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
Jan-09-2006 23:02
Stu Cox
Supreme smackaddict
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Southampton, UK
Interesting to know, but if I bought 65 mp3s in one go I wouldn't have a clue what to do with them!
___________________
Stu Cox |
Jan-09-2006 23:24
Rikki
Senior tranceaddict
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
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.
Jan-09-2006 23:37
mylespower
Senior tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
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
Jan-09-2006 23:41
Stu Cox
Supreme smackaddict
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Southampton, UK
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!
___________________
Stu Cox |
Last edited by Stu Cox on Jan-10-2006 at 03:22
Jan-10-2006 00:26
Laszlo
The weekend has landed
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Szekelyföld Status: Official Montreal Canadiens fan of TA
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?
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
Jan-10-2006 06:08
Psiweaver
I DJ 120,000 Massives
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Culver City United States
i wonder why its more expensive to download them.
___________________
Jan-10-2006 08:56
mikefasssy
Fa Kin Su Pah
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver
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.
___________________
Jan-10-2006 09:40
Rikki
Senior tranceaddict
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
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.
Jan-10-2006 11:12
T-Soma
The Sky Was Pink...
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Chair
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.
Jan-10-2006 11:31
Stu Cox
Supreme smackaddict
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Southampton, UK
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.
