During the two decades that I've had my components, I've run the gamut from vinyl to cassette and CD, and all the way back again. The black boxes are part of my life, they've stoked parties, soaked up miserable tears, impressing and depressing the menfolk in my life. I've sawed antique walnut cabinets to pieces in order to accommodate multi-plugs, connectors and dust covers and now all I rely on is a little white fag-packet-sized box that stores more music than I could ever hope to accumulate.

How many times have you bought the same album? I've got multiple formats for quite a few, but here's a perfect example: I spent a year in France as a teenager and, having just a Walkman and portable speakers for company, bought myself Mlah by Les Negresses Vertes. A couple of years later, when I was deep into the house scene in Paris, and running a music fanzine, I persuaded their record label to give me the 12" of Zobi La Mouche. Nice buggers that they are, they threw in the album on vinyl, too. A few years later, and I went to Madrid for the first time, I found the CD on special offer in a record store and, having only my laptop for company, snapped it up.

Several years—and moves—later, I get my first iPod. Easy peasy, I think, as I sit down with a pile of CDs to rip. Mlah? Meh. According to my laptop, the disc was unreadable. It was time to open up an iTunes account. Sleazy teasy record labels, more like. Call me a fool, but I've acquired Mlah FOUR TIMES OVER. How many more formats can the record companies come up with? Hologram disco MP3s? Dubbly sound that goes to Eleven? Free horse and cart when you purchase the high-quality, 4-swazillion-kbps version? Even the tracks I've ripped may already be obsolete. To quote Johnny Rotten, "Ever get the feeling you've been had?"

It's Thursday afternoon and, as I lie on my bed and type this, one of the movers is transferring my clothes into one of those hanging boxes. I reckon I've got about 20 minutes to decide whether my boxed-up Denon tape deck, Technics amp and turntable, NAD CD player and KEF speakers make into the van marked "Blighty." It is, however, a bit of a no-brainer. How could I abandon those stalwarts of my life, passé though they may be, in favor of a simpler system whose audio quality isn't exactly fabulous?

Perhaps the clincher, though, is that my iPod is currently filed under B for busticated. Into the van my components go, then. Whether they ever come out of their boxes again is another story.

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

What's For Sale
Much to the joy of the record labels, Wal-Mart and Amazon.com both offer staggered pricing on their wares (as opposed to iTunes which generally supports flat rates for its songs and albums). On Wal-Mart's site, there's a menu on the upper left that lets you sort through albums that cost $7.88, $5.88 or $3.88, and there's also a selection of $2.24 "hit packs." What doesn't make sense is that elsewhere on the page, albums are offered for $5.64 and $4.70, and if you dig around on the site you'll find even more arbitrary pricing. Albums generally top out at $9.44 from what I saw, while single tracks cost 94 or 88 cents.
Amazon's albums also range in price. Just looking at the selection of Nirvana albums shows that you can pay only $5.99 for In Utero, but the price jumps to $7.99 for Nevermind and $9.97 for Bleach. The single tracks aren't uniformly priced here, either, with some tracks costing 99 cents and some 89 cents, even on the same album. Like Wal-Mart, you can browse by price here, but it sticks to dollar ranges ($5 to $5.99, $6 to $6.99, etc.) so it makes more sense than Wal-Mart's arbitrary menu.
Comparison Shopping
How do the prices compare between the sites? Well, from my unscientific sampling, Amazon seems to be the cheaper choice. All of Nirvana's albums, for example, are $9.22 on Wal-Mart, and that's for the censored versions. The listings for the uncensored versions all say "Not available for download. Buy this on CD from Walmart.com." No, no I won't.

Other price discrepancies include Air's Pocket Symphony ($8.99 on Amazon, $9.22 on Wal-Mart), Broken Social Scene's self-titled album ($7.99 on amazon, $9.44 on Wal-Mart), and A Love Supreme by John Coltrane ($8.97 on Amazon, $9.22 on Wal-Mart). More often than not, the prices are better on Amazon.

And a lot of albums that are on Amazon aren't available at all on Wal-Mart. Boxer by The National? Nope, no albums from The National at all on Wal-Mart, nor of Smog. In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel, Sound of Silver by LCD Soundsystem and Horn of Plenty by Grizzly Bear are all available on Amazon and missing from Wal-Mart as well.

