i do believe that once the worlds internet infrastructure increases significantly in speed, and when storage mediums reach a point where WAV is a feasible format for a collection, we should see the decline of compressed formats. at some point we will be able to call Flac or WAV the industry standard for music.
the only thing i can see that would impede this process is the energy efficiency, as storage devices would be have to be larger more robust. unless of course we can develop a quantum computer, and energy requirements drop like teenagers at a tiesto show on E.
about cdj 800 , how much it sucks and some noob questions!
don't get me wrong. i understand bandwidth is cheap and it doesn't cost $1 extra to send 10 times more data..... just saying the difference in sending a wav vs an mp3 is quite a big difference and its not as people seem to think all free... it will defo cost more. maybe more is negligble.. i guess we'll never know as we don't know the data plan that beatport runs on... but my point is there is a difference, in the storage of it, the transfer of it... you know you're holding something that is 10 times bigger...
but the $1 does help cover any differences in cost... but like someone else said, its also the fact you're getting something that little bit better quality.. obv its at no cost for them to reproduce it at a higer rate.. but hey that's business... think beatport are completely in the right to do what they do... if you don't liek it buy it from somewhere else... if someone else does wav for cheaper and there is a demand for it then i'm sure beatport will revise their price...
but the $1 does help cover any differences in cost... but like someone else said, its also the fact you're getting something that little bit better quality.. obv its at no cost for them to reproduce it at a higer rate.. but hey that's business... think beatport are completely in the right to do what they do... if you don't liek it buy it from somewhere else... if someone else does wav for cheaper and there is a demand for it then i'm sure beatport will revise their price...
now its too late, wav is like vinyl - nearly no one buys it
beatport has a monopol and they made it that more quality is expensive, so they teached all the kids out there - dont buy wav its expensive
and out of the deep of the internet there are rising articles who tell you that there is no difference in sound between wav and mp3 ..
so everybody plays now compressed files ..
in 10 years even if there is a sound difference no one will know, cause no one plays something other than mp3
and then some articles come along and tell you: hey between 320 and 256 kbits is no difference - make a blind test see for yourself. and of course you will not hear any difference
the rest you can imagine.
beatport has a monopol and they made it that more quality is expensive, so they teached all the kids out there - dont buy wav its expensive
and out of the deep of the internet there are rising articles who tell you that there is no difference in sound between wav and mp3 ..
so everybody plays now compressed files ..
in 10 years even if there is a sound difference no one will know, cause no one plays something other than mp3
and then some articles come along and tell you: hey between 320 and 256 kbits is no difference - make a blind test see for yourself. and of course you will not hear any difference
the rest you can imagine.
you really think someone can enter the market and just offer wav cheaper? that`s naive..ChrisCV wrote: think beatport are completely in the right to do what they do... if you don't liek it buy it from somewhere else... if someone else does wav for cheaper and there is a demand for it then i'm sure beatport will revise their price...
sadly it's not that easy.. markets only work efficiently if there is competition.. apparently all the sellers in the market want to achieve a monopoly situation..
beatport is pretty close to have a monopoly.. :/ on an austrian radio station we even have beatport charts
no but it goes a long way to beating the competition... for the last 2 pages all everyone has moaned about is the price... so price is obviously a key factor and goes a long way....roland wrote:you really think someone can enter the market and just offer wav cheaper? that`s naive..ChrisCV wrote: think beatport are completely in the right to do what they do... if you don't liek it buy it from somewhere else... if someone else does wav for cheaper and there is a demand for it then i'm sure beatport will revise their price...
obviously you need the catalog as there's no point having sh!t music cheap...
i don't think it would take much to topple beatport.. better prices, same or better catalogue of music... and also a much better user interface... as the beatport site is painfully bad to use... also a good affiliate scheme so that everyone links to you as well... also making your site searchable by google.... all these tracks that you search for.. does beatport ever come top of a google search? no! cos the damn thing doesn't even register on the biggest search engine in the world...
the hard thing thing to beat them on is the music catalogue... however all it takes is one of the big distributors to have a pop perhaps.. they've got the label contacts etc for the big gun labels... or just convince the big labels that you're gonna do it better than beatport, because they sure as hell don't do a fantastic job...
true, but to be fair to BP, they didn't force that monopoly. It's just a simple case of being the first one. And yes, they do pay well to labels, and correct, and as a label you do get a nice bonus if your customer buys WAVs.roland wrote:beatport is pretty close to have a monopoly.. :/ on an austrian radio station we even have beatport charts
BUT, I also buy at Beatport and as a user, I simply would love it if they would be a bit cheaper. I prefer shopping at BP because the interface is easy to use and I can find everything I want fast. But the price is a bit on the high side of things, I am not saying they should cut it in half but a bit less would be great. I think prices on What people Play f.e. are a lot better.
That's one of the reasons why we don't put our releases on exclusives anymore: that means that new tracks are available for 1.56 or something like that instead of 2.49. And if I as a user think that exclusive price is too much, it would be a bit wrong to charge that high price as a label owner, I think.
Bit dodgy phrase, but I hope you understood what I tried to say
That's also why I think Beatport should offer their WAVs at the same price as MP3: simply because they already charge a lot more than other stores so I figure they could offer a better product for that extra fee. But I'm not a salesman am I 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
That's weird. For me (I live in Canada), beatport is cheaper. Tracks are 1.49$, and on WPP it's 1.39€ (1.90$) It's good for new releases tho...PsyTox wrote: BUT, I also buy at Beatport and as a user, I simply would love it if they would be a bit cheaper. I prefer shopping at BP because the interface is easy to use and I can find everything I want fast. But the price is a bit on the high side of things, I am not saying they should cut it in half but a bit less would be great. I think prices on What people Play f.e. are a lot better.
The cheapest for me is digital-tunes.net. The WAVs tracks are 0.82€ (1.13$), because they removed 19% (taxes)! But their catalogue is nothing compared to beatport...