30-second soundbytes or whole songs?

[redbeard]

Hi,

I'm just about to release a CD, and am wondering, what works better as far as sales/exposure: Should I offer 30-second samples of each song, or just a couple songs, but the whole thing? What is the standard? I like the idea that someone can get something for nothing but then I want them to come back and want to buy the thing. Thanks.

Redbeard

[redbeard]

Just to clarify, the songs are being offered in MP3 format off my Web site ...

Redbeard

[cbcmusic]

I would post one or two whole songs. I always appreciate it and feel like the musicians want me to hear their material.

If on the other hand, you only get a 30 sec clip of it, I feel the musicians are being cheap and somehow it affects everything. If it's really that fucking good, then yeah, maybe I'll spring for a CD if it's reasonably priced. If you are some local band that noone knows outside of your neighborhood and are trying to charge what the big boys do, your website will start to collect dust before too long. $5 -10 is about right depending on how much work the CD has put into it. If it's aCDR, you may want to go even less, if not free.

I usually charge for this kind of advice. I'm trying to teach a lesson though.

[cbcmusic]

Well, shit. That makes a difference in my post above.

MP3's suck. Good luck.

p.s. No offense.

[markpar]

Well, shit. That makes a difference in my post above.

MP3's suck. Good luck.

p.s. No offense.

I don't understand how people can think that 64kbps compressed audio is OK. It just sounds like total ass to me. Even 128kbps is hard for me to listen to. Anything less than 192 and I can tell it's compressed. I ripped my CD collection to my computer at work and used Windows Media Variable Bit Rate (from 220 to about 350 kbps) and it sounds pretty good. Every once in a while I'll hear some cymbals that sound kinda' weird, but it's mostly good.

No offense, just my opinions.

-mark

[redbeard]

cbc ... thanks ... but are you saying I should put .aifs or .wavs up there? I'm new to this, why do MP3s suck? Why would they buy the CD if they already had a couple of CD quality songs (assuming that they like the music, of course!)? Anyone else can comment on this, as well. Thanks.

redbeard

[cbcmusic]

Hey redbeard,
Do you realize that MP3's are NOT CD quality? If you're new to this, most folks here are friendly and we like talking audio. Then again, I may be reading that last post incorrectly.

MP3's use a data loss compression to make the files smaller and easier to download, this data loss can be heard. The song is there, but if you were to compare the actual original recording to the MP3 version, you should be able to hear a big difference.

Like markpar said, you can make the MP3 to varying degrees of compression measured in kbps, but of course the bigger the kbps, the bigger the file and you start defeating the purpose of MP3's.

I personally don't like them, some don't care, I do.

[cbcmusic]

one more thing

You mentioned should you post .aif's or .wav's. No I wouldn't do that. They would be way too big. I personally won't buy MP3's, I don't download MP3's anyway unless they are from here and want us to critique their work or just plain hear it.

I hope I'm not discouraging you, give it a go and see for yourself what happens. You may prove me wrong and be the next big thing.

By the way, welcome aboard.

[black mariah]

Depending on the type of music and what exactly is in each song, MP3's can sound just fine at 64Kbps and like total ass at 192 (I've heard both). Anything with a lot of high end especially is hit hard by severe MP3 compression.

This seems as good a time as any other to mention Ogg Vorbis. It uses a variable bitrate scheme which I've seen vary from 100 to 210Kbps in the same song. You can learn more about it here: http://www.xiph.org/ Tell your friends and stuff.

And, to answer your question, put up a couple of full songs. I don't know of anyone that likes 30 second clips. Use MP3 and don't bother with anything else right now. 128Kbps will be completely fine except for the few here that can't ignore some artifacts. They can go shove their tube gear up their arse.

These emoticons suck. I think I need to start using my own.

[Verboten]

IMHO - Most people (not engineers or audiofiles) aren't gonna care about sound quality when downloading your song/s - as long as the song is there, someone's gonna download it and appreciate it.

On my band's site - we usually offer a few 30 second teasers and rotate 2-3 whole songs every month or so. That way, if someone wants the whole CD and doesn't wanna pay for it, if they wait 6 months, they'll have it all in mp3 form.

According to our monthly web site tracking (which the web host supplies as part of their service), those 30 second clips are the most popular mp3's on the site. Followed closely by the full-length mp3's. We also have garnered a lot of on-line sales due to those clips - we know who's been on the site, who's downloaded what and who's bought what.

Ain't big brother great?! Long and short of it is - I think both clips and full mp3s do the trick. Wow - that's probably my longest post ever!

[jajjguy]

Sure, mp3s suck for full-on pleasure listening through your awesome stereo, but for getting a taste of a group over the internet, probably on crappy computer speakers, it's just fine. Besides, it's free. It's just a taste to see if you want to buy the CD.

And yes, whole songs. When I decide whether i like something, it's based on how the thing develops, not on how it sounds in a particular snapshot.

[cbcmusic]

128Kbps will be completely fine except for the few here that can't ignore some artifacts. They can go shove their tube gear up their arse.

I realize you are mostly kidding, but I am not one of those audiophile types. And I can ignore those digital artifacts, I choose not to buy them . I prefer not to have a label of sorts associated with me. I don't buy MP3's & if you think it's only markpar and myself who don't, you're mistaken.

By the way Black Mariah, did you ever post that information about intonation, setting action etc? I've been looking forward to it.

[cbcmusic]

Besides, it's free.

I believe the original poster wants to sell his MP3's, not hand them out for free.

But I agree, they are good to give a listen to to decide if you like their music. I wouldn't buy them though... personally.

[redbeard]

Thanks everyone, my question was definitely answered ... this place is great. So is the magazine. I have posted once before but that was with the OLD message board.

Anyway, the MP3s are just for a taste, the CDs are regular CD quality ... I wouldn't sell MP3s ...

So what I'm going to do is at least two full MP3s (192 rate) out of 13 possible songs and then think some more about doing little clips of the rest.

Thanks again.

redbeard

[markpar]

You might think about doing a smaller bit rate version for people on low bandwidth connections (i.e. dialup). As much as I personally dislike low bit rates, I'd probably do it for a song or two so as not to cut off anyone on dialup.

-mark