music source preference & opinions

[DCONN]

Why would you prefer a sample to a track?

DCONN - What is EDC?

I use the sample packs as an extra tool to play one shots or loops over songs to beef them up. You'd be surprised how much fatter a song can get with just a kick loop. I make music now so I have a supple sample library (that sounded nice) so I don't buy those anymore. But if you want a bang for your buck it's not a bad route for samples. Also, EDC (as stated by LemonSkunk) is Electric Daisy Carnival. One of the biggest electronic music festivals. I'm not playing over massive speaker systems and playing for thousands of people, so iTunes quality is perfectly fine for me. Not to mention it gets nicely organized and is easily accessible in Traktor.

IMO... just a good way to enforce being more picky about your music.

Honestly, it astonishes me that people aren't willing to pay $.99 or $1.50 for a piece of music, when only a few years ago people would've been ecstatic for that opportunity.

I'm not trying to start a piracy debate here, I'm just saying that it seems like small potatoes. And anymore, I can't even be bothered with trying to rip music from other sources. It's worth a dollar for me to not have to screw with it.

I do agree with you. DJ'ing is not a cheap hobby/lifestyle or whatever you want to call it. I already spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars on equipment so I don't mind buying my tracks. But as I've said before; I buy my tracks from iTunes because they go from 69 cents to $1.29. I'm not really fond of paying $2.00 for one song.

To put in perspective: If I do a 4 hour set for a dance or an event; we're talking about somewhere between 50-65 tracks (it depends on what you're playing). If I spend $1.00 on each track that that's $50-$60. If I have to spend $2.00 on that many tracks it's $100-$130. Granted, I'm not buying that many tracks at once anymore now that I have a good handful of gigs down, but you get what I mean.

[b1sh0p]

IMO... just a good way to enforce being more picky about your music.

Honestly, it astonishes me that people aren't willing to pay $.99 or $1.50 for a piece of music, when only a few years ago people would've been ecstatic for that opportunity.

I'm not trying to start a piracy debate here, I'm just saying that it seems like small potatoes. And anymore, I can't even be bothered with trying to rip music from other sources. It's worth a dollar for me to not have to screw with it.

It's crazy to me as well. I used to pay $11 for one tune when I played vinyl. Records rarely had 2 tunes you actually play.

I play drum and bass. Producers aren't making any money from their production. Most do it for the love. Buy the tunes. Every little bit helps. I use Surus, Redeye or Juno.

[Thumper]

Amen.

Support whatever scene you're into. Buy the music. I spent 80 quid last week on vinyl and another 20 odd on digital stuff. Fair enough, that's more than I usually spend on music in a week by quite a bit, but it was a good week for tunes...

Digital music costs next to nothing as it is, especially if you just buy individual tracks (I always buy the full release,) and if you want the artist in question to get as much out of it as they can, I recommend getting onboard Bandcamp ASAP.

@OP:

Other than Bandcamp, try Juno, Boomkat, or anyone of the many digital retailers that are online. It's not just Beatport or Itunes anymore, of course, there is a whole world out there that isn't crappy lowgrade Youtube rips.

[Zander]

land shark im to young to have experienced any other price for a track... ive done some reading and it tunes out that ripping from you tube is yielding poor-ish or rather not the best sound quality. i alsonow feel bad about having done this in the past because i fully support other producers and dj's and its counter productive for the culture and also hypocritical of me to pirate their music... i wanna say thanks to everyone for their feed back

[soundinmotiondj]

well i use too, any audio converter samples the sound from the url or the specific video then converts it to a WAV file at 705kbps, so idk.

Youtube is a little vague about audio streaming rates...but most references say it is 128kbps. That assumes that the audio was at least that good to start with. AFAIK, there is NO way to get audio that is any better than that from youtube.

Quality aside...youtube is a great reference for finding music and hearing a full song. It, after hearing the full song, you are not willing to part with $1-ish, why would you EVER want to play that song at a gig???

[makar1]

Youtube is a little vague about audio streaming rates...but most references say it is 128kbps. That assumes that the audio was at least that good to start with. AFAIK, there is NO way to get audio that is any better than that from youtube.

Quality aside...youtube is a great reference for finding music and hearing a full song. It, after hearing the full song, you are not willing to part with $1-ish, why would you EVER want to play that song at a gig???

Youtube tops out at 192kbps AAC for 720p and 1080p videos which is decent, and is a great way to get a listen to a full song before deciding on a purchase. Most of the big labels put all their albums up so you can subscribe and keep track of new releases.

[mdcdesign]

Youtube tops out at 192kbps AAC for 720p and 1080p videos which is decent, and is a great way to get a listen to a full song before deciding on a purchase. Most of the big labels put all their albums up so you can subscribe and keep track of new releases.

Don't forget that 192kbps AAC is roughly equivalent to somewhere between 250 and 320kbps MP3 (224kbps AAC is equivalent to 320kbps MP3, so somewhere between the two), which isn't all that bad tbh.

[Jester]

Oh i almost forgot

/Closed (piracy)