TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 99 of 99

Thread: When Newer Tech is Not Better

  1. #76
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: Edmonton
    I did transfer it to a new hard drive a while back, but how could the old hard drive fail without damaging the data?

  2. #77
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Aja View Post
    I did transfer it to a new hard drive a while back, but how could the old hard drive fail without damaging the data?
    File glitches happen from time to time and it's not always apparent something went wrong. It probably happened at some point before the files were transferred. I'm not talking about complete drive failure, but it making mistakes. This is a risk with any writable media.

    If you copied all your old games from CD to ISO files and stored them on a hard-drive that would have the same issues of failure as converting all your music CDs the same way. Hard drives fuck up. Don't rely on them.

    EDIT: however this is definitely a relevant example for the thread. There are pros and cons to either having CDs or having a music collection on your hard-drive.

    With CDs, we learn how to handle the CDs properly, and about the importance of putting the correct disc back into the correct case. Those are things you don't need to worry about with a digital-only collection. But of course, the "how to handle CDs correctly" rules get replaced by new rules about how to maintain and handle your digital collection. Files getting corrupted and not knowing that was a possibility is the digital equivalent of you didn't put your CD back in the case and someone spilled coffee on the table and now it won't play.

    EDIT2: the problem with maintaining digital collections of *anything* on drives you own are clear. You're now responsible for hardware issues, maintaining backups, etc. Also the more digital files you collect, the larger a percentage of your time is spent *maintaining and sorting* files rather than actually consuming the content. And that's not even taking things like hardware failures or file corruption into account.

    Most people have now leap-frogged to music streaming services because then you don't have the overhead of even maintaining a collection. The result is they spend more of a percentage of their time actually consuming content rather than maintaining a collection, but the drawback is having less control.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 10th Apr 2021 at 17:34.

  3. #78
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: In my room
    Less control sounds a bit vague. It's leasing music vs. owning it.

    @Aja I don't know how your HD failed but HDs get partially corrupted quite regularly and the OS just works around the corrupted sectors.

  4. #79
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2002
    Location: Edmonton
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    File glitches happen from time to time and it's not always apparent something went wrong. It probably happened at some point before the files were transferred. I'm not talking about complete drive failure, but it making mistakes. This is a risk with any writable media.
    I get that, but if the old hard drive failed and the files were corrupted, why would they be working now on the new drive?

  5. #80
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    Less control sounds a bit vague. It's leasing music vs. owning it.
    I actually don't think that analogy works out that well. If you pay a monthly subscription to Spotify for example, you're not leasing any specific piece of music, you're paying for access to all the musics, which have been curated and have had all the storage issues handled by someone else. So it's more like a library with a membership fee than it is like a Blockbuster video store and renting out titles.

    So, if the subscription is $5 a month for premium then you can either pay $60 a year to have access to thousands of titles, or you can save up and buy two $30 new release CDs per year with that same money. The cost/benefit analysis shifts quickly in favor of streaming unless you really only have a few albums you like to listen to and don't want to get new ones very often. Additionally, if you collect a lot of physical media then the cost and difficulty in managing all that stuff keeps going up.

    A lot of younger people don't even have a CD player or music collection. Holding onto them at this point is mostly sunk-cost thinking. I haven't bought new CDs in years, and the only ones I'd consider would be some by a couple of new favorite artists of mine: stuff I'd buy as collectables **not to listen to**.

    The lease vs buy question works best for things like your house, car, fridge or TV. Things that you probably want exactly one of. Taking out a loan to get a house works out cheaper than renting, especially in the long run, for example. So in these cases you can say "buying it outright means you save money - they're gouging you on those lease fees!" But this argument doesn't work for things such as books that you can get from the library, or other library-like arrangements.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 10th Apr 2021 at 23:30.

