Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fine Woodworking Articles are now "purchase only"
Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks
advice to charging people for advice on older articles that have appeared in past issues. I assume that trend will continue for many other web sites offering "free advice". Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for articles that were "free". I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I think a better approach would have been to leave the existing articles free and offer another page with "chargeable articles". |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Pat Barber" wrote in message ... Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks advice to charging people for advice on older articles that have appeared in past issues. I assume that trend will continue for many other web sites offering "free advice". Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for articles that were "free". I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I think a better approach would have been to leave the existing articles free and offer another page with "chargeable articles". FWIW Pat, I agree completely -BUT, as you said, everybody needs to make a buck. Vic |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help
you remedy your concerns here, Pat. DAve Pat Barber wrote: Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks advice to charging people for advice on older articles that have appeared in past issues. I assume that trend will continue for many other web sites offering "free advice". Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for articles that were "free". I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I think a better approach would have been to leave the existing articles free and offer another page with "chargeable articles". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Barber wrote:
Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for articles that were "free". Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW? Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on the web should be free. * Servers aren't free. * High-speed data feeds aren't free. * Web designers expect a salary. * People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary. You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a for-profit business, someone has to cover costs. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing
others of their new policy? "David" wrote in message ... did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you remedy your concerns here, Pat. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't
the proper audience; FWW staff is. Dave BobS wrote: Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing others of their new policy? "David" wrote in message ... did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you remedy your concerns here, Pat. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
It was a fairly mild rant and the purpose was to
inform rather than change policy. I have bought their articles in the past and will probably continue to do so. David wrote: Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't the proper audience; FWW staff is. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"B a r r y" wrote in message Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on the web should be free. You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a for-profit business, someone has to cover costs. There is an incredible amount of free information on the WWW as it should be. Commercial enterprises though, have no obligation to give away information that they are in the business of selling. Consumer Reports and Cook's Illustrated don't give it away. Looking to move to a new city? There are all sorts of information on the town of your desires and that is a good thing. Most appliance manufacturers make information available for installation, owner's manuals, comparisons of models. You can view the new car in your choice of colors. Unless, like the print magazine, it is advertising supported, I don't see where any commercial enterprise has an obligation to give stuff away. Just my opinion. Ed |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Having been in the "business" of computers for
a little over 30 years I understand those costs more than you can imagine. The "web" as a viable commercial market remains a mystery for most who are trying. While many companies are having great success with retail sites, others are not. B a r r y wrote: Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW? Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on the web should be free. * Servers aren't free. * High-speed data feeds aren't free. * Web designers expect a salary. * People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary. You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a for-profit business, someone has to cover costs. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I would disagree - who would you consider is a better audience than us? Get
all us wood-dorkers all riled up, point 'em in the right direction and before ya know it, FWW is caving in...... Won't happen but hey, it's the thought that counts.... Bob S. "David" wrote in message ... Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't the proper audience; FWW staff is. Dave BobS wrote: Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing others of their new policy? "David" wrote in message ... did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you remedy your concerns here, Pat. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not "riled up" about it. If I have a beef with a company that needs
addressing, I pick up the phone and discuss my concerns with the proper individual. If all I have is a general "bitch" like we all have about HD, then I might "rant" about the problem here, because there's no percentage in expecting HD to listen to the same old complaints that they've heard for years from numerous customers. I'm not sure that all public complainants really WANT the offending company to change it's ways. If they did, wouldn't they call the company and discuss it calmly and intelligently? Works for me! I'm not much for lynch mob mentality, either... Dave BobS wrote: I would disagree - who would you consider is a better audience than us? Get all us wood-dorkers all riled up, point 'em in the right direction and before ya know it, FWW is caving in...... Won't happen but hey, it's the thought that counts.... Bob S. "David" wrote in message ... Sure it was a "rant". If he REALLY is hoping for a change, we aren't the proper audience; FWW staff is. Dave BobS wrote: Did you think that perhaps he was just mildly ranting here and informing others of their new policy? "David" wrote in message ... did you communicate your thoughts to the staff at FWW? We can't help you remedy your concerns here, Pat. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:26:51 GMT, B a r r y
wrote: Pat Barber wrote: Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for articles that were "free". Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW? Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on the web should be free. * Servers aren't free. * High-speed data feeds aren't free. * Web designers expect a salary. * People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary. You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a for-profit business, someone has to cover costs. You left out that the people who produce the information like to get paid for it as well. Welcome to the "entitlement generation" who think everything of value should be free (to them) and that some nebulous entity (the corporate "they") should pay for it. Information costs money. Full Stop. -- "We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill" Tim Douglass http://www.DouglassClan.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Barber wrote in news:GZdwe.1042634
: Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks advice to charging people for advice on older articles that have appeared in past issues. I assume that trend will continue for many other web sites offering "free advice". Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for articles that were "free". I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I think a better approach would have been to leave the existing articles free and offer another page with "chargeable articles". Two thoughts: I paid for the original publications, saved most of them, and tossed or took to the wood club the ones I thought excess to my needs. But they were not free. My local library has back issues of most of the Taunton magazines. I can use them at no charge, but I must go to the library, and retrieve them from the archives. The library is supported with our tax dollars, but is not free. And a bonus thought: Taunton evidently believes that there is value beyond that which they can extract from advertisers on their site. This experiment will yield its results in due time. I have no predictions. However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically viable, with the exception of adult content. Possible exception is the Wall Street Journal... Vote with your dollars. Patriarch |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
B a r r y wrote: Pat Barber wrote: Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for articles that were "free". Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW? Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on the web should be free. * Servers aren't free. * High-speed data feeds aren't free. * Web designers expect a salary. * People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary. You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a for-profit business, someone has to cover costs. Hear, hear. As I paid for the magazine, I expect others should too... even for just an article. A membership fee, simple and effective, is not unreasonable IMHO. uh-oh... I have, however, a completely different outlook on that issue when it comes to music. I don't think I should have to pay for an album with just one 'hit/original thought' on it, when the rest of it is filled with crap and then the artist be too lazy to tour and play for his/her fans. Record companies are mostly blood-sucking leeches who squeeze their 'talents' dry and then toss them aside like a used tissue. I'll stick to the indy's whenever I can and gladly pay for the privilege to listen to music when I know the money is going to the artist without the bulk of it ending up in the pockets of fat-cat corporate assholes. I realize that this ideology is nigh impossible to sustain completely......but dammit, I'm trying. *steps off soap-box* *NOMEX=ON* |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:53:33 -0400, Robatoy
wrote: Hear, hear. As I paid for the magazine, I expect others should too... even for just an article. A membership fee, simple and effective, is not unreasonable IMHO. I kind of like Discover magazine's setup- subscribers to the magazine can enter the information from their mailing label, and that entitles you to access all the articles on the site. Might work for FWW, might not, but it works for me- and it's an incentive to get the subscription rather than nabbing things peicemeal. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Patriarch wrote:
However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically viable, with the exception of adult content. Possible exception is the Wall Street Journal... - Consumer Reports Online - Pay per use online automotive manufacturer's service info sites, like techinfo.toyota.com and Subaru's version of the same, are huge success stories! They take the place of multi-hundred dollar manuals. - Financial research sites, like Morningstar - Newspaper sites that allow access to articles from yesterday's paper and earlier - Dating services - Alldata I can go on, and on.... FWW's online content is typically good enough that it may very well be viable. Barry |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Robatoy wrote:
I have, however, a completely different outlook on that issue when it comes to music. I don't think I should have to pay for an album with just one 'hit/original thought' on it, when the rest of it is filled with crap and then the artist be too lazy to tour and play for his/her fans. I agree, and I'm a musician. G One of my favorite examples was paying $75 in the late eighties to see Bruce Springsteen play an HOUR of covers as the second half of the "Born in the USA" tour, while leaving favorites like "Jungleland" out of the set. Damn, I wanted my money back! I can see very good cover bands for the cost of a beer locally. I can also extend that thinking to the film industry. Paid song downloads will quickly change the music industry. Especially since a small act doesn't even really NEED a label! Barry |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
B a r r y says...
