On 7/14/2019 7:44 PM, Jamie Howarth wrote:
>> Plangent is wonderful, but a bit problematic as it is still inconvenient to properly archive the bias, but that's another story, and I think in the long run it would be good if we could do that.
> So with all love and respect to the assembled pros here I???ve been hearing this for 15 years and it???s about time I defended it. It costs money. Not crazy money, but it???s not a 50 year old design either. And it???s easy. It???s a matter of willingness to adopt the technology. Which either because of NIH or misinformation or who knows what. Meanwhile John Chester and I are happy to answer questions for potential customers and to attempt to shoot down the resistance to its further utilization.
Jamie, I think the resistance is almost entirely related to the cost --
and the near impossibility of getting our clients to cover that, which
means we would end up eating it. The profit margin in this business is
already razor-blade thin.
And I recognize that you have costs too, and the price is a fair one.
The real bottleneck is that clients (meaning the music industry) won't
shell out for doing it right. That's an old story. If anyone knows a
solution we're all ears.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.