![]() ![]() It's still quite an annoyance in a few particular aforementioned ways to deal with for those few select people that still exclusively pirchase, and have been purchasing music for years.Ĭlick to expand.Yup, you really want to add HD to Prime Music, it's a big difference. So while price wise, having a proper NAS or backup scheme isn't a cost problem to many people. And perhaps a lossy version of your music for easier streaming or use in portable devices is even more annoying to take into account for seeing as how SSD's aren't terribly high capcity, and those that are, still aren't cheap if you want to keep swapping chunks from your main backup. Having a backup and transferring that into working drives (since many computers use solid state storage rather than HDDs) is problematic. Ive seen folks with almost 200,000 tracks that have been into music for a decade (I can't imagine some of those folks that used to buy the largest capacity iPods today, their library must be more than half a million tracks or something). A 256GB card is good enough for a few 100 albums (especially if you have Hi-Res formats).Īnother issue with storage isn't cost, but backup and the process of backups and swaps. Unless Resource Monitor in windows is not accurate, quick pic of the program following (data not related to Amazon streaming):Ĭlick to expand.Portable sources like phones remain a sore spot if you use lossless. Regarding protocol overhead, I think this is a more likely explanation, but I noticed there were around 3 to 5 concurrent Alexa processes open and consuming bandwidth, with only one of those processes showing significant download speeds, so it was that particular process that I attributed to the music download itself.and makes me think the other Alexa processes are the ones that would deal with the protocol overhead (and so those processes weren't part of my calculation so haven't artificially inflated my figures). ![]() ![]() I think we can rule out buffering, because it's the same pattern on each track that is played even when no pause between tracks, so given no pause then even if there was buffering then this would equal out to the bitrate required by the music after you've finished playing the first track of the session. You'd think it would mean that it's using at least LAME V0 238kbps VBR given that download speed, but there are reports that LAME can work up to 640kbps, although as you say not many players support that.but we're talking streaming of music here rather than just playing the downloaded file (if there's a distinction?), and I'm using the Alexa App in Windows 10 PC, so maybe that app has been made compatible to take advantage of higher than 320kbps LAME encoded uld it be that music streaming quality on Amazon Music is higher quality than the downloads, seems a bit unlikely? Having said that I can't explain the increased overall download speed of the Alexa process during music streaming, because it happens the same on each track, so it can't just be loading up the next track, because you wouldn't see that pattern when listening to tracks back to back without pause.so it does seem to be downloading at lot more data than it would need to in order to play even a 320kbps LAME mp3.which is all in contrast to the fact that purchased & downloaded Amazon music is "just" 240kbps VBR LAME V0 encoded. VBR is generally better quality than CBR, so my initial impression is that the Amazon download should be better quality than the ITunes download, what do we reckon? I know we're comparing AAC to LAME encoded mp3, but what do we know about the quality differences between the two?Īs to how this all relates to my average download speed of the Alexa process of a high 536kbps average over the duration of any given track, I'm not sure. You can see the ITunes version is 1MB larger in file size but 256kbps CBR vs the VBR 238kbps of the Amazon file. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |