TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Wav downloads on beatport actually cost you more money

Wav downloads on beatport actually cost you more money

I had mentioned this in another thread and i thought it would be of benefit to mention this to all of you dollar-sensitive djs out there.

There seems to be a popular belief on this forum (and elsewhere) about beatport's new wav file download feature. The common misconception here is that wav downloads are saving you money when opposed to the alternative method of acquiring wav files through the shipping of cds with the wav files burned on them.

Once I received the email from beatport advertising the new wav download feature, I was ecstatic... but for the wrong reasons. I figured I would be saving money over the old shipping method but that was hardly the case.

The benefits of wav downloads are the convenience of being able to get the tracks on the spot and being able to place smaller orders and not get robbed by a fixed shipping cost.


To get to the point...

The wav downloads have a $1 USD variable cost per track.

For the wav shipping method, there is a variable cost of $0.50 USD per track and a fixed shipping cost (geographically variable).

In my case being from Canada, my shipping cost is about $31, so when i have about 65 tracks in my cart, I start saving money. The more I buy in that single order, the more I will save.


Moral of the story: If you want to save big, you have to buy big.


Cheers

Myles

Interesting to know, but if I bought 65 mp3s in one go I wouldn't have a clue what to do with them!

Was making a similar point to the girlfriend earlier. On Audiojelly spotted a few tracks at about �2.50 each, she thought that was great and I pointed out that a 4 track 12" would be cheaper and you'd have the phsyical vinyl in your hand at the end of it which you could then sell later on in life to recoop money (if need be) whereas an MP3 is just that.

R.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox if I bought 65 mp3s in one go I wouldn't have a clue what to do with them!

wave files...

mp3s don't have those kind of extra charges



Before they offered wav downloads, i would buy like 130 tracks at a time and i would be sent a stack of like 20 cds

Yeah sorry, being a tard... really I meant tunes in general.

Got so used to just referring to digi-downloads as "mp3s"... then the technology changes!

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox Yeah sorry, being a tard... really I meant tunes in general.

Yeah, you really are stupid!

Is this a new trend, where digital tunes get more and more expensive? Are the lables and sites as beatport taking advantage of the fact that less tunes are actually being pressed on vinyl?

quote:

Originally posted by Laszlo Is this a new trend, where digital tunes get more and more expensive? Are the lables and sites as beatport taking advantage of the fact that less tunes are actually being pressed on vinyl?

actually the point of this thread was to show not that digital companies were jacking up prices but it has to do with the acquisition of wav files... not mp3's


before, the only way to get wav files off of beatport was to have them shipped to you and there was a big fuss about big shipping costs... so people required wav downloads to be the next upgrade to the beatport service.... now that this service is available, it is more expensive per track and you will actually save alot of money when you buy over a certain number of tracks (64 tracks in my case) due to reasons stated in my first post of this thread

i wonder why its more expensive to download them.

quote:

Originally posted by Rikki Was making a similar point to the girlfriend earlier. On Audiojelly spotted a few tracks at about �2.50 each, she thought that was great and I pointed out that a 4 track 12" would be cheaper and you'd have the phsyical vinyl in your hand at the end of it which you could then sell later on in life to recoop money (if need be) whereas an MP3 is just that. R.

resale of most vinyl is shite unless you find suckers

psiweaver: dunno, my guess is the webspace + bandwidth needed, 1 song at like 80+mb is kinda heavy.

quote:

Originally posted by mikefasssy resale of most vinyl is shite unless you find suckers psiweaver: dunno, my guess is the webspace + bandwidth needed, 1 song at like 80+mb is kinda heavy.

You'd think but Ive got tracks on vinyl I bought for �2 worth more than �50 each now. Depends on what you got.

R.

The whole downloading the tracks can be abit much if you dont have super fast broadband or if you dont have alot of downloads every month.

quote:

Originally posted by Rikki You'd think but Ive got tracks on vinyl I bought for �2 worth more than �50 each now. Depends on what you got. R.

I think he was saying that if you want to sell vinyl, the buyer as to be a sucker for you to make any money - you proved this by saying the person you bought the tunes from didn't get a lot either!

And yeah, it's all about bandwidth - webspace costs fuck-all now, I've got about 4 times as much webspace as I need because to hosting companies a few gigs of space is just a fraction of a massive hard disk they probably paid less than �100 for. Even if I wanted to use more of my space I couldn't really feasibly do it as the bandwidth usage of people viewing/downloading these files would push me past my traffic limit and start costing me a fair bit.

Remember a wave file is 4 or 5 times the size of a 320k mp3, so that's 4 or 5 times as much bandwidth to download the file.

I've never ordered the wav files on a CD... how do they look? Do they print the track names on the discs and such?

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 I've never ordered the wav files on a CD... how do they look? Do they print the track names on the discs and such?

yeah, I wanna know that too! If so I`ll stop buying mp3s and buy wav instead.

quote:

Originally posted by Ryan0751 I've never ordered the wav files on a CD... how do they look? Do they print the track names on the discs and such?

well the wav files are burned to a data cd, so you can fit about 7 to 10 tracks on a disc... they aren't really named all that well... the songs have abstract names like "communication_orig", i would rename that to "communication - original mix - armin van buuren - ultra"

i just rip them all to an external harddrive i bought for my tracks, rename them and then burn them to cds accordingly

the discs themselves are just generic beatport discs with the order number lasered onto it as well the cd # in the order

quote:

Originally posted by mylespower well the wav files are burned to a data cd, so you can fit about 7 to 10 tracks on a disc... they aren't really named all that well... the songs have abstract names like "communication_orig", i would rename that to "communication - original mix - armin van buuren - ultra" i just rip them all to an external harddrive i bought for my tracks, rename them and then burn them to cds accordingly the discs themselves are just generic beatport discs with the order number lasered onto it as well the cd # in the order

Do you know if they are factory pressed or just burnt on a cdr?

quote:

Originally posted by sirhiss Do you know if they are factory pressed or just burnt on a cdr?

They'll just be burned on a CD-R - by the nature of factory pressing, it cost more for you to start the press than it does for a couple of hundred CD-Rs so it'd be daft for you to do it for a single disc.

quote:

Originally posted by sirhiss Do you know if they are factory pressed or just burnt on a cdr?

as stu said its a cdr and the cdr is maxed with as many songs as they can fit and in no particular order

and its a data cd, not an audio cd so you must rip them to your comp first and then burn accordingly

it may seem like a waste of cd but it does serve as a good method of back up

An article that appeared in a computer mag here recently made the point that should your computer be stolen, and you have not backed up any of your files (mp3 or wav) then you may have a tough time getting them replaced on insurance.
1 the insurance may not cover this, and
2 the download company may not replace them.
So if you have say 200 tunes downloaded, that's a big loss that may not be covered.
Food for thought.

I am of the belief that mp3 is about 1/10th the size of wav (not sure tho).
If you have a wave editor that can run both at the same time, play the wav in mono and play the inverted mp3 in mono at the same time, and due to phase cancellation, you will be able to hear just what it is the mp3 file leaves out in the compression.
I was told about this today, so I have not tried it, but apparently it is negligable to the ear, hence making mp3 worthy - tho it does take out some of the depth perception in the track.
makes me wonder if the wav is worth the extra $$$.

1. Yes, an external hard drive or DVD burner should be used to backup your music files. Then store them off site (ie, not in your house!). My friends house was burglerized and they stole all his computer equipment, including his backup drive he had stored in a closet. Goodbye all his music and photos for the last 10 years... not pleasent. And he thought he was all set.

2. MP3 is about 1/10th the size when encoded at 128Kbps. It's unfortunate that newer codecs such as AAC (supported by the iPod, based off of MPEG4) haven't overtaken MP3.

The bigger shame is that we aren't DEMANDING higher resolution formats than either MP3 or CD/Wav. DVD audio and SACD (super-audio CD) have both been around for years and haven't taken off, but both put to rest any claims of vinyl sounding better than CD, even audiophiles agree (and they don't agree with anything).

Of course, a downloadable DVD audio quality file would be several hundred megs, but it would be doable with things like FIOS (fiber to the home) becoming available. Now we just need Pioneer, Denon and the other manufacturers to make universal players that can play those formats (although you could use a computer package TODAY to play them, like ableton).

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e An article that appeared in a computer mag here recently made the point that should your computer be stolen, and you have not backed up any of your files (mp3 or wav) then you may have a tough time getting them replaced on insurance. 1 the insurance may not cover this, and 2 the download company may not replace them. So if you have say 200 tunes downloaded, that's a big loss that may not be covered. Food for thought. I am of the belief that mp3 is about 1/10th the size of wav (not sure tho). If you have a wave editor that can run both at the same time, play the wav in mono and play the inverted mp3 in mono at the same time, and due to phase cancellation, you will be able to hear just what it is the mp3 file leaves out in the compression. I was told about this today, so I have not tried it, but apparently it is negligable to the ear, hence making mp3 worthy - tho it does take out some of the depth perception in the track. makes me wonder if the wav is worth the extra $$$.

quote:

Originally posted by Psiweaver i wonder why its more expensive to download them.

Cause it takes more bandwidth to send a WAV file then an MP3 file, ie WAV files are bigger, so their servers will be busier as the WAV file will take longer to send.

I wouldnt mind paying for digital downloads, still cheaper then vinyl :P

quote:

Originally posted by mikefasssy resale of most vinyl is shite unless you find suckers

aye

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e I am of the belief that mp3 is about 1/10th the size of wav (not sure tho). If you have a wave editor that can run both at the same time, play the wav in mono and play the inverted mp3 in mono at the same time, and due to phase cancellation, you will be able to hear just what it is the mp3 file leaves out in the compression. I was told about this today, so I have not tried it, but apparently it is negligable to the ear, hence making mp3 worthy - tho it does take out some of the depth perception in the track. makes me wonder if the wav is worth the extra $$$.

A 320kbps mp3 is about about 1/4 or 1/5 of the size of a wav, so it's not quite as significant but still saves a lot of space. Performing wave cancellation, as you say leaves behind the difference but I think you'll be surprised at how much is left behind.

I'm personally of the belief that with file space and bandwidth considerations becoming less and less significant, we should strive to improve the sound quality we use all across the board - if in 5 years time we're all exclusively listening to 16bit 96kHz sound I think we'll be sickened by a 192k or 320k mp3 which, by todays standard, is considered totally acceptable quality... listening to higher quality sound is better for your ears too

I have no proof of this but i am of the belief that both vinyl and wav files provide the depth of the sound that you can feel... more so in the night club or a big system. Not to say that the 320kb mp3 doesn't have bass but it likely does not have the deep deep bass to provide the richness of vinyl or wav

basically mp3s are 'thinned out' wav files so there is a loss in quality and depth

As i said B4 the epth is taken out of the track - but in terms of the FX and the depth of field perception (this is what I was told). What is taken out is high frequency information, so in terms of feeling the bass, nothing would change.
As I said I have not done the phase reverse test, so I am going by anothers words...
Another thing to think about is the quality of the program which encodes the mp3. The original founders program has been ripped by others, and the code altered to the detriment of the file conversion. This can result in a 192 file being of the same quality as a 128 file, coz it is shoddy work.
Again my lecturer's words...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.