Napster moves to MP3-only music download format

Digital music retailer says it will start selling downloads in the MP3 format in the latest blow to copy protection for songs bought online.

The story "Napster moves to MP3-only music download format" published January 6, 2008 at 9:50 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[hunter_jc]

I don't get it.

MP3 quality really is inferior to even WMA. Even though i think AAC <br />is a better format. I won't buy any MP3 files. I guess this is a sign <br />of going backwards. Like a recession.

[timber2005]

Of supply, demand, and compatability

Yes, MP3 (depending on bitrate and such) its not the best option. However, all songs can be put in MP3 format. That brings supply to 100%.<br /><br />Demand is for DRM free content, which WMA is often associated with, so its thrown to the side.<br /><br />In compatability, pretty much anything that can play a song supports mp3. From DVD players to every windows mobile device (like 10 or 100 million) to every ipod to those $20 walmart mp3 players. Theres a HUGE market for MP3's. Only some of those support better formats, and until they start (as a whole) support a better one, we have to go with the best common factor. MP3.

[k2dave]

It is a recession - music quality has gone backwads

But it started when we went from the CD format to compressed digital formats, some would claim that vinnal records are far superior to all.

[immerial]

Back to the Future

I get it. This is how they should have launched the site in 2003. It's <br />an attempt at a 'do over'. It's 2003 all over again! ;^)

[badasscat]

Misconception

Double blind listening tests have proven conclusively that a good mp3 encode sounds better than a WMA at the same bit rate and only slightly inferior to an AAC ("slightly" meaning indistinguishable for most people).<br /><br />Some proof, although there have been many other listening tests that have borne this out too: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html</a><br /><br />Keep in mind that was at 128kbps - at higher bit rates, there's even less of a difference.<br /><br />Regardless, an mp3 above, say, 192kbps VBR is going to be transparent anyway - meaning it sounds the same as the original. If you don't believe that... well, that's why they do double-blind tests. People have their biases, and these tests are designed in such a way that those biases cannot interfere with the results.

[hunter_jc]

I don't get it.

MP3 quality really is inferior to even WMA. Even though i think AAC <br />is a better format. I won't buy any MP3 files. I guess this is a sign <br />of going backwards. Like a recession.

[timber2005]

Of supply, demand, and compatability

Yes, MP3 (depending on bitrate and such) its not the best option. However, all songs can be put in MP3 format. That brings supply to 100%.<br /><br />Demand is for DRM free content, which WMA is often associated with, so its thrown to the side.<br /><br />In compatability, pretty much anything that can play a song supports mp3. From DVD players to every windows mobile device (like 10 or 100 million) to every ipod to those $20 walmart mp3 players. Theres a HUGE market for MP3's. Only some of those support better formats, and until they start (as a whole) support a better one, we have to go with the best common factor. MP3.

[k2dave]

It is a recession - music quality has gone backwads

But it started when we went from the CD format to compressed digital formats, some would claim that vinnal records are far superior to all.

[immerial]

Back to the Future

I get it. This is how they should have launched the site in 2003. It's <br />an attempt at a 'do over'. It's 2003 all over again! ;^)

[badasscat]

Misconception

Double blind listening tests have proven conclusively that a good mp3 encode sounds better than a WMA at the same bit rate and only slightly inferior to an AAC ("slightly" meaning indistinguishable for most people).<br /><br />Some proof, although there have been many other listening tests that have borne this out too: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html</a><br /><br />Keep in mind that was at 128kbps - at higher bit rates, there's even less of a difference.<br /><br />Regardless, an mp3 above, say, 192kbps VBR is going to be transparent anyway - meaning it sounds the same as the original. If you don't believe that... well, that's why they do double-blind tests. People have their biases, and these tests are designed in such a way that those biases cannot interfere with the results.