Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16726Re: [Hybrid] Re: OT : Paid downloads vs purchases & bonus tracks/material

Expand Messages
  • Phil Stewart
    Oct 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, devjonazure wrote:
      > Personally, I don't think music downloads will ever catch on as a
      > profitable venture, due to 1) who wants to pay for something that can
      > easily be deleted, and you have to listen to on your comp? (unless you
      > just burn to cd anyway) and 2) the quality of mp3 is so low that any
      > real music lover would never be content with it anyway.

      To respond to point 1, I would be willing to pay for smething I might
      accidently end up deleting (knowing me, that's more than possible), as
      long as the price was sufficiently low, and the track was sufficiently
      rare. I wouldn't object to having to shell out another 50p, *maybe* as far
      as a pound. Any more than that, and I would have to think twice, but then
      any more than that and I probably wouldn't have bought it in the first

      To respond to point 2, there is nothing wrong with the quality of mp3 at a
      sufficiently high bitrate encoded with a sufficiently good encoder. For
      me, 192kbps lame encoded mp3 is easily adequate, and the amount of loss is
      negligible. Failing that, 256kbps mp3 will beat 256kbps mp2, and 256kbps
      mp2 is widely considered to be of broadcast standard. So I guess, as a
      real music lover (if I can classify myself as such), I *would* be content
      with something ultra-rare that was well encoded, rather then having to put
      up with either a sh*te copy that's been encoded using a sock, or worse
      still no copy at all.

      From Phil
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic