Amazon Music Unlimited

[GA Russell]

Amazon sent me an email saying that I am entitled to three months of free Amazon Music Unlimited.  I don't know why.

Can anyone recommend any jazz albums available from that service which are not already well known to all of us?

[BFrank]

I use it. They DO have a pretty extensive catalog. You should take the free offer and see if they have the kind of stuff you want.

[Scott Dolan]

Is that their streaming service? 

I will say that I use Apple Music, and you’d be shocked at their selection of Jazz, Free Improv, and Classical. If Amazon is anything like that I guarantee you’ll be pleased. 

[GA Russell]

Scott, Amazon has two streaming services.

The first is called Prime Music.  It comes free with Prime.  It has many artists, but not too much from each artist I am interested in.

The second is Amazon Music Unlimited.  It has a much larger offering, but costs $10 per month.

[sonnymax]

Perhaps Amazon's pay-for-streaming service has changed, but when I used it earlier last year, I found that some tracks on some albums were "greyed out", i.e., unavailable for streaming. Unlimited indeed!  Consequently, I chose Spotify instead.

[Scott Dolan]

2 hours ago, sonnymax said:

Perhaps Amazon's pay-for-streaming service has changed, but when I used it earlier last year, I found that some tracks on some albums were "greyed out", i.e., unavailable for streaming. Unlimited indeed!  Consequently, I chose Spotify instead.

I’ve also seen that rare occasions on Apple Music. Certainly not a deal breaker at $10 a month, though. 

 

2 hours ago, GA Russell said:

Scott, Amazon has two streaming services.

The first is called Prime Music.  It comes free with Prime.  It has many artists, but not too much from each artist I am interested in.

The second is Amazon Music Unlimited.  It has a much larger offering, but costs $10 per month.

Yeah, I’d check out the Unlimited service. I believe Apple Music still offers their three month free trial, as well. 

[BFrank]

If you already have Prime, then Music Unlimited is $7.99/mo, or $79/yr (annual payment)

[Pim]

Be sure to check that its not a Phising mail

[sonnymax]

22 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

I’ve also seen that rare occasions on Apple Music. Certainly not a deal breaker at $10 a month, though.

Much more common at Amazon. It is a deal breaker for me when someone else offers more for the same price. Spotify has 47.7 million users per month versus 12.7 million for Amazon.

[Scott Dolan]

48 minutes ago, sonnymax said:

Much more common at Amazon. It is a deal breaker for me when someone else offers more for the same price. Spotify has 47.7 million users per month versus 12.7 million for Amazon.

Yeah, if it is that much more common, it certainly would be a deal breaker. 

Spotify and Apple Music have similar catalogs from what I’ve noticed, and been told by Spotify users. Those two have such a head start on the competition they likely never catch up. 

[Д.Д.]

On 2/4/2019 at 3:31 PM, sonnymax said:

Much more common at Amazon. It is a deal breaker for me when someone else offers more for the same price. Spotify has 47.7 million users per month versus 12.7 million for Amazon.

From my experience it's the same tracks that are unavailable both at Spotify and amazon unlimited. This is rights holders' decision, not that of the streaming service.

You have to have "show unavailable songs in playlists" setting activated in Spotify to see what you are missing.         

[Shrdlu]

The saga of the departing CD continues.

I have downloaded a few elusive tracks from Amazon. I was not pleased that they were 192 mp3. That is a bit naughty. 320 mp3 has been pretty standard for at least 10 years. I don't think they offered WAV, which the house music websites do have.

[Scott Dolan]

Most people claim that 192kbps is the cutoff point where they can no longer hear the difference between mp3 and CD. I've never done an A/B comparison, but you might want to just to see if there is an audible difference. 

[Kevin Bresnahan]

192 kbps might be the cutoff for where people stop being able to tell that it's compressed, but since most of us listen to Jazz with prominent cymbals, which often get mangled during compression, our music might not pass the "smell test" with 192 kbps.

[JSngry]

Since blind people supposedly develop more sensitive hearing to compensate for the loss of one sense, maybe we redefine "blind testing" to get a handle on who can really hear what.

[Scott Dolan]

2 hours ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

192 kbps might be the cutoff for where people stop being able to tell that it's compressed, but since most of us listen to Jazz with prominent cymbals, which often get mangled during compression, our music might not pass the "smell test" with 192 kbps.

That could be, I have no experience with mp3 at that bitrate. I do have a few old mp3 files at 160kbps, and can confirm that the high end on those doesn’t sound that great. 

Perhaps if I’m feeling ambitious one day I’ll create a few 192 files and do a sighted comparison. 

[BFrank]

Supposedly Tidal has superior streaming quality available. They don't give you any specs, though. Someone gave me access through a Family Plan, but I haven't A/B'd it against Amazon.

 

[Scott Dolan]

11 minutes ago, BFrank said:

Supposedly Tidal has superior streaming quality available. They don't give you any specs, though. Someone gave me access through a Family Plan, but I haven't A/B'd it against Amazon.

 

Pretty sure their “high” quality is 320kbps Ogg Vorbis, which will sound no different than CD quality. To pay more for anything “higher” is flushing money down the shitter.