| Author
|
Saikosounds digital downloads, feedback required....
|
robomarket
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
35
Posts :
970
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 08:12
|
This is a bold move by saikosounds. Several companies, mostly UK based, have been doing the same thing for months now selling house, trance, dnb, breaks and so on. They've lots of customers so I think that this will work just as well.
As far as the pricing, I disagree with the prices that were originally posted by saikosounds. It's a good thing that you're thinking about people in countries with 56K connections, but you should simply disregard the 128 conversion. Start off with 192. I'd pay $1 for 192, $1.25 for 256kbit and $1.50 for 320 kbits. Two bucks for lossless is a just price. Also, customers should get discounts if they buy a whole album or a bundle of 9 tracks(which will be considered as a full CD). Throwing in some bonus points for frequent customers wouldn't be a bad idea either 
Best wishes.
|
|
|
saikosounds
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
25
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 08:51
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-04-15 22:39, basilisk wrote:
Great idea, hopefully buyers would have access to your whole back catalogue. Most of what I'd be interested in buying is single tracks in lossless format from old compilations that aren't otherwise worth picking up. If you can make deals with distributors as a whole as opposed to just individuals. labels the appeal will increase -more that is available = better response, guarunteed.
Good luck on it!
|
|
It wont have the entire backcatog but we will have a lot of older releases.
|
|
|
|
PsyUNIT
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
293
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 09:44
|
Just wondering if i buy 10 mp3 tracks, what is the proof later (if i require it for copyright purposes) that i have purchased those tracks & not illegally downloaded them like for e.g the police catches me on suspicion of violating copyright laws for illegal mp3.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Travel , without moving.  |
|
|
|
saikosounds
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
25
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 10:05
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-04-15 20:02, Shaqattack wrote:
/*/
and i have another doubt...cant 128 kbps files be converted to better quality (320)with the use of some programs...??
well i thought they could be converted ! if what am saying is true then wouldnt everyone buy the 128 kbps files iunstead of the better quality ones and sit at home and transform them...
lemme know if i am mistaken...
peacE
|
|
You are mistaken. mp3 is a "lossy" format which means that some parts of the music are lost forever. There is no way to go back up the scale with mp3s.
Lossless on the other hand, as the name implies, retains 100% of the music by compressing it a lot winZIP or winRAR, which another posted pointed out. This means, of course, that the resulting files are much bigger than mp3s, but still a lot smaller than the equivalent wav format (also a lossless audio format, but without compression) |
|
|
|
Dragongurl
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
19
Posts :
623
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 10:41
|
I think this is a great idea!  I think the intention is for people to download certain tracks off albums and to get hold of old tracks. Of course dont be stupid and download a whole album now! 
I think the price is reasonable for the service they are offering.....we shouldnt bitch and try get discounts for everything that comes our way. If I convert those prices to our currency, its even cheaper than a buying a CD!
It works for some and not for others....
 :: Life can be as bitter as dragon tears
But whether dragon tears are bitter or sweet
depends entirely on how each man perceives the taste :: |
|
|
|
saikosounds
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
25
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 11:37
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-04-16 09:44, Punit wrote:
Just wondering if i buy 10 mp3 tracks, what is the proof later (if i require it for copyright purposes) that i have purchased those tracks & not illegally downloaded them like for e.g the police catches me on suspicion of violating copyright laws for illegal mp3.
Travel , without moving.
|
|
For this you will have our official receipt / invoice which we can give you copies of for past purchases if necceary.
We are also considering using a passive "watermark" in the files, which will identify them as originating from saikosounds |
|
|
|
DJ Pelon(Inpsyde Media)
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
525
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 13:55
|
good thinking Saikosounds !!
as someone mentioned here before, hopefully this will make some labels think twice before buying "filler" tunes, and the result will be in better quality releases for us !!
in any case, this is a good idea. it's time to move ahead and face the reality in terms of needs of the customers.
good luck !
