I have owned Les Pauls and a PRS SE Custom 24. Both are great guitars but I always end up coming back to my Epiphone Sheraton. The look and sound great and are very affordable too. Here is mine!
I was taking a good solid look at the Sheratons too! I love the laid-back, mellowed out tone.
- Reverend Flatroc
- PRS SE
- Gibson 2014 SGJ14
- Used Les Paul Studio
What do you guys use.
I have one horror track and it is the item that has sold the most!
I have a uke that I almost never use. Nice sounding instrument, cool tuning, but it doesn’t really inspire me to write anything around it. You guys can have the uke tracks!
You can’t go wrong with Sibelius. It can be finicky at times…but then again, all programs can be finicky at times.
It doesn’t really have much to do with talent. Think about how many talented and skilled musicians there are in the word. Millions. How many are successful? A handful. Talent combined with luck combined with hard work combined with advertising combined with branding combined with promotion combined with more luck combined with more hard work combined with more more promotion and maybe you get to the point where you are making a living from it, and probably not a very good one. Also, it’s important not to care too much about what other people think about your music…you are your own worst critique. If you like it and think that it is good, then it is. If you have doubts, then you need to work harder. Commercial success does not equate to talent, commercial success equates to what’s palatable, and more importantly (in the case of this particular site) what is useful.
I don’t know who makes up the Audio Jungle market. We can speculate, but there’s really no way to tell, barring Audio Jungle doing a useful survey. I assume a large chunk are people looking for music for online-media (youtube videos, websites and the like) where the format is going to end up fairly low-fi anyway, because the end product is going to be streamed. Sound effects are probably amateur/independent filmmakers and occasionally people producing video games across multiple platforms (and also web-content developers). A really talented sound-producer, engineer, someone who knows what they are doing…I’m assuming a lot of these people are probably capable of producing their own stuff and are probably trying to make a living doing it themselves. Movie studios and the like will have dedicated people for this. Independent filmmakers and web-content developers…I’d wager those are the people buying most of the content here, and I’d wager their highest priority is what works or sounds right versus what was encoded in the highest quality. There are probably some television shows with fast production schedules (soap operas come to mind) that need to outsource a bit, but if they are looking for the fast solution, I don’t think they are too concerned about hi-resolution. A film producer with a budget is going to hire someone to score whatever they are doing (or license popular music), large companies and firms might use AudioJungle for online content, but for TV commercials and the like, even if they like an AudioJungle track, they would probably just contact the author and work out an exclusivity deal wherein they outline exactly what they want.
Most of the music here isn’t for people looking to listen to new music for entertainment purposes, but on the flip side there are a few singer/songwriters trying to sell their music here, so I wouldn’t completely discount it. That’s what Trax is all about.
But that’s all just speculation.
buddhabeats saidThat’s a very good point – I tend to forget about the bigger, better, faster mindset of the average consumer. Personally, I don’t need everything to be in the highest resolution or definition (I don’t need to see the pores in people’s faces when I watch television shows or movies) but the average consumer loves that stuff. I find it interesting that video has taken great leaps forward, when the average consumer still get’s their music and sound delivered to them on cheap ear buds or speakers built into television sets, and in compressed formats. DVD and Blu Ray might encode at higher sample rates, but 99 out of a 100 people playing back that DVD or Blu Ray probably lack the proper equipment to take advantage of it. Still, we would be selling to the person producing the Blu Ray or television commercial, so it would seem advantageous to start with a high resolution. I believe the rationale (in AudioJungle’s) thinking is to keep the sample and bit-rates rates where they are because it’s the most COMPATIBLE format. If you didn’t know much about audio production, and you tried to burn anything other than a 44.1, 16bit wav to a cd (for example), you might get frustrated and start smashing things. I think the best solution would still be to let the authors who wanted to do so include higher resolution versions in their uploads, and incorporate it into the description, meta data, and the HTML Forms when uploading.
I have my opinions on the differences between lower and higher sample rates, but that’s not really what I’m trying to get at here. It’s not a matter of “is a higher sample rate better than 44.1kHz” but a matter of “is a higher sample rate PERCEIVED [by our customers] as being better than 44.1kHz”. I believe that’s an important distinction here.
By that I’m saying, is it possible that we might lose potential sales because some of our customers believe a higher sample rate is better? Yes.
Conversely, is it possible that we might lose sales because customers feel the sample rates are too high? No. (With the assumption that there’s a lower sample rate available for download or they’re not paying a lot more for the higher sample rate)
If this marketplace is only targeting the casual home user and has no ambitions in seeing professionals in mass purchasing here, then I think the discussion is done.
However, to attract more professionals (who by the way, continuously spend a lot of money on music and sound effects) I submit that the sample rate and bit depth must go up.
Where do I get this info? My own experiences and colleagues for one. Viewing our competition (other marketplaces, stock library websites, etc) and this interesting survey:
Last June/July, a gentleman conducted a survey for his Masters degree major project. The survey targeted people who use sound effects as part of their work or for fun. In total, 179 people responded. 77% of respondents listed themselves as employed or freelance in post-production [our potential customers].
Ok, boring stuff aside….here comes the good stuff:
The respondents were asked about their preference in bit-depth and sample rate for SOUND FX.
39% = 24bit 96Khz
34% = 24bit 48Khz
2% = 16bit 44.1Khz
73% of the respondents prefer higher bit depth and sample rates. To be fair, 7.5% had no preference or wasn’t sure. I encourage you to take a look at the survey results.http://rsaudiostore.com/survey-results/
I’ll admit, 179 people is hardly representative, but it’s something. Those people in the 73% category are our potential customers; customers that we might be losing now.
So again, the point isn’t whether a higher sample rate really sounds better, but whether it’s PERCEIVED as sounding better. Based on the above info and personal experience, I would say yes, it is.
So please, let’s not alienate some of our potential customers. Let’s give them what they want. At the very least, 24bit must be accepted. Beyond that, 48Khz is also a must have. Anything higher would be a gift.For any staff members reading this, please consider this at your next meeting.
This is an interesting article that basically explains why high sample rates are no better, and in some cases worse than 44.1 KHz – http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
There’s some serious physics in there, but the main take away for me was that D/A converters can recreate the exact original wave form as long as the sample rate is at least twice the wave form’s frequency. And seeing as even the best of us can’t here higher than 20 Khz, a sample rate of just 40 Khz is technically enough to recreate the exact analogue wave form. Of course this only applies to sample rates – 24 bit is undoubtedly better than 16 bit.I’d be interested to hear what someone with more technical knowledge than me makes of this.
I guess a lot of audiophiles insist that they can “feel” the frequencies above 20,000Hz even if they can’t typically be heard by most humans? Sample rates should probably be 24bit for music – although if the buyer isn’t planning to do any post-processing it’s probably not a big deal. Sound effects should be in higher bit resolutions by default, as they undoubtedly will be processed. Hell, 24bit should be the minimum for sound effects, 32bit is even more useful.
If you’re anything like me, you probably know what you are lacking, or what can be improved, or what could be replaced by a better quality library or one that sounds better to you. I think there are certain types of libraries you can never have enough of: drum kits, drum sounds, odd percussion, pianos…these should be well stocked. There are about a million sounds you can pull out of a really good Synth Library. Everyone should probably own one brass library for expressive playing and one for orchestral music. It’s a beautiful market out there. IMO, nearly anything you buy is probably a good investment, especially considering the time and money saved in not having to buy the actual instrument, learn how to play it, and record t.