Home

Share this Story

Amazon Cloud Player and MP3 App Receive Updates, Audiophiles in For a Treat

Today, Amazon has pushed an update to both their online Cloud Player and MP3 mobile applications. To say the updates are major is almost an understatement. For starters, you can now use Amazon’s scan and match feature that will make uploading your library to the cloud much faster, as well as the ability to add past MP3 purchases to the Cloud for free. The new feature that most music lovers will be happy about is that Amazon now offers to turn your library of music (as long as they have it) into high quality 256 Kbps audio files. Yes please.

New features include:

  • Import your music to Cloud Player faster with scan and match technology
  • Upgrade your music to high-quality 256 Kbps audio
  • Add your past Amazon MP3 purchases to Cloud Player automatically…for free
  • Edit song and album information
  • Import more types of music files

The updates are live now, so for anyone that has their music stored on the Cloud Player, go get your free high quality files!

Via: Amazon

  • http://www.tedpavlic.com/ Ted Pavlic

    Sucks even more if you’re a Linux user. You don’t get any of the benefits of song matching because, unlike Google, they don’t support Linux (even though the uploader is written in Air). Plus, now you have a song limit. It’s pretty easy to download songs though, and so any music you can buy, you can use the AMZ to quickly download and then have Google Uploader put them on Google Music…

    I used to use Amazon as an MP3 backup service, but now that the Cloud Player has been separated from the Cloud Drive, I can’t even trust that they won’t screw with my MP3′s after uploading.

    Pretty crappy.

    • autumn rain

      Yeah- Amazon is reminding me of Yahoo’s stumbles years ago. They have completely abandoned the v small Linux world- even as they freely imbibe enormous Linux tech to profit and expand. We are a small community- but do have a significant voice, Amazon is starting to make really poor choices. They have the resources to cater to a smaller (if not small) community like Linux but instead choose a selfish path.

  • http://profiles.google.com/johnthacker John Thacker

    By separating the services, and making it impossible to upload Music through the regular Cloud Drive, they’ve also now made it impossible to upload music directly from other OSes, say (non-Android) Linux. Annoying and lame.

  • Bionic

    I’m confused. I have 2.5 GB of music stored on Amazon cloud. If I do not pay the $25 will it be deleted? Or will it simply not work on the cloud PLAYER but remain in the cloud drive.?

    • CopierITGuy

      @comiskeybum:disqus From what I can gather, your music will stay there – you just won’t be able to play more than 250 songs on the Cloud Player. The only exception is music that you purchase directly from Amazon MP3 – those do not count toward your 250 limit.

      • Bionic

        Thanks. I hope you’re right. I could care less about the player itself. I just want my music to stay there.

  • Whit

    So I had Unlimited storage on Amazon MP3 and have 5,000+/- songs uploaded or purchased. According to what I’m reading, after the 30 day trail, unless I pay the $24.99 per year, I’m knocked back to the Free 5G plan? Tell me I’m reading things wrong please.

    • Whit

      *trial*

    • llamaman

      I just called in to clarify and was told they aren’t quite sure but that my account may be purged in September if I don’t choose to start giving them $25 a year at which time I can choose 250 free songs to upload. Some upgrade, and not even grandfathering those of us with existing libraires (a good chunk of whose recent purchases are from Amazon).

      • http://www.tedpavlic.com/ Ted Pavlic

        That’s weird. Everything I read on-line (and what I see under “Manage Your Cloud Drive”) says that it’s only $20/year to break into the Cloud Player Premium level. The Amazon FAQ says that if you cancel your Cloud Drive account, you won’t get access to these discounted plans, but so long as you keep your Cloud Drive plan open, you can upgrade and downgrade to different Cloud Drive levels and still get access to Cloud Player Premium for every Cloud Drive plan that is $20/year or higher.

        Given there’s even less Linux support now, I’m thinking about deleting my “Archived Music” from Cloud Drive and stop paying for anything from them. I’m not sure if I have to go and delete a bunch of songs from my Cloud Player to make that work… I would think that if I’m not paying them, they’ll automatically keep all of my MP3 purchases and arbitrarily choose 250 other songs of mine to keep that I’ve uploaded.

  • http://twitter.com/youngfellainc Youngfella

    What’s up with the new permissions?

  • Nemesis099

    What I want is for the service to correct tags as well when it scans as I have around 1,000 songs that are all labeled differently. If it does this I’d be willing to pay once just to upload and have them sorted.

  • http://twitter.com/SAGExSDX Chris Moon

    The free service is now limited to 250 imported songs. Super lame

  • JoshGroff

    Doesn’t Google Music do this already? (the 256 Kbps thing)

    • http://twitter.com/savagejeep SavageJeep

      They do better. If it’s uploaded at 320 Kbps, that’s what you get back.

      • JoshGroff

        Wow, pro.

      • Kizipotamus

        Exactly why I’ll continue using Google Music.

      • Raven

        Hmm, correct me if I am wrong, but I think you get back exactly what you upload with Google. So if you upload a 128 Kbps you get streamed back a 128 Kbps. I do not think they “upgrade” it for you.