  6. #81
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    The cost/benefit analysis shifts quickly in favor of streaming unless you really only have a few albums you like to listen to and don't want to get new ones very often.
    Oh hai! Lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    A lot of younger people don't even have a CD player or music collection. Holding onto them at this point is mostly sunk-cost thinking. I haven't bought new CDs in years, and the only ones I'd consider would be some by a couple of new favorite artists of mine: stuff I'd buy as collectables **not to listen to**.
    Weird fact: I have a bunch of "new" unopened CD's because Amazon essentially paid me to ship them to me. Here's what I mean: The cost of buying the digital album was more than the cost of buying the CD, however, the CD purchase included immediate access to the digital album. ...For less than the cost of the digital album itself.

  7. #82
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    I buy CD's all the time, basically because it's physical media that takes up very little space and because I can then create my own compressed or lossless files from them to listen to on my PC, mp3 player, or phone which gives me control over the quality of the resulting files instead of depending on whatever random format I'm going to find in a torrent or on youtube (don't get me wrong, I like torrents and YT for previewing albums before buying them). I like having artwork and liner notes as part of the experience. I like having something I can listen to effectively forever without having to worry about an online service being inaccessible or dealing with DRM or whatever. It's just a better experience overall for me.

  8. #83
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    I still buy CDs and I buy downloads. I prefer to buy downloads if I can get them in FLAC or WAV format for the same price as the CD. Because if I buy the CD, I'm just going to rip it and throw it in a box. It's such a waste to produce and ship a plastic thingy when all I want is the data. But often the downloads cost more than the CD, and sometimes the download is only available in a lossy format.

    The main reason why I still buy music is to patronize artists I like who aren't super popular and thus rich. There's a lot of good artists out there who are just making a living and they get basically nothing from streaming.

    I also subscribe to Qobuz but I'm thinking of dropping it because I don't use it that much, mainly when my wife wants to hear something she remembers from the 80s or 90s.

    Regarding the discussion of file degradation/corruption, anybody who has anything they don't want to lose on their computer should be backing it up regularly. If you're like me and you store important things like family photos & videos, tax forms and other important records, save files from your first time playing SS2 etc. then you really should consider having an off-site backup too in case of a fire.

  9. #84
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Maupertuis
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    ...you can save up and buy two $30 new release CDs per year with that same money.
    I don't know where you got that number from. New CDs are usually $10, and used ones go so low that shipping takes up most of their cost.

    I use CDs because I have little willpower. My office has no PC, because if it did I'd spend half the day on the Internet or playing games. I do, however, have a CD player and a nice collection of CDs.

  10. #85
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Oh hai! Lol.

    Weird fact: I have a bunch of "new" unopened CD's because Amazon essentially paid me to ship them to me. Here's what I mean: The cost of buying the digital album was more than the cost of buying the CD, however, the CD purchase included immediate access to the digital album. ...For less than the cost of the digital album itself.
    That's a marketing trick right there. See the psychology research, they know what they're doing:

    https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely..._own_decisions

    I checked the times, at about 12 minutes into the video there's an example almost identical to the scenario you've mentioned.

    In the video example, you can get
    Option 1) digital subscription ($59)
    Option 2) physical subscription ($125)
    Option 3) physical subscription + digital subscription (also $125)

    Basically nobody EVER picks option 2, and most people pick option 3 since it seems like the best value. However, even though option 2 is NEVER picked, if you actually remove option 2 from the menu, then most people switch from Option 3 to Option 1. Just having a clearly over-priced option tricks people into thinking they got better value for money and found a "loophole" in the system.

    In your example, they have the digital version alone, or the physical version, which includes a "free" copy of the digital version, and you wonder why they even offer the digital version or why they don't at least drop the price. Well, just having that there make the physical version sound like better value, so it drives sales, and if they dropped the price of the digital version, then they've probably found that total sales decline. So those two prices are the way they are because humans are irrational, and displaying those prices maximizes sales.

    So "useless" options are actually included because they've been proven to work. Even if nobody ever picks them, they affect behavior because they provide information about something the consumer lacks information about. This probably explains things like fast food meal-combo pricing too. You may have looked at the pricing and thought it's ridiculous, and it is, but they ALSO know what they're doing and have intensely research the psychology of pricing to get the prices just-right to steer decision making how they want.

    Having the not-good-value digital version cost the same or more than the physical+digital version actually tricks people into perceiving the other option as being better value than it really is. It's the same psychology that shows that if you want to sell chocolates, make an advert that says the buyer could either get a $5000 diamond ring for their valentine or buy the $40 premium chocolates.

    ---------------------------

    As for the better-value thing, personally i get all my music for free because most of what I want is obscure Touhou stuff, J-metal and other stuff that's not on the major platforms.

    But if some younger person was to pick between having the premium spotify or buying new CDs then it would probably be easier to have the Spotify. The real question is whether you really want to have your house cluttered with junk or not, just so you can have a choice of what to watch, listen to, or play at any time.

    There are definitely pros and cons to cluttering your house with detritus. It probably happened with movies first, because how many fucking times do you actually want to see the same movie to the extent that you have shelf after shelf of movies just sitting around cluttering your place up?
    Last edited by Cipheron; 11th Apr 2021 at 16:37.

  11. #86
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Anarchic Fox View Post
    I don't know where you got that number from. New CDs are usually $10, and used ones go so low that shipping takes up most of their cost.

    I use CDs because I have little willpower. My office has no PC, because if it did I'd spend half the day on the Internet or playing games. I do, however, have a CD player and a nice collection of CDs.
    From the prices we pay in stores. I did say "new release" CDs. As in the current new releases. Not "new CDs" as in, cost of printing a CD, which is like 2 cents.

    https://www.jbhifi.com.au/collections/music

    For example the top one here is the new release Taylor Swift album, $30.99. I'm thinking from the perspective of a younger person who wants access to the current music. They pay a premium for that, the same as launch prices for games. Sure, you can wait and get the same album half the price in a year, but that's really the same discussion as launch prices for games. Those people want the current stuff when it's out, because of course they do. If nobody wanted the current stuff when it comes out, then those industries would collapse and there wouldn't be any "wait a year and it's cheaper" thing going, since those games / music / movies wouldn't get made in the first place.

    But it also makes sense for an older person. For example, I used to have pretty much ever Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd album, but i don't now. If i want to listen to all those again, I could either shell out hundreds of dollars for copies of all that stuff, spend weeks tracking that shit down, or I could shell out $10 a month for premium Spotify access then just listen to the albums I want to right away, plus browse thousands of other artists i never got around to listening to.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 11th Apr 2021 at 17:03.

  12. #87
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Option 1) digital subscription ($59)
    Option 2) physical subscription ($125)
    Option 3) physical subscription + digital subscription (also $125)
    Umm... In the scenario I'm discussing, the physical+digital is cheaper than the digital alone, rather than more than double the cost. The important difference is that this is kind of a trick whereas in what I experienced you're just literally getting more for less.

    Well, just having that there make the physical version sound like better value, so it drives sales, and if they dropped the price of the digital version, then they've probably found that total sales decline.
    Maybe, but I doubt it. I bet they do it because the digital version simply has more demand, and can therefore command a higher price, with a lot of potential customers never doing the comparison. "Anchoring" is a real thing but it works better with items less ubiquitous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    For example the top one here is the new release Taylor Swift album, $30.99.
    I'm like WTF, that's not right. Then I look at the link. OHHHH you're in Australia, land of high entertainment prices for no discernable reason. That same two-CD album is $17.59 on Amazon in the 'States.

  13. #88
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    That's a marketing trick right there. See the psychology research, they know what they're doing:

    https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely..._own_decisions

    I checked the times, at about 12 minutes into the video there's an example almost identical to the scenario you've mentioned.

    In the video example, you can get
    Option 1) digital subscription ($59)
    Option 2) physical subscription ($125)
    Option 3) physical subscription + digital subscription (also $125)

    Basically nobody EVER picks option 2, and most people pick option 3 since it seems like the best value. However, even though option 2 is NEVER picked, if you actually remove option 2 from the menu, then most people switch from Option 3 to Option 1. Just having a clearly over-priced option tricks people into thinking they got better value for money and found a "loophole" in the system.

    In your example, they have the digital version alone, or the physical version, which includes a "free" copy of the digital version, and you wonder why they even offer the digital version or why they don't at least drop the price. Well, just having that there make the physical version sound like better value, so it drives sales, and if they dropped the price of the digital version, then they've probably found that total sales decline. So those two prices are the way they are because humans are irrational, and displaying those prices maximizes sales.
    Your example is different from Pyrian's example. In Pyrian's example, option 1 costs more than option 2 and option 3. That's right, the digital download alone costs more than the physical copy + digital download. His is not an isolated example. I see it too and it's the reason why I still buy some CDs. I would rather just download the product. It's more convenient for me and more profit for them. But I'm not going to pay extra to not have a physical copy.

  14. #89
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    @Pyrian, @ heywood

    While it's not *exactly* the same, the psychology angle is still there.

    While you say you doubt it, wouldn't you equally doubt the actual findings from the research in the video? I'm sure if the scenario *just happened* to be the exact scenario from the video and I said removing that option would change people spending patterns, you've have doubted that *and for the same reasons*. What does that suggest?

    The video example is just an *example* of a situation where that occurs. If you see the rest of the video they were able to engineer the same type of thing in a variety of domains, quite flexibly. So it's reproducible and the exact specifics aren't that important: pairing an option with a slightly worse version of itself makes that option look better, not just against the "worse" option, but against unrelated options.

    In this case, the "option" that it's competing with is *literally anything else* you could spend that same money on:

    Option 1: buy something else entirely
    Option 2: digital only (say $15)
    Option 3: digital plus physical (say $14)

    So Option 2 is still the "slightly worse option" here. Making it cost a dollar more instead of the same price hasn't changed that, in fact, the fact that it's stealing a dollar from you makes it more effective in making Option 3 look like a better bargain: you get a free CD PLUS a free dollar by picking Option 3.

    And unlike the constrained options in the study, an "Option 1" always exists in the real world, since you can decide to buy something else, so that's always an implicit Option 1.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 11th Apr 2021 at 19:59.

  15. #90
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: In my room
    I buy FLAC files, mostly of bandcamp. Mere access to music, especially in an inferior quality like Spotify streaming, is worthless.
    What I care about is selection, quality and support. 99% of all music is shit. So I spend a lot of time to select music and when I find an artist that clicks with me, I want to support them so they make more good music. And I want excellent quality at my pleasure.
    Spotify can't help me, because I can already listen to more than I could ever consume, access ain't the problem. It can't help with selection either, I tried that. And it will not help with supporting musicians.
    Finding good music these days is work. You either do the work or you listen to old stuff and get sad or to the inoffensive shit list everyone else listens to and get emotionally numbed.

  16. #91
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Am I the only one who finds something they like from forums or youtube and buys the download from Amazon then? I put it in my computer library and burn mix CD's for my ride, though it would be a memory stick, if the sound system were up to date. I get the songs I like put in an order I like. I support exactly what I like that way. It would be nice if there were radio stations which played a range of things and were more experimental in their choices but that is no longer an option so I can no longer just chance upon a song there the way I once could.

    Never been to bandcamp. Is that a good way to chance on music?

  17. #92
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2002
    Location: melon labneh
    I haven't found it very practical for discovering new music, it is more powerful for the artists you already follow.

    Bandcamp is my main source for digital music and the only digital model that I want to support for the time being: you get to download mp3 or flac or stream from their app. You can pay more than the base price if you want. You can order physical releases and immediately get the digital version added to your library, I do this a lot with vinyl records since I like collecting them and CD cases have never felt right to the touch to me. You can get merch. You can subscribe to labels and get all their releases automatically. You can configure notifications for new releases from artists you follow. The purchase process is so streamlined that even a baby could do it.
    As a business, they have repeatedly put the needs of the artists at the top of their priorities e.g. with monthly Fridays where they've waived their share since the pandemic hit.

    I was reading this dumb article from the Guardian and was shocked not to see it mentioned even once.

    As far as I'm concerned the only benefit I get from commercial streaming is AI-driven recommendations, and I can get that for free out of YouTube which has an amazing engine. But that's because I've got my own self-hosted streaming infrastructure (+ Bandcamp app) to then play what I buy/rip/pirate so I don't need additional services. And with that said, fuck Spotify.
    Last edited by Briareos H; 12th Apr 2021 at 03:32. Reason: Now with added swearing

  18. #93
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: In my room
    Quote Originally Posted by Briareos H View Post
    Reason: Now with added swearing
    Oh weee!


  19. #94
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Cipheron View Post
    @Pyrian, @ heywood

    While it's not *exactly* the same, the psychology angle is still there.

    While you say you doubt it, wouldn't you equally doubt the actual findings from the research in the video? I'm sure if the scenario *just happened* to be the exact scenario from the video and I said removing that option would change people spending patterns, you've have doubted that *and for the same reasons*. What does that suggest?

    The video example is just an *example* of a situation where that occurs. If you see the rest of the video they were able to engineer the same type of thing in a variety of domains, quite flexibly. So it's reproducible and the exact specifics aren't that important: pairing an option with a slightly worse version of itself makes that option look better, not just against the "worse" option, but against unrelated options.

    In this case, the "option" that it's competing with is *literally anything else* you could spend that same money on:

    Option 1: buy something else entirely
    Option 2: digital only (say $15)
    Option 3: digital plus physical (say $14)

    So Option 2 is still the "slightly worse option" here. Making it cost a dollar more instead of the same price hasn't changed that, in fact, the fact that it's stealing a dollar from you makes it more effective in making Option 3 look like a better bargain: you get a free CD PLUS a free dollar by picking Option 3.

    And unlike the constrained options in the study, an "Option 1" always exists in the real world, since you can decide to buy something else, so that's always an implicit Option 1.
    The research findings you posted apply to a different sales strategy in which the consumer is up-sold into a higher-priced offering that they wouldn't have otherwise chosen. That's different from what I'm doing.

    I'll give you a recent example. My wife has been revisiting 80s pop and decided she wanted to buy a-ha's original hit album Hunting High and Low. So I did what I usually do and searched for a digital download version that wasn't lossy compressed. I found it on hdtracks.com for $16. Then I looked on Amazon. They had an MP3 download for $9.50. But they also had multiple 3rd party sellers offering the CD for $7.50. So I bought the CD and ripped it to FLAC.

    I think I know the reason why lossless downloads cost more than CDs. They are catering to the instant gratification market, people who want to listen right now and don't want to wait for the CD in the mail. But it generates a lot of waste when people like me buy the CDs just for the files.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    I buy FLAC files, mostly of bandcamp. Mere access to music, especially in an inferior quality like Spotify streaming, is worthless.
    What I care about is selection, quality and support. 99% of all music is shit. So I spend a lot of time to select music and when I find an artist that clicks with me, I want to support them so they make more good music. And I want excellent quality at my pleasure.
    Spotify can't help me, because I can already listen to more than I could ever consume, access ain't the problem. It can't help with selection either, I tried that. And it will not help with supporting musicians.
    Finding good music these days is work. You either do the work or you listen to old stuff and get sad or to the inoffensive shit list everyone else listens to and get emotionally numbed.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by Briareos H View Post
    As far as I'm concerned the only benefit I get from commercial streaming is AI-driven recommendations, and I can get that for free out of YouTube which has an amazing engine. But that's because I've got my own self-hosted streaming infrastructure (+ Bandcamp app) to then play what I buy/rip/pirate so I don't need additional services. And with that said, fuck Spotify.
    I do too, and I agree that YouTube is great for discovering music through their recommendations.

  20. #95
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2002
    Location: Maupertuis
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    It would be nice if there were radio stations which played a range of things and were more experimental in their choices but that is no longer an option so I can no longer just chance upon a song there the way I once could.
    Oddly enough, Dallas now has a non-commercial, ad-free radio station which plays a wide variety of music, which uses the same funding model as NPR. It launched in 2009. I wonder how common such stations are, now that the economics of radio have changed so drastically. I did find a list of non-commercial stations, but it doesn't specify which ones are music only.

