|
Dance Download Alliance Announced To Fight Beatport (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| basilisk |
| This seems like news but I suspect it isn't. Beatport is dominating the market; the other guys are getting worried. Every one of them would love an exclusivity agreement for remixes and bonus material. |
|
|
| Invasionmix |
| quote: | Originally posted by the_sauce
and they are cheapier (even when you buy waves from beatport) |
stupid question, can you notice the difference between 320 kbps/VBR vs a .WAV file? Is the quality a lot better for WAV too? |
|
|
| harcourt |
| I've seen tracks show up on other sites before they show up on beatport for $2.49. |
|
|
| Jeff Button |
| quote: | Originally posted by Invasionmix
stupid question, can you notice the difference between 320 kbps/VBR vs a .WAV file? Is the quality a lot better for WAV too? |
I honestly don't see that big of a difference.
WAV's are good to have if you plan on editing the tracks, but other than that I don't usually bother. |
|
|
| electro funk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Invasionmix
stupid question, can you notice the difference between 320 kbps/VBR vs a .WAV file? Is the quality a lot better for WAV too? |
wavs are most important for the original form. like when u first finish the track because its the best quality possible. then u can use that to make it any other form of mp3. the only time i feel wavs are important is when i export a track when i am done producing it. there is a slight difference between a wav and a 320 mp3 but not enough that i think any dj should worry about it |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Invasionmix
stupid question, can you notice the difference between 320 kbps/VBR vs a .WAV file? Is the quality a lot better for WAV too? |
Most people cannot tell the difference, but the fact is, mp3's are compressed and wav's are not. No matter how high the bitrate on the mp3, it is not a perfect copy of the wav.
I honestly do not like how the industry is moving backwards in terms of sound quality. For decades the technology was improving the sound quality, and that is what was most important. They invented CD's, which are incredible, and they stayed for 25+ years. Now that mp3's have become so popular, the quality is taking a back seat to portability.
I just fear that CD's will be replaced all together with mp3's. With iTunes selling mp3's at 128kpbs, the public is proving they do not care.
Just a question, for those who used to play vinyl, do you purchase wav's or mp3's? |
|
|
| Shade |
| quote: | Originally posted by electro funk
why the hell would any label only want to be on beatport? there are many other download sites that people use a lot. thats just not good business sence |
Not to turn this into another one of the threads about him, but all of the Deadmau5 tracks are exclusively on BP (as far as I can tell), and I'd say he's doing pretty well for himself.
Edit: Seems like Pryda is also BP exclusive. |
|
|
| Invasionmix |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
Most people cannot tell the difference, but the fact is, mp3's are compressed and wav's are not. No matter how high the bitrate on the mp3, it is not a perfect copy of the wav.
I honestly do not like how the industry is moving backwards in terms of sound quality. For decades the technology was improving the sound quality, and that is what was most important. They invented CD's, which are incredible, and they stayed for 25+ years. Now that mp3's have become so popular, the quality is taking a back seat to portability.
I just fear that CD's will be replaced all together with mp3's. With iTunes selling mp3's at 128kpbs, the public is proving they do not care.
Just a question, for those who used to play vinyl, do you purchase wav's or mp3's? |
That's a good point, but in terms of sound quality it's Vinyl>CD>MP3 and in terms of physical size Vinyl>CD>small part of hard drive, USB Key
Seems like the majority of the population prefer something small easy to handle rather than sound quality. |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
Am I the only one around who thinks beatport is a PIECE OF ?
There are more than enough reasons:
- not user-friendly for those of us in browsers. Since it's all flash-based, I can't right-click and open in a new window when I'm browsing through a list of tracks. I can't press BACK to return to where I've previously been. Honestly... I've hit BACK and then completely lost everything on Beatport SO MANY TIMES. I hate it.
- Beatport SUCKS for navigation. You need to click soooo many times to hear the previews of the tracks by an artist, and you can't go back. Bloody annoying.
- search on beatport is . I have to click three times to search for the name of a track if I don't want to search by artist. Audiojelly makes it quick and easy... there is ONE search button; I don't have to specify whether I'm searching for the artist or the track title or the remixer, and the results come up as tracks, not as artists.
- the previews are garbage quality. Audiojelly has GOOD QUALITY previews of a decent length. Beatport's sound like 64kbps or worse. I will not buy a track if I can't hear a good quality sample of it first.
So yeah, beatport sucks. I don't know why people use it... |
|
|
| Shade |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
Am I the only one around who thinks beatport is a PIECE OF ?
There are more than enough reasons:
- not user-friendly for those of us in browsers. Since it's all flash-based, I can't right-click and open in a new window when I'm browsing through a list of tracks. I can't press BACK to return to where I've previously been. Honestly... I've hit BACK and then completely lost everything on Beatport SO MANY TIMES. I hate it.
- Beatport SUCKS for navigation. You need to click soooo many times to hear the previews of the tracks by an artist, and you can't go back. Bloody annoying.
- search on beatport is . I have to click three times to search for the name of a track if I don't want to search by artist. Audiojelly makes it quick and easy... there is ONE search button; I don't have to specify whether I'm searching for the artist or the track title or the remixer, and the results come up as tracks, not as artists.
- the previews are garbage quality. Audiojelly has GOOD QUALITY previews of a decent length. Beatport's sound like 64kbps or worse. I will not buy a track if I can't hear a good quality sample of it first.
So yeah, beatport sucks. I don't know why people use it... |
The major point: it's cheaper than AJ on this side of the ocean and has a lot of things AJ doesn't have.
A lot of the time I also find AJ isn't functioning for whatever reason. I don't know what you mean by 'losing everything' by the way; there's a cart for a reason. Personally I've gotten used to clicking the flash 'back' button - I don't have a problem with it (if you've had the problem so many times - you should probably learn from it). The search specifics are actually very useful IMO because it shortens the list you have to go through a fair bit - if there's a label by the same name as an artist or track, you don't have to deal with all the mess. The fact that tracks are organized by release is also extremely useful IMO, but that's a matter of personal preference I guess.
That should answer your question :)
P.S. Your first two points are pretty much the same. |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shade
The major point: it's cheaper than AJ on this side of the ocean and has a lot of things AJ doesn't have.
A lot of the time I also find AJ isn't functioning for whatever reason. I don't know what you mean by 'losing everything' by the way; there's a cart for a reason. Personally I've gotten used to clicking the flash 'back' button - I don't have a problem with it (if you've had the problem so many times - you should probably learn from it). The search specifics are actually very useful IMO because it shortens the list you have to go through a fair bit - if there's a label by the same name as an artist or track, you don't have to deal with all the mess. The fact that tracks are organized by release is also extremely useful IMO, but that's a matter of personal preference I guess.
That should answer your question :)
P.S. Your first two points are pretty much the same. |
Matter of personal preference, I suppose. I spend far more time browsing than I do actually buying, which is why I find Audiojelly's interface so much better. In beatport, you have to keep clicking on a release, clicking on the tracks you want to hear, listening, going back, clicking on another release, etc. Audiojelly, just click a whole screen of tracks once each and they all get loaded into the player.
There are just a lot of little things that could be improved on the beatport interface. For example, you can't "click-drag-release" on the drop-down menu, like you can for, say... the windows start menu. You have to click twice. Little features like that make a site so much more enjoyable to use, and beatport just lacks that "polish" that a good flash site has IMO.
A problem with the flash "back" button is that it can't rely on browser cache to store the contents of previously viewed pages, so pressing "back" actually requires a complete reloading of the page contents, which is rather slow on beatport. Not to mention that a lot of us are used to hitting alt+left or backspace for "back"... I'm not gonna change my browsing habits for one website out of hundreds whose interface prevents me from browsing in a conventional manner. |
|
|
| Shade |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
Matter of personal preference, I suppose. I spend far more time browsing than I do actually buying, which is why I find Audiojelly's interface so much better. In beatport, you have to keep clicking on a release, clicking on the tracks you want to hear, listening, going back, clicking on another release, etc. Audiojelly, just click a whole screen of tracks once each and they all get loaded into the player.
There are just a lot of little things that could be improved on the beatport interface. For example, you can't "click-drag-release" on the drop-down menu, like you can for, say... the windows start menu. You have to click twice. Little features like that make a site so much more enjoyable to use, and beatport just lacks that "polish" that a good flash site has IMO.
A problem with the flash "back" button is that it can't rely on browser cache to store the contents of previously viewed pages, so pressing "back" actually requires a complete reloading of the page contents, which is rather slow on beatport. Not to mention that a lot of us are used to hitting alt+left or backspace for "back"... I'm not gonna change my browsing habits for one website out of hundreds whose interface prevents me from browsing in a conventional manner. |
In my case I tend to collect a whole bunch of releases over time and then I buy them all at once; I do some heavy digging a lot of the time to figure out what I want to buy. I picked up on the back button pretty quickly - it bothered me at first but after using BP 2-3 times it didn't bother me at all. I also don't have a problem with the speed on BP - in fact it tends to run a lot faster than AJ does for me; but again I guess that differs from person to person. Whethr you buy a lot or not, I still think it's more worthwhile to buy things on BP than AJ (or anywhere else). If money isn't an issue then that's another story - but if I were to buy the amount I bought on BP from AJ, I'd have spent at least 25% more by now.
I'm not bothered by the laoyout of BP at all, but to each their own I suppose. :) |
|
|
|
|