        • http://twitter.com/savagejeep SavageJeep

          You’re right. It cant be ‘cleaned’ as mentioned by others. If you have quality music in your collection when it’s uploaded, Google is better quality streaming.

  • enob

    So now we are waiting for a Google matching service?

    • http://twitter.com/savagejeep SavageJeep

      … a FREE Google matching service ;)

    • Raven

      Yes, but for video with their new Play Movies. If I could pop a DVD into my laptop to prove that I own it and then pay Google $3-$5 to give me a Play version (instead of the normal $10-$18) I would proceed to authorize my whole (quite large) DVD & BluRay collection and they would make money for movies that I would never bother to rebuy at their regular prices.

      • SolipsisticPsychologist

        If you are interested, I’d be more than happy to recommend some free and paid software, on any of the three major operating systems, that will allow you to make your own mobile copies of DVD and Blu-rays that you legally have purchased. There is nothing shady or ilkegal about it, and there are myriad programs that will help you save money and just make your own mobile versions of the movies you own. It’s what I do and have done forever, so I’m pretty well versed in the programs needed and the methods used to accomplish backing up your movies and making pirtable copies. I personally own over 700 movies, so I’ve definitely put in the effort, haha. The Wal-Mart $5 bin, and Amazon are my best friend and worst enemies when it comes to buying movies, haha. So if you want any help or advice just let me know :-).

  • moelsen8

    so this could also be used like an mp3 laundering/upgrade service by having it scan your files, and then just downloading them from the cloud?

    • SolipsisticPsychologist

      Haha! What an awesome analogy and hilarious use of the word laundering, hahahaha! If all of my music wasn’t already at 320kbps, I’d absolutely take my tracks to laundered by the Amazon’s. I wonder what their take is, a couple of “kbps”, ahahahahaha!?

    • http://www.tedpavlic.com/ Ted Pavlic

      Yes, all of these matching services are designed that way. The record companies get some royalties from each play of an imported song, and so it lets them recoup lost profits at Amazon (or Apple)’s expense.

  • Ozyman666

    Except you now have to pay $24.99 a year if you want more than 250 songs online (excluding Amazon purchases).

    • ericsorensen

      That stinks. Guess I’ll go back to Google music. Except Google can’t get my album art right

  • http://www.kovdev.com/ koveleski

    Except audiophiles would not use 256 Kbps mp3s.

    • http://www.droid-life.com/ Tim-o-tato

      May not be the best, but still better than 128Kbps. Don’t be such a negative nancy.

      • http://www.kovdev.com/ koveleski

        I’m just wondering why not 320 Kbps mp3s? lol

        • http://www.droid-life.com/ Tim-o-tato

          Why not just send me a vinyl! :)

          • http://Twitter.com/ContestsAccount bigrob60

            Immediately thought of listening to Stairway to Heaven on vinyl.

          • SolipsisticPsychologist

            Well, FLAC or something similar would be the next step after 320. I for some reason thought Amazon was like Google Play and gave 320kbps tracks, guess I was wrong. So I don’t get what this means? If you have stored any music in their cloud thing, they will upgrade, or in my case downgrade, your files to 256kbps tracks? So they give you fresh brand new copies of everything you have stored there, is that it? They aren’t saying they will rip your existing sh!tty below 256 tracks, up to 256, are they? If that is the case, well that is beyond stupid and pointless, if you need me to clarify why, just let me know. Or this only for tracks that you’ve bought from Amazon? Because if that is the case, well that is equally moronic because they already give you songs at that bitrate when you buy them, this is just soaring way above my head, and it’s not for a lack of comprehension on my part either, I’m sorry to say. I guess I’ll have to run over to Amazon to get the full breakdown of what this means.

            It’s funny though, I don’t think I’d ever buy from Amazon again anyways though, knowing that the Google Market offers a decent bitrate at 320kbps. While I find 256kbps adequate if it is all that is available, to some degree. It still has that small amount of a “tinny” echo sound, that I immediately associate with what I consider garbage 128kbps and below tracks. No going back for me, it may ring of audio snobbery, but that is to the uninformed, or those with soeakers to match the quality of a 128kbps track. I just can’t personally stomach that low bitrate after hearing the better quality, and I’d honestly rather not listen to a song at all if Ican’t get it to the quality I think the artist deserves. Try listening to a 128 and a 320 one after the other on decent ormodest speakers, you’d be surprised at the things you actually won’t hear on a low quality rip, that you will indeed hear on a higher quality. That’s my take on it at least.

      • PuzzleShot

        Google Play Music gives 320kbps mp3s.

    • http://twitter.com/turdbogls Turdbogls

      i was going to say….since when is 256kbps acceptable by an audiophile….lol
      true audiophiles would only use local stored FLAC meia.

      • http://twitter.com/That0neKid Adam Collins

        Gosh do I love FLAC. :)

      • Droidzilla

        While sipping a cognac and smelling their own farts. Sorry, but whenever I hear “audiophile” all I can think of is “pretentious douche.”

        • http://www.droid-life.com/ Tim-o-tato

          <3

        • sonicyoof

          You’re thinking of flatuphiles.

    • Haas

      yeah i stopped buying music from amazon because of this fact

    • feztheforeigner

      512 Kbps FTW