Congratulations! I was looking forward to this release after trying the online conversion. Any chance there will be a non-commercial price (I'm a sound artist, not a commercial producer)? It feels a bit unfair to me that something like this gets focused only on main stream commercial production when it could be a great tool for artists. Paying for this plugin would be way more than what I paid for my DAW (Reaper) and my b-format mic (custom made) all together. Or maybe a pricing Reaper style where you pay according to how much your yearly revenue is? Just a thought.
Cheers, Hector On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Trond Lossius <trond.loss...@bek.no> wrote: > On Apr 1, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Svein Berge wrote: > >> 5. counter-productively expensive (compared to Reaper or Plogue) >> >> As you all know, the marginal cost of software is close to zero, everything >> is in the development. So, when you compare a specialized product to a >> mass-market product, it makes no logical sense to compare their feature set >> without at the same time dividing by the potential sales numbers. It should >> be noted that I am not paid by anyone to do this work, so the business model >> here is that the users must pay for all of the development. Since this >> plugin in practice requires the use of a soundfield-type microphone, which >> is not really a mass-market product, I don't expect to recoup any reasonable >> wage for the time spent on it. From a customer's point of view, the price >> should be considered in relation to the cost of all the other gear involved >> - the microphone, recorder, computer, daw etc and the relative value added >> by the plugin. I think it's a good deal, but don't expect much sympathy from >> academia. > > I don't know enough regarding software sales and pricing strategies to have > any clear opinion on what's the right price to eventually cover the > development costs. The reasoning above seems sensible, but is assuming that > the same person/organization owns and use the mic, recording hardware and > equipment/software for playback. That might not always be the case. > > I'm working at BEK, a media lab for artists in Bergen (NO). We have a > SoundField mic and it's getting increasingly popular among local artists. > Depending on the project they often get to borrow it and the hard disc > recorder for free (or almost free). For many of them it will be interesting > to be able to use Harpex for decoding later on. While BEK itself can and > probably will get a plug-in license, I'm less sure how many of the artists we > work with that will be able to afford it. On the other hand it might well be > that they can do decoding when required at the BEK studio, and thus won't > depend on having their own license. > > Just my 5 cents. I've set aside a full day at the study next week to try it > out. Natasha Barrett has been very enthusiastic about Harpex, so I'm looking > forward to playing with it. > > Best, > Trond > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound > _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
