High-Quality Music Downloads From MusicGiants 
Home Theater News Music - Download Technology News
Written by AVRev.com   
Friday, 30 September 2005

MusicGiants is launching MusicGiants Network, a music download service offering “high-definition” digital recordings. It is the first service to offer this quality of downloads from all the major labels: EMI, Sony/BMG, Universal and Warner. The company is also currently negotiating with smaller and independent labels to carry their artists.

Its catalog includes artists ranging from Pink Floyd to 50 Cent. The downloads are available in Windows Media Audio Lossless format for $1.29 per song or an average $15.29 per album. Prices are above what users have come to expect but the company claims their downloads have up to seven times the sound quality of music from other services – while typical music downloads have a data rate of 128 to 192 kbps MusicGiant offers audio at up to 1100 kbps to bring listeners closer to CD quality. Artists like Michael Bolton are backing the service saying “it’s very exciting and promising to know that there’s finally a format such as MusicGiants that will reproduce the musical integrity of our work”.

A PC running Windows XP or Windows 2000 is required to used the service. In order to download music, users must install the MusicGiants software and open an account, paying a $50 annual fee (customers will then be credited with $50 to spend on the downloads).
   Comments
Add New | Search
  
Keith Moriyama  - Not good enough     |2008-12-12 18:08:53
approaching CD quality is a joke
High quality means better than CD

I will
gladly pay for that. Not what you are offering
15 3
Jamie   |2009-02-20 09:59:47
Yeah, really, why would we pay more per album than a CD would cost for quality
that is less than a CD?
6 2
joe  - what a load of crap   |2009-04-19 20:25:16
seriously , why should we pay $$ for low quality music?? close to cd quality?
who cares thats no where near good enough .
artist complain about illegal
downloads . but why should we pay? the quality is terrible. improve the quality
to cd quality atleast .and ill start paying for my music.
8 2
JJ  - That's cool..but I think your taking it to far...   |2009-05-11 15:20:27
So, I had my audiophiles over and played the same song in FLAC and mp3 at 320
kbps and guess what (through alpine) nobody knew the difference not even me and
I am one picky sob. I do believe those that say they need all sound waves in
there music because they need to compensate, but as for the rest of us humans,
take the shit I can't hear anyway away from my music file so I can happily
digitize my 40,000 songs!!! No offence to those that must have what only a dog
can hear on their music but keep it far away from me because I don't buy it...
2 10
Stainless  - Do some research   |2009-06-28 16:05:24
I can still hear the difference. If you change the unheard parts, the overall
sound is still altered and I hear a huge difference. If you work with graphics,
it's the same thing. jpeg files can be compressed to whatever file size, and you
may not be able to see the details with the naked eye when the compression is
only minor, but the picture quality still isn't as crisp as the original. But
isn't 1000kbps much higher than CD quality?
4 0
you realize that none of this   |2009-10-15 22:02:10
the reason CD quality is 44.1 .wav is because it is MORE THAN DOUBLE the highest
frequency that humans are able to hear to compensate for the frequencies that
they probably E.Q. out anyway in mixdown. The problem is the ability to read it.
there is no need for quality greater than that.
2 6
Anonymous  - The   |2010-04-03 12:06:01
The reason that CD sampling is 44.1 is that the sample frequency has to be twice
the highest frequency you want cover. So a CD theoretically can cover up to
22.05 Khz.
2 0
BurningPanda  - MP3 = junk   |2010-04-10 09:27:18
In a world of 24 bit music files anything less than FLAC is a joke. Ppl are
ripping vinyl at 24/96 so why bother with mp3? ...& if you can't hear the
difference then throw away your car stereo and buy some real hifi equipment.
4 0
iknowmusicquality   |2010-04-18 07:32:41
you guys have horrible quality! u want more than a cd! the owners of this
website are just a scam. this all website sucks.
1 0
C Gehman   |2010-05-21 14:46:03
Somebody please tell me (an aspiring DJ with a nice starter system) where in the
hell I can find GOOD music on the internet that I will gladly pay for? Or is
this just something that has yet to be realized with our technology? MP3 quality
is for MP3's NOT my system. I can clean it and mix it all you want but nothing
comes close to "original CD" quality. Its night and day difference.
2 0
BurningPanda  - re: Good music   |2010-05-21 16:37:23
Find music on the internet.. you kidding? Any number of places you can dload
FLAC CD rips. Join a private hub/tracker. Avaxhome have an audiophile section
for hires and vinyl rips.
You can buy hires tracks at HDtracks but because
many SACD and DVDA titles are no longer being made you can't buy them even if
you wanted to. (maybe bid crazy prices on eBay).
0 0
Joxe  - Only CD Quality is OK   |2010-06-02 07:31:59
Nothing less than CD quality is acceptable for me.
2 0
Roadshow  - Digital vs Analog vs Sampling Rates     |2010-06-25 02:12:23
For all you people above who think 44.1 kHz is an acceptable sampling rate, then
think about this: At 44.1, your high end response is 20K (not 22.05K), max due
to the anti-aliasing filters which eliminates the digital stream from getting
into the audio output. That means any complex frequencies near the 20K
limit(i.e. cymbals, breathy vocals, instrument overtones, etc), become sine
waves. In other word no longer complex frequencies. Even if the human hearing
limit is 20K, the information above that will inter-react with the frequencies
below the 20K limit. THAT IS WHAT EXPERTS REFER TO AS "THAT TRANSPARENT
SOUND".
Recent blind listening tests reveal that a 400+kHz sampling rate is
necessary before the human ear can't tell the difference between analog and
digital.
If 44.1 was acceptable, then why in this industry have we been using
96kHz as the standard in digital recording and live mixing consoles and hard
drive recorders, and why are we itching for 192kHz to become the next
standard.
The reality is: CD's were a step backwards; mp3's and iPods have
nothing to do with hi-fi.
5 0
Jerryr  - Electronic Engineering Technologist   |2010-10-23 09:05:23
Roadshow is absolutely right. Also the anti-aliasing filters are not brick
walls at 20Khz. They also affect frequencies below 20Khz. Anti-aliasing
filters are not perfect and do allow some amount of anti-aliasing to occur so
you want to put them up as high as you can. Well above the limit of human
hearing.

One of the main reasons for choosing 44.1Khz for CD was to be able to
fit an album in 640Kbs of space.

We took a lose in quality with CD and the
music industry is delaying giving it back to us. They'll milk the other low
quality formats as much as they can before giving us yet another standard to buy
into. They keep reaping rewards form the same musical content.
1 0
Anonymous   |2011-03-19 13:29:36
"near cd quality" sounds like crap to me.
0 0
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."







Like this article? Bookmark and share with any of the sites below.
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!StumbleUpon!Yahoo!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
 
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio