[JeffS]

Has anybody here used the service and what do you think if it?

I just signed up the other night, and I'm still trying to decide if I want to keep it after the 14 day trial is up.

I'm using it with Windows Media Player and using the "work around" via
Total Recorder to convert the files to wav then to mp3. I actually haven't
even transfered the mp3s to my Karma yet, I've just been listening throug the
computer speakers.

It seems kind of cool, in that there is a lot of music available for free (after
the subscrition) that I may not listen to normally, and I don't have to shell out
for the CD, just to check out a new band. The whole converting to wav files
then reencoding is a bit of a pain, but it's not unbearable. I did come from the world of MiniDisc where I used to record via optical cable in realtime.

my normal mp3 listening on my Karma is via EAC/Lame APE so I don't know
that I'm going to love the sound quality. I'm really just curious at this point
to get others opinions on the service, and hear other peoples experiences.

thanks
-Jeff

 

[MartinJ]

What is the bit rate on the files from Napster?

 

[blessingx]

According to Sno1man in this thread, they're 128 WMA files.

 

[robk]

If they are in fact 128k WMA files, I am less interested than I was before reading that, and I started out pretty uninterested.

rob

 

[Zoraxcis]

In my opinion, it is a bad business practice because you are just renting the music, you don't own it. The fact that they are such low quality is another reason to not go with Napster to Go.

Also, to not sound like an Apple fanboy, iTunes, in my opinion, is a better service than Napster to Go.

 

[flecom]

yes a very good point, if you stop using the service you can no longer play the files you downloaded with the service, or choose to pay $.99 per song for them...

so you pay for a subscription and if you want to get out of it you have to pay $1 anyway, your better off with itunes

 

[MDDrew]

you not really better off as both charge 99 a song, just use allofmp3 its much better

 

[MoSXS]

I'm in a bit of a hurry right now, so I can't say much. However, I do want to comment on the quality of Napster.

Yes the files are 128kbps WMA files. But not only are they using 128kbps WMA files, there are also A LOT (and I do mean A LOT) of WMA7 and WMA8 encoded files on the service. So a GOOD majority of the files sound A LOT like 128kbps MP3s you would have downloaded off of the "original" Napster so many years ago.

Stay away from Napster to Go. The quality is horrendous.

Another bad point about Napster is the fact that they change licensing terms on songs. Some songs will be available as part of the subscription plan, then the next month those songs will be Buy Only. Also, theres no way to tell what kind of file you get before you download it. If you want a song and it's Buy Only, you have no way of telling if the song is encoded in WMA7, WMA8, WMA9, or WMA9.1.

If one wants to buy music online, allofmp3 is the best. Followed by iTunes, which has surprisingly good sound quality (close to --aps IMO), and then Real (192kbps AAC), and then MSN Music (160kbps VBR WMA9.1).

 

[sno1man]

I somewhat disagree with what MoSXS has said.

You are correct that the sound quality is variable though I have found it more than enough for what I use it for. I also agree that itunes sounds much better and would switch in a second if they came out with a reasonable price subscription service.

But I think some may be missing the point. This is more a competition for Sat. Radio or internet broadcasting. I use it as a way to try new music. All of the music on my micro comes from there and none of it is anything I own. If I really like something I hear there, then I buy the CD as I did with curve recently.

90% of what's on there I have found out I would not have wanted to buy. Getting to try it has already saved me about $60 buck where I might have otherwise bought the CD (gwen stefani, YUCK)

 

[Zoraxcis]

I have a subscription to a Sat. Radio service but if I want to buy music I would like to own it instead of me renting it from a service such as Napster to Go.

I meam I am not going to subscribe to a music service where I can download the music but I can't keep it when I stop the service.

 

[sno1man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoraxcis I have a subscription to a Sat. Radio service but if I want to buy music I would like to own it instead of me renting it from a service such as Napster to Go. I meam I am not going to subscribe to a music service where I can download the music but I can't keep it when I stop the service.

I had XM radio and the MyFi. The sound quality was poor and the MyFi was a brick. Plus you have no control at all over what you hear with Sat. Radio. That can be good because you never know what you will hear.

I just look at it as radio station that play's all my requests, even in album order if I want. Renting is semantics at this point.

Plus, if you stop paying the radio subscription, then you have a paperweight. At least my zen micro would still be useful

 

[WmAx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sno1man 90% of what's on there I have found out I would not have wanted to buy. Getting to try it has already saved me about $60 buck where I might have otherwise bought the CD (gwen stefani, YUCK)

I use Rhapsody for the same purpose. I have saved alot of $$$ by using Rhapsody for full length *previewing* before commiting to a purchase of the CD. 128kbps WMA is just fine for that purpose -- at least to me.

-Chris

 

[TomRemixed]

I love this thing it works perfectly for me on my micro and I have discovered that I hate mxpx, absolutely love nofx, and I'm getting my chemical romance and queens of the stone age right now. plus they have all the music from one of my favorite bands cake. the only problem I have with it is their database don't have FLOGGING MOLLY!!! I'll just buy their new cd anyway...
its a great way to find new artists like I said I wouldn't buy my chemical romance but I'm going to check out their cd right now along with queens of the stone age.

 

[TomRemixed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sno1man 90% of what's on there I have found out I would not have wanted to buy. Getting to try it has already saved me about $60 buck where I might have otherwise bought the CD (gwen stefani, YUCK)

yea that was unfortunate I tried some gwen steffani solo and it wasn't anything like her band No Doubt... still thinks she's hot though.

 

[MoSXS]

Quote:

I use Rhapsody for the same purpose. I have saved alot of $$$ by using Rhapsody for full length *previewing* before commiting to a purchase of the CD. 128kbps WMA is just fine for that purpose -- at least to me.

Actually, Rhapsody and the Real Music Store use AAC. Rhapsody uses streaming 128kbps AAC. AAC is far better than WMA7/8/9/9.1 that Napster users.. and, well, 128kbps AAC is far better than most people give it credit for. The Real Music Store uses 192kbps AAC.

Quote:

I also agree that itunes sounds much better and would switch in a second if they came out with a reasonable price subscription service.

If iTunes had a subscription service, I guarantee you they would do it right as well. None of the BS that Napster pulls, like changing licensing terms, or using codecs that were obsolete when they were released (too many WMA7/8 files).

Quote:

But I think some may be missing the point. This is more a competition for Sat. Radio or internet broadcasting. I use it as a way to try new music. All of the music on my micro comes from there and none of it is anything I own. If I really like something I hear there, then I buy the CD as I did with curve recently.

According to Napster's advertising, and the way people use the service, it's a direct competitor to iTunes. Napster wants to replace iTunes as the number one music store. But that won't happen as long as they keep doing everything wrong. They need to get some GOOD hardware support, not players with buggy firmware, or battery problems, or widespread headphone jack problems. Their number one short fall is the fact that they don't support the number one MP3 player. They also need to quit with the licensing gimmicks and put their ENTIRE catalog for download. They try and blame the record companies for that, but that's BS. I can think of plenty of songs that I listened to during my time on Napster, and had the licensing terms change later.

They also need CONSISTANT sound quality. The BIGGEST drawback of Napster is the sound quality. You can listening to a playlist of downloaded music from Napster, and the current song will sound fantastic. Then the next song will sound worse than a song downloaded from the "original" Napster! The sound quality on Napster is downright terrible.

However, the sound quality of Rhapsody is pretty good.

Quote:

Plus, if you stop paying the radio subscription, then you have a paperweight. At least my zen micro would still be useful

If the headphone jack hasn't crapped out, or a firmware update hasn't killed the player