Remember when we had to buy article reprints, because there wasn't a WWW? Somewhere along the line people starting assuming that information on the web should be free. * Servers aren't free. * High-speed data feeds aren't free. * Web designers expect a salary. * People to maintain the servers and transport expect a salary. You can sell ad space, can charge for access, or a little of both, as a for-profit business, someone has to cover costs. The problem isn't that they charge to download these little tidbits, it is how much they charge. $3.50 for one article? Where did they get that number? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Hax Planx wrote:
The problem isn't that they charge to download these little tidbits, it is how much they charge. $3.50 for one article? Where did they get that number? How does any business come up with a price for what they sell? Some combination of cost analysis, market research, and sheer guesswork. For downloading a PDF of an article, the incremental costs are essentially zero. You charge what you think the market will bear and adjust up or down as experience dictates. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith says...
How does any business come up with a price for what they sell? Some combination of cost analysis, market research, and sheer guesswork. For downloading a PDF of an article, the incremental costs are essentially zero. You charge what you think the market will bear and adjust up or down as experience dictates. Well, if you ask me, that price has nowhere to go but down. They must not want to make any sales. When a year of subscription costs $35, $3.50 per article is an insult to my intelligence. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Hax Planx" wrote in message
. net... Roy Smith says... How does any business come up with a price for what they sell? Some combination of cost analysis, market research, and sheer guesswork. For downloading a PDF of an article, the incremental costs are essentially zero. You charge what you think the market will bear and adjust up or down as experience dictates. Well, if you ask me, that price has nowhere to go but down. They must not want to make any sales. When a year of subscription costs $35, $3.50 per article is an insult to my intelligence. I might guess that the articles are aimed at people who aren't likely to subscribe, but would like access to a small number of articles. The buyer doesn't have to purchase a copy at the newsstand (USD7.99) and FWW gets $3.50, most of which goes right to the bottom line. todd |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article
, Pat Barber wrote: Apparently I missed the conversion from offering folks advice to charging people for advice on older articles that have appeared in past issues. I assume that trend will continue for many other web sites offering "free advice". Taunton and BHG(Wood magazine) appear to both charge for articles that were "free". I realize that everybody needs to make a buck but I think a better approach would have been to leave the existing articles free and offer another page with "chargeable articles". We can mostly blame the people on eBay that harvest this free information and burn it to a CD or copy it to an eBook that they offer for sale, charging for the information is one way to stop these leeches. More and more sites with free plans are now charging to download them for this very reason. My site has been copied verbatim so many times that I have just decided to ignore it, eBay gives lip service to the problem, but that is about all they do. I have an example on my site where boat plans are sold, what the customer gets is a photocopied sheet of paper with the instructions to go to my free plan site. -- http://absolutelyfreeplans.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Patriarch wrote:
However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically viable, .... *NOT* true. There are a sh*tload of 'viable' commercial subscription services out there on the 'net. Several _big_ ones: Medline Dunn & Bradstreet Lexis/Nexis OAG TRW credit reporting In addition, there are many _thousands_ of 'niche' operations, particularly in the realm of stock/commodities/futures/options investement advisory services that provide fee-based services -- either flat-rate subscription or on a pay-per-use basis. The folks that "make money" with Internet 'pay sites' are those who have a product that is valuable in a specialized market. They also tend to be 'nearly invisible' *outside* of the market that they serve. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Prometheus wrote: On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:53:33 -0400, Robatoy wrote: Hear, hear. As I paid for the magazine, I expect others should too... even for just an article. A membership fee, simple and effective, is not unreasonable IMHO. I kind of like Discover magazine's setup- subscribers to the magazine can enter the information from their mailing label, and that entitles you to access all the articles on the site. Might work for FWW, might not, but it works for me- and it's an incentive to get the subscription rather than nabbing things peicemeal. Yup, exactly. Consumers Reports does it that way as well. I can live with that. Discover is one of the finest mags on the planet..I just eat that sucker up and look forwards to its arrival. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Patriarch wrote: However, few other 'pay sites' on the Internet have proved economically viable, with the exception of adult content. well, they do run plenty of tool porn.... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
But where is Tauton looking to get it revenue from? I suspect the
revenue from books, videos and CD is what they are looking for from subscribers not page reprints. Will charging for page reprints keep one from buying a book on the same site? Not sure...time will tell. I am in the software business and understand e-commerce pretty well. I suspect this is an experiment based on the model created by other publications. They will know pretty soon via their Web stats and revenues if it is working or not. I'd be interested to know their "abandon rate" for the Web site and shopping cart. NTrout |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Robatoy wrote: I don't think I should have to pay for an album with just one 'hit/original thought' on it, when the rest of it is filled with crap and then the artist be too lazy to tour and play for his/her fans. Hence the success of Apple's iTunes Music Store, where you can buy single tracks for $0.99 each. A great model IMO. -- ~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~ ------------------------------------------------------ One site: http://www.balderstone.ca The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Frank Campbell
wrote: I have an example on my site where boat plans are sold, what the customer gets is a photocopied sheet of paper with the instructions to go to my free plan site. And you haven't picked up on this business model, Frank? ;-) -- ~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~ ------------------------------------------------------ One site: http://www.balderstone.ca The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Patriarch says...
