OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD THAN MUSIC > Computers, Internet and Technology

Amazon Cloud Player



--- Quote from: Dave Michuda on January 08, 2013, 06:17:13 PM ---I've been slowly uploading my entire collection to the Amazon cloud player(it's taking  f o r e v e r). . .

--- End quote ---

Dave had mentioned this the other day. What are your thoughts on it after having time to upload things, Dave? Anyone else explored this? I'm curious.

Dave Michuda:
I haven't really used it much.  I've just been uploading for what seems like forever.  I probably will only use it for listening at work, which I did today for the first time in weeks.  It was a little glitchy but that was really only one or two songs in two hours.  I haven't used the iPhone app yet so I can't speak to the performance of that.

I'm not wild about the web player interface, I like the look & feel of Spotify better.  Spotify is what I usually use for work listening.  I'm an Amazon prime member so I'm able to upload up to 250,000 songs for $25 a year.  So even if it's not perfect I figure for $2 a month it's worth a try.  Once I start using it a bit more, create some playlists, access my entire library from anywhere, I'm sure I'll like it even more.  If nothing else it can serve as a remote backup for all my music.  Of course it'd take a couple of months to re-download everything.

I'm curious if anyone else has taken the cloud player plunge.

I'm intrigued, mainly for the remote backup functionality.  My main concern is bandwidth and data usage.  I have satellite internet (no choice where I live; too remote even for cellular), which means I have a data cap of 25GB a month up/down.  Uploading all 400GB of my library would be impossible; even if I could get it all uploaded, the mere act of listening would quickly use up my data allotment.

But the idea still interests me...  if I ever move to a place with unlimited DSL or cable internet, I might take the plunge.

One thing that I don't get.  If I have a copy of "John Tesh Live at Redrocks", and my friend Skippy does too, why do we both need to upload it?  Can't the system somehow recognize our files and see that we both have complete, legit versions, and just let us both access one file?  Yeah, this would mean a large database of indexes; but surely that's less processor and HD intensive than making all 5,000,000* owners of this masterpiece upload it on their own?

*this figure might not be factually accurate...  ;-)

Dave Michuda:
Amazon does provide a song matching service so that not every single tune in your library will have to be uploaded.

Quoting from Amazon..."Music that is matched to Amazon's eligible catalog by the Amazon Music Importer will be delivered to your Amazon Cloud Player as a high-quality 256 Kbps MP3. This feature may not be available for all content in our catalog, as eligibility may be limited.  Eligible music includes songs that are available in the Amazon MP3 Store catalog and for which we have rights to provide this feature. File formats supported for this feature include non-DRM MP3, AAC, OGG, WAV, ALAC, AIFF, FLAC, and MPG audio formats."

Of course most of the electronic music we here at the forum listen to won't be matched because it's not in their content library or part of the copyright agreements they've signed with Sony, Universal, Warner, etc.

I'm pretty sure that John Tesh - Live at Red Rocks is owned by Universal so you should be good for matching with that one. ;)  However, all your Tesh bootlegs probably one be matched.

I have Duran Duran - Rio in there and I don't recall when I bought that (way way long time ago if so....) among other albums. I think I have 2xx more songs that can be put up there by myself. I don't think it reflects anything I purchase from amazon but will have to check that after next purchase. Kind of nice when I don't want to mount up my network share from my WHS or while at work vs playing what I've ripped to company laptop....


[0] Message Index

Go to full version