Inpsyde Media - Trance Mission Worldwide
pelon@inpsyde-media.com
www.inpsyde-media.com
www.beatspace.com
contact@inpsyde-media.com |
|
|
|
JamesBong
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
31
Posts :
280
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 16:03
|
excelent idea...for both parts (consumer and label/artist)
2$ seems fair for a lossless format, but 1$ is WAY too much for 128kbps
just a coment:
i tested encoding the same track on monkey audio and FLAC....a track with 75mb size was encoded to 55mb size, on both formats, monkey and FLAC.
But FLAC has evidently a much worse quality, with the same file size.could it be some configuration error i made? ..
anyway, my vote goes to the monkey |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 16:30
|
I don't know if FLAC has a lossy mode or not. (I never looked at that) Assuming you encoded it lossless (if you even have a choice) then the end result after decoding should _exactly_ the same. Bit for bit.
My research about these algorithms revealed that Monkey's Audio has the highest size reduction but unfortunately, the algorithms are not public and there is less support for it. Also, although the size reduction is larger, it comes at a computational cost: It takes longer to encode. My feeling says that SaikoSounds should use Monkey's Audio but my reason says they should use FLAC.
One thing to consider using for the dial-up users only is low-bitrate OGG. At lower bitrates, OGG has a better sound than mp3. You could even go down to 96Kbps for these customers. Maybe even lower (experiment and see). One note though: I have no idea how much support there is for OGG on the Mac platform.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Apr 16, 2005 19:35
|
FLAC has no lossy mode and what differences JamesBong encountered I don't know.
There is none, and that you noticed "much worse quality" with FLAC is very strange.
There is no settings when compressing that you could use that could possibly degrade the audio.
The differences in filesize is very marginal.
You would probably save more time decompressing FLAC than downloading APE.
That FLAC can decompress streaming, is supported by more hardware player and is open-source by far outweight any differences in filesize.
The biggest question when you decide what format to use I guess would be which one is the most widespread and people is most familiar with.
From what I gather FLAC is definatly gaining ground and is about as widespread as APE.
I'm quite sure that in a year or two FLAC will be clearly the dominant format and APE will slowly become obsolete.
The more efficient decoding and streaming capability combined with it being open-source will make FLAC the choice for most hardware manufacturers that want to implement a lossless format into their products.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Fingax
Cosmic Station
Started Topics :
82
Posts :
1235
Posted : Apr 18, 2005 17:42
|
lots of ppl pay far more for mobile rings and stuff like that.. i dont blame them.. and they dont complain...
So why do u comlain when this only for our own benefit and trance in general?
this is my point of view..
Boom |
|
|
|
rodram
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
116
Posted : Apr 18, 2005 18:19
|
Friend of mine is on itunes. They have a system called AAC, how does this compare in quality?
He also has has an ipod, which I think has terrible sound quality, any recommendations?
I am looking at one of the Archos jukebox products they go up to 100 GB play mp3, wav, wmp, vbr, and video mpeg-4.
|
|
|
|
psicoprata
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
39
Posted : Apr 18, 2005 22:52
|
|
One question: some releases are only available in vynil. I've never even entered the saikosounds site, i've been using mostly psyshop, but will there be digital files of tracks usually released only in vynil. Because then i'd be really interested since i want them for listening purposes and i don't even have a vynil player....
Search for life. |
|
|
|
Madpup
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
21
Posts :
174
Posted : Apr 18, 2005 23:20
|
|
Great idea, I do agree with others, i would think $1.50 is a much fairer price for a lossless quality track. |
|
|
|
PIN
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
55
Posts :
381
Posted : Apr 19, 2005 16:59
|
My opnion :
MP3 192 kps
MP3 320 kps
+ Wav files
, if you sell wav files for 2 dollars I will buy many tracks from cds that i wouldnt buy; but I never spend my money in MP3´s; just in full qualitys. |
|
|
|