You've also got to be careful, because some albums available on Amazon in MP3 are only available on Wal-Mart's site in locked-down 128kbps WMA. Wal-Mart does have the decency to state whether or not a track "Plays on iPod," though, so you're cool if you pay attention. See the Band of Horses' Cease to Begin example here: Praising Amazon over Wal-Mart isn't the same as saying Amazon's selection is amazing. A lot of times they don't have the complete catalog of an artist (Grizzly Bear's newer Yellow House isn't available on either, for example). And obviously you won't find anything from Sony or Warner on there.

But by and large, the selection on Amazon, especially of independent label artists, is clearly superior to Wal-Mart's. And not having to deal with WMA results mixed in with your MP3 searches is much better.

What About Design?
Both stores borrow liberally from iTunes' layout. There are genres on the right, top songs on the left, and featured stuff in the middle. Both have search results that feature tracks in a lower pane and menus above. Both allow you to click on any of the columns to go right to that artist or album as well. The Amazon version feels a bit more elegant to me, but it really is a personal preference: in terms of functionality, neither one really beats the other.
For downloading, Amazon requires both Windows and Mac users to first install a small program called, conveniently enough, the Amazon MP3 Downloader. Once you install it, when you select the song or album you want to download, and the rest happens automatically. By default, the MP3 Downloader sticks it in your music folder and then imports it to iTunes for you, which is convenient. However, for someone like me, who keeps his entire music collection on a different hard drive in meticulously organized folders, it's a little annoying to not be able to choose where each file goes rather than just selecting one default place. For people who just dump everything in their iTunes music folder, however, it's cake.
Wal-Mart also has a program for downloading songs that requires a scary ActiveX script to install—and yes, unlike Amazon's, this thing is only available to Windows XP and Vista PC users. No Macs allowed. The Download Manager is harder to install too, with IE fighting you every step of the way to get it running.

It works a lot like Amazon's program, hiding in your task bar and waiting to be loaded up with songs by the site, but there are fewer preferences. I couldn't even find an option letting me pick a download destination. It only gives you an option to add it to your Windows Media Library, which is useless to me, but later I discovered a "Wal-Mart Purchased Media" playlist in iTunes. When it finishes, it gives you the option to play the song, which if you do opens the song in Windows Media Player regardless of what your default MP3 player is. Worst of all, I had to search for the location of the downloaded file itself. It ended up in My Documents/My Music/Downloads/Artist/Album, again, totally pointless for my purposes. Not having the ability to select a destination folder is bad design; not telling people where to find their freshly paid-for music is idiotic.

And the Winner Is...
The fact that Wal-Mart forced me to use Internet Explorer (and only works on Windows) is enough for me to never use it (Seriously, Wal-Mart? Seriously?). Beyond that, the prices, selection and downloader were all better at Amazon. It'll be familiar to anyone who's used to iTunes and easy for people who've never bought music online before, which should help them out greatly with their upcoming billion-song giveaway. In the end, which do I suggest? Amazon, to be sure.

What about iTunes?
The real question is whether or not I'd willingly switch to either store from iTunes, if format wasn't an issue. The answer, from a strict functionality standpoint, is "no." The fact that iTunes is a standalone program that also plays all your music makes it a far more elegant solution than either Wal-Mart or Amazon. There's no extra program to download, there's no worrying about where the songs go, and there's no dealing with browsers.

However, the pricing in Amazon's (and Wal-Mart's to a lesser degree) store is very competitive, oftentimes significantly cheaper than iTunes. Combine that with the fact that you get MP3 files that'll play on more devices than Apple's AAC, and you've got a serious contender in Amazon's store, especially for the cheap and anal . It just depends if you're willing to leave iTunes to go to the store. [Amazon.com; Wal-Mart]

That's a lot of MP3s, and it sure would be a better giveaway if more tracks were available. And with Sony rumored to be close to making the plunge, that leaves stodgy old Warner remaining, stubbornly clinging on to a dying technology.

Good plan, Warner! I'm sure that your forward-thinking (in)actions will only make more and more sense with time and eventually everyone will see that things were better in the good old days, dismantle the internet, and all go laugh about it at the local soda fountain. Also, you will be out of business. [Ars Technica

While Jammie's argument that some 1337 h4X0r was sitting in a tree outside her window and using her Kazaa account without her knowledge is a pretty weak one, the real insanity in the case is that number. What math did they use to make that number up? As Buchanan says, "I'd find her guilty and then assign a penalty of 24 cents, a penny for every track at issue." Wouldn't that set a precedent that would neuter the RIAA's lawsuits by devaluing the very product they claim is so ludicrously valuable? It seems to me that her argument as to being innocent isn't exactly watertight, but in the end the real decision will be made on how much the jury awards the RIAA. And I can't really imagine any sensible jury thinking sharing 24 MP3s is really worth $3.6 million. Stay tuned, we'll keep you updated. [Threat Level]