I _knew_ that the moment I wrote this, various good and valid examples would be raised. Thank you. At least these corrections are polite. I shoulda kept my post shorter. ;-) The economic model is stil developing for this Internet thing. That's good. Patriarch The problem with old school media (including music) is that they want the Internet to just go away and they think that if they fight it or ignore it long enough it will. They are petrified of losing any of their profits, but if they don't adapt, they may in fact lose more than that. It just doesn't make sense to force people to buy CD's or magazines with the tools we have now. They need to accept the medium and sell their products for what they are worth. If they don't, then somebody will and that is where people will spend their money. If there is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that? I just can't grasp why these publishers won't put their product online at subscription rates. Less would be better, but the $5/issue subscription rate wouldn't be a burden. Are they afraid too many people would buy them? |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Hax
Planx wrote: If there is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that? Why shouldn't the cost reflect the value of the information, rather than simply the cost of distribution? I work for a publisher (have done for most of my career, various companies. I've been with this one for 11 years). The cost of printing and distributing our publications are a minority of the actual costs of running our business. f the FWW articles aren't worth the money TO YOU, don't buy them. Plain and simple. Value for money. -- ~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~ ------------------------------------------------------ One site: http://www.balderstone.ca The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 22:25:46 -0500, Hax Planx
wrote: Patriarch says... I _knew_ that the moment I wrote this, various good and valid examples would be raised. Thank you. At least these corrections are polite. I shoulda kept my post shorter. ;-) The economic model is stil developing for this Internet thing. That's good. Patriarch The problem with old school media (including music) is that they want the Internet to just go away and they think that if they fight it or ignore it long enough it will. They are petrified of losing any of their profits, but if they don't adapt, they may in fact lose more than that. It just doesn't make sense to force people to buy CD's or magazines with the tools we have now. ] Several years ago, I was a member of an organization that spent almost all of it's annual budget protecting copyrights it held the rights to. When asked, the executive officer stated bluntly that it was to keep the texts unchanged- it had nothing to do with making money. That may or may not have been true, and it may not be the same case with the music industry, but I have found (and YMMV) that MP3's are almost always signifiganty lower quality than a commerical CD. If they are investing in artists (and I am not familiar enough with that industry to know what they do and do not provide) and doing signifigant editing and providing high-quality recording media, it may be the case that they simply wish to provide a finished product whose quality is higher than that provided by viable electronic formats (by viable, I'm talking about MP3- I know there are lossless formats available, but not that many people are willing to make the time and bandwidth investment needed to download them.) They need to accept the medium and sell their products for what they are worth. If they don't, then somebody will and that is where people will spend their money. If there is no physical CD or magazine, why shouldn't the price reflect that? I just can't grasp why these publishers won't put their product online at subscription rates. Less would be better, but the $5/issue subscription rate wouldn't be a burden. Are they afraid too many people would buy them? As far as magazines go, I think you're onto something. I'd be willing to pay subscription price for a good electronic version of certain magazines. Music is another story altogether- even with the popularity of iPods and the like, I still prefer getting a master copy on an actual physical object. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
Hence the success of Apple's iTunes Music Store, where you can buy single tracks for $0.99 each. A great model IMO. You betcha ... as a longtime musician, with a recording studio and a small record label among other business interests, and therefore a vested, if somewhat small, interest in the economics of the music business, I agree totally. I've spent far more for single song music purchases _online_ since Apple and iPod than I ever would have buying albums at a traditional record store at my age When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... it appeals precisely to the same desires that built the industry in the first place. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Swingman" wrote: When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... it appeals precisely to the same desires that built the industry in the first place. As a kid, all my money went into a juke-box as I didn't have a record player till I was 17. What I did have, very early on, was a tube-powered portable radio. It had a massive lantern-sized battery plus a C battery for the filament. That thing kept me broke as well. On a good day I could listen to England, Germany or the pirate-ship radio stations like Caroline and Veronica. Nothing cured my teen-aged angst like a little harmony from the Everly Brothers. I'm still a sucker for a good bit of harmonizing, like Hollies, Peter and Gordon, Chad and Jeremy, Mamas & The Papas, CSNY, Beatles (As soon as I hit 'post' I'll think of a few more.......) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Swingman
