases about $2. You can also buy WAV, I believe.

 

There's a similar thread floating around about this (getting a bit confusing, actually).

First off, it's more than just your bandwidth. It's the vendor's bandwidth. And its storage capabilities. x2 or possibly x3 what they're dealing with now (and don't forget about CnR). Amazon and iTunes have millions, or tens of millions of tracks. Re-doing that infrastructure would be a massive undertaking and would cost a lot of money in resources. And most consumers likely don't even care. You and I do, but we are the minority.

As for consumers and compatibility, have you ever worked in a service job? Most people, to be blunt, are stupid. Blu-rays are color coded and have a different jacket size for reason. There is NO standard lossless format between hardware devices right now - FLAC and ALAC and the two big ones but, unlike MP3's, there is no standard. Offer FLAC and the iOS users will bark. Offer ALAC and the non-iOS users will bark. Offer both and now your storage requirements in your data center just doubled. And expect an increase in calls to your service center for all those people trying to those FLAC files on their iPods, even though your web site specifically states that iOS doesn't support FLAC.

HDTracks can get away with FLAC because it's a much smaller offering and its a niche clientele that generally understands (vs. Joe Consumer) what these formats are and how to transcode between them. But that's not the case for an Amazon or Apple Store. It's just the reality of the situation.

 

i would prefer lossless downloads from amazon. 1 Euro for lossy files is a bit steep.

But I bought a few single songs i was interested in from amazon.
what bugged me more than the mp3 format, was that all songs were brickwalled to the limit. i wonder if the source files were that bad as well.

 

Youtube and hundreds of filehosters worldwide are storing and streaming big videos and are not even asking money for it (financed by ads and a minority of paying premium users). I don't think the cost of offering FLAC files is prohibitive.