I mean, what would be the point? Most music that gets widely pirated comes from scene groups that do rips from CDs, not from people who legally purchase music online. It's the same thing I never understood about DRM: it only takes one copy getting ripped or spread around for something to be easily accessed in the pirate-o-sphere, so why waste so much time keeping normal people from sharing? I mean, even if they did find some Kanye song in a girl's shared Soulseek folder and it was ID'd with some dude's name, what does that prove? Not much. In any case, Amazon doesn't look to be doing anything of the sort, so bravo to that, and another kudos to them for selling only straight-up MP3s. Now just get all the labels on board and we'll have the music store we've all be clamoring for for so long. [Listening Post]

There are two million tunes available, from 180,000 artists, including tracks from EMI and Universal. Over half of the songs are priced at 89 cents, including the Top 100 tracks, and they're at 256 kbps resolution. Once you've installed the Amazon MP3 downloader you can pick off the tracks you want.

Good news: there's loads of Bowie, Stones, Daft Punk, Kanye. And the even better news is that the only Britney, Pussycat Dolls and Avril Lavigne you can find are karaoke versions, which means they'll be better than the originals. The bad news is that, despite a lot of big names, there's also a lot of filler: a gazillion different Willy Nelson compilations, both clean and dirty versions of Kanye and Fiddy, and hordes of unknowns, all which must eat into Amazon's two million tracks. [Amazon Earworm]

Press release:

Amazon.com Launches Public BETA of Amazon MP3, A Digital Music Store Offering Customers Earth's Biggest Selection of A La Carte DRM-Free MP3 Music Downloads

Amazon MP3 offers over 2 million songs from more than 180,000 artists and over 20,000 labels, including EMI Music and Universal Music Group

SEATTLE—September 25, 2007—Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) today launched a public beta of "Amazon MP3," a new digital music download store with Earth's biggest selection of a la carte DRM-free MP3 music downloads. Amazon MP3 has over 2 million songs from more than 180,000 artists represented by over 20,000 major and independent labels. Amazon MP3 complements Amazon.com's existing selection of over 1 million CDs to now offer customers more selection of physical and digital music than any other retailer.

"Amazon MP3 is an all-MP3, DRM-free catalog of a la carte music from major labels and independent labels, playable on any device, in high-quality audio, at low prices," said Bill Carr, Amazon.com Vice President for Digital Music. "This new digital music service has already been through an extensive private beta, and today we're excited to offer it to our customers as a fully functional public beta. We look forward to receiving feedback from our customers and using their input to refine the service."

Every song and album on Amazon MP3 is available exclusively in the MP3 format without digital rights management (DRM) software. This means that Amazon MP3 customers are free to enjoy their music downloads using any hardware device, including PCs, Macs , iPods , Zunes , Zens , iPhones , RAZRs , and BlackBerrys ; organize their music using any music management application such as iTunes or Windows Media Player ; and burn songs to CDs.

Most songs are priced from 89 cents to 99 cents, with more than 1 million of the 2 million songs priced at 89 cents. The top 100 best-selling songs are 89 cents, unless marked otherwise. Most albums are priced from $5.99 to $9.99. The top 100 best-selling albums are $8.99 or less, unless marked otherwise.

Every song on Amazon MP3 is encoded at 256 kilobits per second, which gives customers high audio quality at a manageable file size.

Buying and downloading MP3s from Amazon MP3 is easy. Customers can purchase downloads using Amazon 1-Click shopping, and with the Amazon MP3 Downloader, seamlessly add their MP3s to their iTunes or Windows Media Player libraries.

Amazon MP3 has over 2 million songs from more than 180,000 artists spanning every genre of music, including 50 Cent, Alison Krauss, Amy Winehouse, Ani DiFranco, Arcade Fire, Beastie Boys, Coldplay, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Ella Fitzgerald, Feist, John Coltrane, KT Tunstall, Keith Urban, Koko Taylor, Lily Allen, Madeleine Peyroux, Maroon 5, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, Morrissey, Nelly, Nickel Creek, Nirvana, Norah Jones, Paul McCartney, Philip Glass, Pink Floyd, Pixies, Radiohead, Ray Charles, Rod Stewart, Spoon, Stevie Wonder, The Chemical Brothers, The Decemberists, and The Rolling Stones.