wrote: When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... Except there's no "B" side... :-( -- ~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~ ------------------------------------------------------ One site: http://www.balderstone.ca The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message In article Swingman wrote: When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... Except there's no "B" side... :-( Considering that the average house cost about $9,000 at the time, $1.98 for two "sides", if you just have to have both, still ain't a bad deal. -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Swingman wrote: "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message In article Swingman wrote: When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my pocket and a hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... Except there's no "B" side... :-( Considering that the average house cost about $9,000 at the time, $1.98 for two "sides", if you just have to have both, still ain't a bad deal. Jeez, now you got me wondering what my parents used to pay for early 78s. I can't even recall what I paid for my original "Rock Around The Clock", which probably is a sign of age. I bought that thing twice, because I wore the first one out. Somehow, $.89 seems right, because I seem to recall 45s being a tad cheaper when they first came out, but fairly hateful to keep stacked and playing on most dual speed players. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Charlie Self" wrote in message Swingman wrote: "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message In article Swingman wrote: When you think about it, and except for the bricks and mortar, this model is almost exactly as it was when I was a kid with .49 cents in my and a hungering for the latest Sam Phillip's production ... Except there's no "B" side... :-( Considering that the average house cost about $9,000 at the time, $1.98 for two "sides", if you just have to have both, still ain't a bad deal. Jeez, now you got me wondering what my parents used to pay for early 78s. I can't even recall what I paid for my original "Rock Around The Clock", which probably is a sign of age. I bought that thing twice, because I wore the first one out. Somehow, $.89 seems right, because I seem to recall 45s being a tad cheaper when they first came out, but fairly hateful to keep stacked and playing on most dual speed players. Roughly 1955/56, and at the age of 12/13, I frequented "Robbie's Record Shop" and paid .49 cents per 45 record. First two I bought were Nervous Norvus' "Transfusion" and The Penguin's "Earth Angel". It was indeed a slippery slope ... -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 5/14/05 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
My first recording purchase was the album Iron Butterfly:
In-a-gadda-da-vida. (1968). I think it was about $3-4 at Kresge's (now K-mart). Dave |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Prometheus says...
music industry, but I have found (and YMMV) that MP3's are almost always signifiganty lower quality than a commerical CD. If they are investing in artists (and I am not familiar enough with that industry to know what they do and do not provide) and doing signifigant editing and providing high-quality recording media, it may be the case that they simply wish to provide a finished product whose quality is higher than that provided by viable electronic formats (by viable, I'm talking about MP3- I know there are lossless formats available, but not that many people are willing to make the time and bandwidth investment needed to download them.) I know that MP3 is a loss format, but the reduction in sound quality isn't as great as is generally believed. For the better sampling rates, the differences are almost insignificant. I have a bunch I have resampled to about 3 minutes per megabyte for a microscopic MP3 player and it is still hard to fault the sound quality. Besides, does anybody really believe that the music industry clowns care about sound quality considering the quality of music that is produced? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
*** Mini-FAQ for rec.woodworking # 131 - For want of somebody else posting this | Woodworking | |||
FS; Fine Woodworking Issues 1-175 | Woodworking | |||
Fine Woodworking Proven Shop Tips - NOT recommended | Woodworking | |||
Atlanta Woodworking Show this last weekend | Woodworking | |||
FAQ: HAND TOOLS (Repost) | Woodworking |