  21. #96
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2003
    Location: The Plateaux Of Mirror
    I'm probably spoiled by being near Pittsburgh, but we have 2 relatively decent public radio stations (QED and YEP) and, more importantly, RCT which is CMU's radio station and tends to have adventurous programming.

    Personally, I never really found 'new' music through the radio and generally find more stuff by playing the "influenced by/similar to/influenced" game on Allmusic or seeing what Spotify does if I create a playlist using an obscure band I really like. Actually, nowadays I mostly just buy a bottle of whiskey and spend a few days using google to explore old genres I never got into deeply for one reason or another.
    Last edited by Jason Moyer; 12th Apr 2021 at 11:58.

  22. #97
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Regarding the discussion of file degradation/corruption, anybody who has anything they don't want to lose on their computer should be backing it up regularly. If you're like me and you store important things like family photos & videos, tax forms and other important records, save files from your first time playing SS2 etc. then you really should consider having an off-site backup too in case of a fire.
    As the saying goes, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who back up their data and those who will back up their data.

  23. #98
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: In my room
    Some web radio streams for the musically adventourus:

    FM4 (Austria, English/German moderation) https://fm4.orf.at/player/live
    Köln Campus (from my hometown, German moderation): http://koelncampus.uni-koeln.de/hq

  24. #99
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2020
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    The research findings you posted apply to a different sales strategy in which the consumer is up-sold into a higher-priced offering that they wouldn't have otherwise chosen. That's different from what I'm doing.

    I'll give you a recent example. My wife has been revisiting 80s pop and decided she wanted to buy a-ha's original hit album Hunting High and Low. So I did what I usually do and searched for a digital download version that wasn't lossy compressed. I found it on hdtracks.com for $16. Then I looked on Amazon. They had an MP3 download for $9.50. But they also had multiple 3rd party sellers offering the CD for $7.50. So I bought the CD and ripped it to FLAC.

    I think I know the reason why lossless downloads cost more than CDs. They are catering to the instant gratification market, people who want to listen right now and don't want to wait for the CD in the mail. But it generates a lot of waste when people like me buy the CDs just for the files.
    It is basic economics. We still have the bias that physical things are "worth more" economically, but that's only an assumption, and assumptions need to be tested against reality. One factor is that many people don't actually have a CD device anymore, so they can only choose to buy the digital version. So that drives differential demand higher for the digital version.

    However there's the other factor, which is the labor theory of value. Almost nobody gets the CD for actual playing now, it's almost always to convert them to something else. So there is specialized labor needed to get that into a usable form. That labor adds value, so people have naturally come to add a premium onto having the music already in the ideal form, and the labor-costs includes gaining the knowledge needed to do the task, not just the time to do the task itself. This just boils down to classical specialization of labor.

    But back to the research topic. You're talking about "shopping around" here. But the scenario we were discussing was about differing prices on the SAME site. You hadn't actually mentioned that the prices were on different retailers until just now, so that's changing the scenario that we were discussing.

    hdtracks.com can probably charge extra due to being a premium service. Many people are time-poor as much as they are money-poor. Say you're not sure what album to get, so you go on Amazon, search albums, but you also have to filter through various formats, qualities, CD vs digital etc, and hope that the album you searched for is available in high quality. That's a lot more irrelevant stuff to sort through. How often are you in some form of online shopping only to find that the stuff you're searching through isn't in the right format or some other issue? It makes it very difficult to compare options if many of them turn out not to be suitable once you click on them. Or you could go on hdtracks.com, search for a specific artists or genre, and you know that everything you browse is in a *consistent* quality. This would make it easy to assess the value of options quickly. hdtracks.com isn't just high quality tracks, it's curated for you. That's the service you're paying extra for.
    Last edited by Cipheron; 13th Apr 2021 at 19:09.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •