about cdj 800 , how much it sucks and some noob questions!
brings me to the subject that beatport and other stores should just offer wav at the same price as the 320mp3. After all, the difference is from an era when we were all listening to those sweet modem sounds, but in these days of high speed internet, I think the price difference is a bit silly to be honest.
PsyTox.
Coincidence Records.
www.coincidencerecords.be
www.myspace.com/coincidencerecords
www.myspace.com/djpsytox
Coincidence Records.
www.coincidencerecords.be
www.myspace.com/coincidencerecords
www.myspace.com/djpsytox
i was just looking at beatport and i think wavs are the same price as mp3 at the moment... i was switching between the two formats and it was the same price....
and to the point that larger amounts of data should be treated the same and that the difference only came from when we were on dial up isn't really true...
whilst we have been liberated by unlimited high speed internet... it still costs someone to transfer the data about from server to server... so ISPs and hosts are footing the costs for bandwidth...
Youtube... most of their billion dollar overheads go into bandwidth and running of servers.... they serve that much data it costs that much to do it... luckily they've got a billion dollar parent to keep them running.
So they need to serve data as efficiently as possible as if they did it in an uncompressed format... their overheads would sky rocket....
the same can be said for digital music... you should try to transfer data as efficiently as possible... an 8min song in mp3 is say 8 meg whilst in wav it would be upwards of 80 meg... that's a 10 fold increase.... you're sending 10 times as much data... and if you're doing that millions of times and you're paying for bandwidth... it could simply increase your data costs 10 fold....
on the individual level 80 meg might not sound much... but as ratios its 10 times as much.. and when you multiply that out it becomes exponential.... i don't think their prices reflect a 10 fold increase going from mp3 to wav.
its a simplistic view... but at the end of the day they've got to transfer and serve 10 times as much data... whcih costs more... there's no such thing as a free lunch.
and to the point that larger amounts of data should be treated the same and that the difference only came from when we were on dial up isn't really true...
whilst we have been liberated by unlimited high speed internet... it still costs someone to transfer the data about from server to server... so ISPs and hosts are footing the costs for bandwidth...
Youtube... most of their billion dollar overheads go into bandwidth and running of servers.... they serve that much data it costs that much to do it... luckily they've got a billion dollar parent to keep them running.
So they need to serve data as efficiently as possible as if they did it in an uncompressed format... their overheads would sky rocket....
the same can be said for digital music... you should try to transfer data as efficiently as possible... an 8min song in mp3 is say 8 meg whilst in wav it would be upwards of 80 meg... that's a 10 fold increase.... you're sending 10 times as much data... and if you're doing that millions of times and you're paying for bandwidth... it could simply increase your data costs 10 fold....
on the individual level 80 meg might not sound much... but as ratios its 10 times as much.. and when you multiply that out it becomes exponential.... i don't think their prices reflect a 10 fold increase going from mp3 to wav.
its a simplistic view... but at the end of the day they've got to transfer and serve 10 times as much data... whcih costs more... there's no such thing as a free lunch.
wtf it really looks like wav price is the same like mp3 now.. nice one.. next step would be to stop offering mp3s..ChrisCV wrote:i was just looking at beatport and i think wavs are the same price as mp3 at the moment... i was switching between the two formats and it was the same price....
and to the point that larger amounts of data should be treated the same and that the difference only came from when we were on dial up isn't really true...
whilst we have been liberated by unlimited high speed internet... it still costs someone to transfer the data about from server to server... so ISPs and hosts are footing the costs for bandwidth...
Youtube... most of their billion dollar overheads go into bandwidth and running of servers.... they serve that much data it costs that much to do it... luckily they've got a billion dollar parent to keep them running.
So they need to serve data as efficiently as possible as if they did it in an uncompressed format... their overheads would sky rocket....
the same can be said for digital music... you should try to transfer data as efficiently as possible... an 8min song in mp3 is say 8 meg whilst in wav it would be upwards of 80 meg... that's a 10 fold increase.... you're sending 10 times as much data... and if you're doing that millions of times and you're paying for bandwidth... it could simply increase your data costs 10 fold....
on the individual level 80 meg might not sound much... but as ratios its 10 times as much.. and when you multiply that out it becomes exponential.... i don't think their prices reflect a 10 fold increase going from mp3 to wav.
its a simplistic view... but at the end of the day they've got to transfer and serve 10 times as much data... whcih costs more... there's no such thing as a free lunch.
anyway to your point chris..
you shouldn't forget tho that it`s not a regular product we're talking about.. beatport doesnt have to produce it.. they can mulitply it infinite times for no costs.. 2,50 for 80 mb is just a pure rip off no matter how you put it..
furthermore the recent adaption of wav prices kind of proves that there was a random extra charge on wav..
-
patrick bateman
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 5432
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:02 am
- Location: Copenhagen Denmark
- Contact:
When I go to my cart and change from MP3 to WAV and then back to Cart Summary, I can see that they add the 1euro to each wav file.roland wrote:wtf it really looks like wav price is the same like mp3 now.. nice one.. next step would be to stop offering mp3s..ChrisCV wrote:i was just looking at beatport and i think wavs are the same price as mp3 at the moment... i was switching between the two formats and it was the same price....
and to the point that larger amounts of data should be treated the same and that the difference only came from when we were on dial up isn't really true...
whilst we have been liberated by unlimited high speed internet... it still costs someone to transfer the data about from server to server... so ISPs and hosts are footing the costs for bandwidth...
Youtube... most of their billion dollar overheads go into bandwidth and running of servers.... they serve that much data it costs that much to do it... luckily they've got a billion dollar parent to keep them running.
So they need to serve data as efficiently as possible as if they did it in an uncompressed format... their overheads would sky rocket....
the same can be said for digital music... you should try to transfer data as efficiently as possible... an 8min song in mp3 is say 8 meg whilst in wav it would be upwards of 80 meg... that's a 10 fold increase.... you're sending 10 times as much data... and if you're doing that millions of times and you're paying for bandwidth... it could simply increase your data costs 10 fold....
on the individual level 80 meg might not sound much... but as ratios its 10 times as much.. and when you multiply that out it becomes exponential.... i don't think their prices reflect a 10 fold increase going from mp3 to wav.
its a simplistic view... but at the end of the day they've got to transfer and serve 10 times as much data... whcih costs more... there's no such thing as a free lunch.
anyway to your point chris..
you shouldn't forget tho that it`s not a regular product we're talking about.. beatport doesnt have to produce it.. they can mulitply it infinite times for no costs.. 2,50 for 80 mb is just a pure rip off no matter how you put it..
furthermore the recent adaption of wav prices kind of proves that there was a random extra charge on wav..
I'm surprised you guys can't see the reason for this? As Chris say, no big companies have flatrate lines, so 10fold data is EXTREMELY costly. So this really has nothing to do with any 'production' cost. This is simply a transfer cost.
yep like patrick said... its not reproduction i'm on about... obviously its just a digital copy...roland wrote:anyway to your point chris..
you shouldn't forget tho that it`s not a regular product we're talking about.. beatport doesnt have to produce it.. they can mulitply it infinite times for no costs.. 2,50 for 80 mb is just a pure rip off no matter how you put it..
furthermore the recent adaption of wav prices kind of proves that there was a random extra charge on wav..
Its all about transferring that data from beatport to you... getting it from their server to your computer... that doesn't happen by magic... it costs money to do it... and with data hosting its not a flat rate... the more you send the more it costs...
that's why youtube has ridiculous overheads because they're sending so much data across the network....
it all adds up... so if you have to send 10 times as much... you're going to have to want to charge more for it because it costs you more to send it...
just to add to that.... if you want to send 10 times as much you also need the infrastructure to support that... it all costs money.
Only place I buy WAV files from is Bleep, because they charge a reasonable fee for it. MP3 for $1.35 or WAV for $1.99. And if you get whole releases, you usually get an even greater discount. A 2-3 track WAV EP can be as little as $2.99
Beatport is minimum $2.49-3.49 for *one* WAV. Full releases get slapped with $1 upcharge per track, so if you want that discounted 15 track album that's only $12.99, you pay another $15 on top of $13 for WAV.
Bullshit.
It does not cost them ANYWHERE near that much for the bandwidth.
Also, WAVs lack the handy ID tag info, which is EXTREMELY important in today's DVS-centric landscape.
MP3s have their bonuses, and until the online stores start being reasonable with their rates, I'm going to keep buying MP3s most of the time, with Bleep as the exception.
At the WAV price, I may as well buy the record. And let's be real here, unless you're playing on some major soundsystems, the difference is negligible if not entirely transparent. And a well-mastered, nicely produced track encoded into 320kbps MP3 can and will sound better than a record that's been used a number of times--and that's not even factoring in potential externalities related to vinyl use (feedback, worn styli, RCA and grounding imperfections, etc). I like the analog sound and a little crackle, but it begins to take its toll after awhile. This is why I rip my new records when I get them and save them as WAVs...still not as clean and perfect as a great track encoded well.
Beatport is minimum $2.49-3.49 for *one* WAV. Full releases get slapped with $1 upcharge per track, so if you want that discounted 15 track album that's only $12.99, you pay another $15 on top of $13 for WAV.
Bullshit.
It does not cost them ANYWHERE near that much for the bandwidth.
Also, WAVs lack the handy ID tag info, which is EXTREMELY important in today's DVS-centric landscape.
MP3s have their bonuses, and until the online stores start being reasonable with their rates, I'm going to keep buying MP3s most of the time, with Bleep as the exception.
At the WAV price, I may as well buy the record. And let's be real here, unless you're playing on some major soundsystems, the difference is negligible if not entirely transparent. And a well-mastered, nicely produced track encoded into 320kbps MP3 can and will sound better than a record that's been used a number of times--and that's not even factoring in potential externalities related to vinyl use (feedback, worn styli, RCA and grounding imperfections, etc). I like the analog sound and a little crackle, but it begins to take its toll after awhile. This is why I rip my new records when I get them and save them as WAVs...still not as clean and perfect as a great track encoded well.
not saying that the bandwidth cost of a wav would exceed the sale price of an mp3...thefunnel wrote: It does not cost them ANYWHERE near that much for the bandwidth.
but it would cost them more... and if they pay per bit... then it makes sense to try and absorb that increase in overhead so they can try to keep the same or some of the profit margin.
whether its right or wrong is a differenent question... but in terms of business sense it makes loads of sense.