"Well done Amazon for making so much music available to so many people," said KT Tunstall. "It's good to know, in the words of The King, you're taking care of business!"

Leading independent labels offering their catalog of music for the first time as DRM-free MP3s include Alligator Records, HighTone Records, Madacy Entertainment, Sanctuary Records, Rounder Records, Righteous Babe Records, Sugar Hill Records, and Trojan Records.

McCartney's upcoming album, perhaps presciently titled Memory Almost Full, will be his first release to be available for download, and that will be released on June 5. Keep in mind that the Beatles music deal's still not officially settled, nor did McCartney say anything specific about the iTunes Store. Yet. – Charlie White

Exclusive: McCartney Goes Digital, Beatles 'Virtually Settled' [Billboard]

And if you're curious about the Miniplayer, check out the review. It's actually very good. – Jason Chen

Product Page [Walgreens - Thanks Tim!]

- "DRM is not where it should be"
- "causes too much pain for legitmate buyers"
- "huge problems"
- "People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then."

Bill Gates Is No Fan of DRM [techcrunch]

Technically, the MP3 player can be completely removed from its docking station to be used without the bike, but that sort of ruins the point of not just purchasing a better MP3 player for less money. I think this thing is hideous - eerily reminding me of those huge radio headphones that for some reason only come in fluorescent yellow. It can sync with PCs and Macs, but only if you want to put your computer through the humiliation. – Mark Wilson

Product Page (please don't use it) [therawfeed]

Apparently they missed out on our highly scientific poll results. We tried to save Mr. Cingular the hassle, but he insisted on doing it himself. – Mark Wilson

News Story [reuters]

Sin 1: Bastardization/misuse of the cross
Sin 2: Cross is jet black (the color of sin, along with red and hot pink)
Sin 3: The Mariah Carey album you still listen to on it

Plus, the Saint B is completely protected from those pesky vampire muggers who like the iPod so much. – Mark Wilson

Product Page [via newlaunches]

Are you like some character off The OC, constantly finding yourself punched into pools during posh dinner parties? Maybe you are more into fulfilling the faux spontaneous "threaten to push the girl in, act like you're not going to push her in, push her in, she pulls you in" romantic, aquatic movie scene we all know and love.

In either case, Ultra Products' Hydra MP3 player is water-resistant, meaning that even if your suit gets ruined, your budget tech stays safe. The Hydra supports WAVs, ACTs, WMAs and MP3s, sports a decent-looking LCD and transfers songs via USB drag 'n drop (not certain about iTunes support). And at $39.99 for the 1gb model and $69.99 for 2gb, the Hydra is a cheaper option than most waterproof cases out there. Now we just need an explanation for why our rented tux smells like chlorine. – Mark Wilson

[mobilemag]

So it looks like Philips is the latest company to jump into the music phone game with its S660. That said, Philips may be targeting a more budget-minded audience with this one given its fairly small feature set. Only coming with 128MB of storage, the S660 doesn't even offer a memory card slot, which is odd since many of its competitors do. It is dual band GSM (900 and 1800 MHz), though, so trips back and forth across the pond might be a little easier. The display is a little on the lame side as well, supporting only 65,000 colors and with a 128x128-pixel resolution.

Other than that, info on the S660's a little sketchy, but I'm sure Philips will push it like it's the coolest thing ever soon enough. – Nicholas Deleon

Ofici ln informace o nov m hudebn m Philipsu S660 (in Czech) [iDNES.cz via Slashphone]

Other than being available in black, red, and white, the players are sort of lackluster and are only good as a cheap introductory MP3 player for people who aren't quite ready for the iPods and Creative players. – Jason Chen

2 New DAP from SHARP [Akihabara News via Mobile Mag]

Like pretty much every other cellphone out there nowadays, the S880 comes equipped with a camera of marginal quality; 128x104 pixels of VGA love await you. Feel free to transfer those photos (and ringtones while you're at it) over the USB 1.1 connection. Not USB 2.0, but then again, it probably won't take long to fill the 128MB anyway. There's the assorted odds and ends, like SMS messaging and terrible games as well.

For a 2.8-ounce GSM clamshell, the Philips looks fairly solid. That said, when was the last time Philips made a "gotta have it" cellphone? – Nicholas Deleon

Philips S880: a music clamshell [Mobile Review]

New Sharp Carabiner MP-S200 and MP-S300 MP3 Player [i4u]