good point about beatport, not sure if they'll have all the same selections? perhaps... i'm just digging the hell out of WAS lately so it makes for easy browsing. as for charts, i will if anyone asks! :)
i would prefer to be able to buy vinyl from them (last i checked they were doing business accounts only.....) but you can't beat their selection! of course it's more expensive than beatport thanks to the exchange rate, but pretty much all of them are if you live in the US. i'm lookin' at you, kompakt store!
i wish they had higher bitrates for a lot of the back catalog, i dunno about this 224kb jazz. at least the site isn't slow as balls like kompakt's though.
i also wish there were some universal tagging standards for all the digital shops. you can make it happen, man. and put me in your movie.
yeah, i didn't see the 224 at first either... leaves me a bit nonplussed too. i'm still not even DJing digitally so it's not that much of an issue for me - i'm still handcuffed to vinyl. at least it's a way for home listeners to start hearing the shit, hopefully might wean them off their yousendit ways a bit.
jeff, we'd love to put you in the movie. are you coming to miami/mutek/sonar?
Benedikt here, I created the playwordandsound.net website. Wordandsound is in the planning phase of selling WAVs, but apart from technical issues there's always the problem of labels not really being ready to let out WAVs (no point to it in my opinion as you can also make great bootlegs from 320Kb MP3s). So artists should talk to their labels and ask for a change of mind about this issue. Yes, Jeff I am looking at you ;-)
phil, i hilariously just returned from barcelona. i played at zen club sunday night. for some reason i didnt think you were in town, but i didnt have internet anyway so i never could've gotten a hold of you. :( i will probably be at mutek, that is the only event likely out of the three at this point.
benedikt, i can certainly understand back catalog being at lower bitrates...but what about for instance villalobos "achso" is 224kb at wordandsound but it is 320kb at beatport? i am not trying to give you a hard time, i just was wondering. i am very happy your site is up and have made quite a few purchases already!
wavs are cool but 320kb is probably just fine. i am sure the wavs take up a lot of service space and affect the speed of the website. to me, 320kb from a digital master sounds better than a 24/96 wav recording from brand new vinyl of the same track. i could tell a bigger difference between this instead of 320kb vs. wav.
what about.flac? surely this will become the format of choice for digital djing, it's lossless, it's playable and widely supported. i don't understand why beatport et al haven't jumped on it...maybe i'm being impatient, but mp3 just doesn't feel like it's worth anything to me (probably because of years of illegal downloading). i'm moving away from vinyl(trying to anyway) and am currently encoding my records - but i don't think i'll stop buying more vinyl until i can get those same releases as .flacs.
Comments
Good stuff, but beatport might be cheaper here in the states. Any chance you are going to do charts for any of these shops?
Posted by: hector | February 23, 2006 02:48 PM
good point about beatport, not sure if they'll have all the same selections? perhaps... i'm just digging the hell out of WAS lately so it makes for easy browsing. as for charts, i will if anyone asks! :)
Posted by: philip | February 23, 2006 03:05 PM
i would prefer to be able to buy vinyl from them (last i checked they were doing business accounts only.....) but you can't beat their selection! of course it's more expensive than beatport thanks to the exchange rate, but pretty much all of them are if you live in the US. i'm lookin' at you, kompakt store!
Posted by: matt | February 23, 2006 04:04 PM
i wish they had higher bitrates for a lot of the back catalog, i dunno about this 224kb jazz. at least the site isn't slow as balls like kompakt's though.
i also wish there were some universal tagging standards for all the digital shops. you can make it happen, man. and put me in your movie.
Posted by: jeff samuel | February 23, 2006 11:00 PM
yeah, i didn't see the 224 at first either... leaves me a bit nonplussed too. i'm still not even DJing digitally so it's not that much of an issue for me - i'm still handcuffed to vinyl. at least it's a way for home listeners to start hearing the shit, hopefully might wean them off their yousendit ways a bit.
jeff, we'd love to put you in the movie. are you coming to miami/mutek/sonar?
Posted by: philip | February 24, 2006 06:13 AM
Hey guys,
Benedikt here, I created the playwordandsound.net website. Wordandsound is in the planning phase of selling WAVs, but apart from technical issues there's always the problem of labels not really being ready to let out WAVs (no point to it in my opinion as you can also make great bootlegs from 320Kb MP3s). So artists should talk to their labels and ask for a change of mind about this issue. Yes, Jeff I am looking at you ;-)
Posted by: Benedikt | February 27, 2006 02:16 AM
Looks like Juno finally got it together as well. There's a digital tab on the search result pages now.
Posted by: jeffery | February 27, 2006 10:46 PM
phil, i hilariously just returned from barcelona. i played at zen club sunday night. for some reason i didnt think you were in town, but i didnt have internet anyway so i never could've gotten a hold of you. :( i will probably be at mutek, that is the only event likely out of the three at this point.
benedikt, i can certainly understand back catalog being at lower bitrates...but what about for instance villalobos "achso" is 224kb at wordandsound but it is 320kb at beatport? i am not trying to give you a hard time, i just was wondering. i am very happy your site is up and have made quite a few purchases already!
wavs are cool but 320kb is probably just fine. i am sure the wavs take up a lot of service space and affect the speed of the website. to me, 320kb from a digital master sounds better than a 24/96 wav recording from brand new vinyl of the same track. i could tell a bigger difference between this instead of 320kb vs. wav.
just my own thoughts, of course.
Posted by: jeff samuel | February 28, 2006 11:46 PM
what about.flac? surely this will become the format of choice for digital djing, it's lossless, it's playable and widely supported. i don't understand why beatport et al haven't jumped on it...maybe i'm being impatient, but mp3 just doesn't feel like it's worth anything to me (probably because of years of illegal downloading). i'm moving away from vinyl(trying to anyway) and am currently encoding my records - but i don't think i'll stop buying more vinyl until i can get those same releases as .flacs.
peace!
Posted by: adverb | March 6, 2006 06:23 PM