CubicZirconia
Diamond Member
- Nov 24, 2001
- 5,193
- 0
- 71
The only reason for my not paying for MP3 right now is because they're not as convenient as P2P softwares like Kazaa. Paid Music Download services have far too much restrictions to be enjoyable.
If they have a non-subscription based service I would pay anything from .50 to .75. People saying why buy when you can get them for free should be shot IMO. What if you're making good music and the only reason you're not getting paid for it is because people share it on P2P network?
If they have a non-subscription based service I would pay anything from .50 to .75. People saying why buy when you can get them for free should be shot IMO. What if you're making good music and the only reason you're not getting paid for it is because people share it on P2P network?
Lithium381
Lifer
- May 12, 2001
- 12,455
- 5
- 81
i'd do 10-25cents a song......for good quality...192 is fine with me i don' thave all that many mp3's.....but i'd be willing to spend more if i knew the artist was actually going to get it
$0, because if mp3's costed any sort of money I'd just buy albums (which is what I do anyways)
to test out an mp3... not much more than 5-10 cents per song.
to test out an mp3... not much more than 5-10 cents per song.
Ogg isn't lossless.
Personally I would pay $0.50 or so per song, but only for really hard to find stuff, and only at 192K+ quality. The thing is though, the hard to find stuff would be just as unlikely to be sold via these methods. So basically, I'll just keep on scraping up mp3's wherever I can.
Oh, another thing - all of the money would have to go to the artists - perhaps some to the record company, but depends on record company. I sure as hell am not going to pay the RIAA, nor am I going to pay a huge record conglomerate.
320 kbps of variable bitrate is extremely high quality. For most people, 256 kbps is indistinguishable from the real thing even on high-end audiophile equipment. Try encoding your favorite song at 320 kbps VBR and see how it comes out..
take mp3.Originally posted by: Electric Amish
I can't believe you think you can tell the difference from CD to a 192 bit or better mp3.....
amish
attempt gapless playback.
shove a turkey up your ass because you can't.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
well i want to pay for the highest quality they have that i can use. if i buy a 320kbs mp3 its going to eat harddrive space. if i want to encode it to 192~vbr i have the joy of reencoding compressed audio, icky.
personally i'd rather the industry switch to dvda/sacd. higher quality helps justify purchase.
I bet they're hoping nobody notices that. The per song cost should be far below current CD costs, because of all the manufacturing, distribution, retail overhead, etc. that they'd be cutting out. Fat chance though. Format changes are made to increase profits and to figure out how to sell you that Beatles/Rolling Stones/Pink Floyd album for the 3rd or 4th time.
I'll stick with a combination of downloading and buying used/CD club/sale CD's at an overall average of $5-$6 per CD (~$0.50 per song with full uncompressed audio, liner notes, and the satisfaction of having a tangible product on the shelf). $0.50 for an MP3 is a ripoff to me. $0.99 is highway robbery.
The only way I'd be interested is if the offer is unlimited downloads, unrestricted file usage, an option for 192kbps or better, and full access to major labels' back catalog at a flat monthly rate. The supreme convenience of that is worth money. In fact, I'd probably put up with some restrictions on the file usage if they could come up with that deal.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter