Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Are sample libraries too expensive?

I'd just really love to see a uniform and consumer friendly reselling and returns policy.

Doesn't happen all the time but I've definitely gotten some that just didn't actually gel for me when I got my hands on them.

It's just a bit mad. I know piracy sucks and everything and I don't pirate but the fact some companies offer resell or trials means it's possible to do.
 
zwhita said:
inflation - a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency

Are you saying this is the case if total income does not increase in proportion? I'm not aware of any implication that inflation also implies it is not possible for total income to keep pace by increasing in amount(pay raises, etc.) while not increasing in value. What if my rent or mortgage payment stays the same over the last six years? Does that make it more expensive? Of course not.
Click to expand...
That's not at all what I said.

The person I've responded to said something that boils down to 'because libraries didn't get more expensive in the inflationary environment we're living in means they're effectively getting cheaper'.
Which is false. That would imply that inflation only affects businesses, not to private people. That's what I picked up on. And you might have noticed that I put "cheaper" in quotes because I'm well aware that's not how that works.
If I meant it exactly how I said it, then it would also contradict my opinion on this thread that I have given earlier.
 
Last edited:
Sea Squared said:
I'd just really love to see a uniform and consumer friendly reselling and returns policy.

Doesn't happen all the time but I've definitely gotten some that just didn't actually gel for me when I got my hands on them.

It's just a bit mad. I know piracy sucks and everything and I don't pirate but the fact some companies offer resell or trials means it's possible to do.
Click to expand...
I often think how utterly crazy it is that when I die I can’t leave any of this stuff to someone in a will. The amount of money spent and nothing can be left to someone. It actually annoys me the more I think about it actually. :laugh:
 
jononotbono said:
I often think how utterly crazy it is that when I die I can’t leave any of this stuff to someone in a will. The amount of money spent and nothing can be left to someone. It actually annoys me the more I think about it actually. :laugh:
Click to expand...
Amen to that
 
Denkii said:
That's not at all what I said.

The person I've responded to said something that boils down to 'because libraries didn't get more expensive in the inflationary environment we're living in means they're effectively getting cheaper'.
Which is false. That would imply that inflation only affects businesses, not to private people. That's what I picked up on. And you might have noticed that I put "cheaper" in quotes because I'm well aware that's not how that works.
If I meant it exactly how I said it, then it would also contradict my opinion on this thread that I have given earlier.
Click to expand...
I am a simple man. if a library is $100 ten years ago when minimum wage is $10/hour, it’s equivalent to 10 hours of minimum wage. If because of inflation, minimum wage is now $20/hour and the library is still $100, it is now equivalent to 5 hours of minimum wage. Mathematically sounds like cheaper to me, regardless of whether “cheaper” is in quotes.
 
Crevalation said:
I am a simple man. if a library is $100 ten years ago when minimum wage is $10/hour, it’s equivalent to 10 hours of minimum wage. If because of inflation, minimum wage is now $20/hour and the library is still $100, it is now equivalent to 5 hours of minimum wage. Mathematically sounds like cheaper to me, regardless of whether “cheaper” is in quotes.
Click to expand...
Yeah and that's not how inflation works. Again, in the case that you brought up it sounds as if inflation is a good thing that makes things effectively cheaper.
But you're missing the fact that your money can now buy less things. And the raises you got over your ten year examples were not equivalent to how much more you need to spend to buy everything you need/want. So you have more money but it's worth less. Inflation.

You may have more money than before in absolute terms but your spending power is smaller than before.

In the way that you and the other guys were trying to approach it, you were trying to make it sound as if inflation helps people being able to afford libraries easier than before. That's just not the case.

I wasn't the one who brought inflation up in this thread. But it was brought up in a way where it's just not depicted correctly and that's my gripe with the comment that was being made.
The original commenter was correct in saying that sample library prices didn't get raised linearly to how much inflation devalued our money, yes. But saying that equals in libraries being cheaper than before is wrong. Or...let's say I can understand where the conclusion is coming from but it's looking at inflation from a vacuum standpoint that is just not applicable to how life works.
If that was truly the conclusion, then we'd all think that inflation was a great thing.

And *that's* the thing I was commenting on. Maybe it's a wording thing we're hung up and disagree on. I guess I am missing the relation to the spending power of the customers in your guys' example.

Well...if ALL you needed in life was Sample libraries, if it was the only thing you'd need to spend your money on, and you now get more money than before due to inflation and their prices stayed the same then yes, you'd be right.
In this case one could argue that they got "cheaper" as the first commenter tried to put it. Personally I have not yet ascended to that level of VI-Cism.

It sounds to me as if you approach the definition of inflation solely as a rise of the circulation of money but you're not taking into account the root of the problem which is the drop in spending power due to rising prices in the economy. Yes, the latter might not apply to the one single product group we're talking about here but that doesn't mean that said product is getting effectively cheaper. Or rather...that's a nice theoretic thought but in practice that's not the case.
You are correct in saying that these products weren't price adjusted according to inflation, yes. That doesn't mean I can buy more of them. Probably the opposite because while I might have more money than before, I also need to spend even more for everything else, more so than before.
And that doesn't technically mean libraries got more expensive...it just means that I lost spending power (which in turn might be understood as "more expensive" depending of you approach that expression). But it certainly doesn't mean they got cheaper.

Tl;Dr: they might got cheaper in relation to the absolute amount of money that you have now, yes. But in relation to the expendable money that you have, they did not. The latter is more applicable to how one has to go about making purchases I would say and that's the factor that I was missing in the comments that were being made earlier. And my conclusion of this state would not be, that they effectively got cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Denkii said:
Yeah and that's not how inflation works. Again, in the case that you brought up it sounds as if inflation is a good thing that makes things effectively cheaper.
But you're missing the fact that your money can now buy less things. And the raises you got over your ten year examples were not equivalent to how much more you need to spend to buy everything you need/want. So you have more money but it's worth less. Inflation.

You may have more money than before in absolute terms but your spending power is smaller than before.

In the way that you and the other guys were trying to approach it, you were trying to make it sound as if inflation helps people being able to afford libraries easier than before. That's just not the case.

I wasn't the one who brought inflation up in this thread. But it was brought up in a way where it's just not depicted correctly and that's my gripe with the comment that was being made.
The original commenter was correct in saying that sample library prices didn't get raised linearly to how much inflation devalued our money, yes. But saying that equals in libraries being cheaper than before is wrong. Or...let's say I can understand where the conclusion is coming from but it's looking at inflation from a vacuum standpoint that is just not applicable to how life works.
If that was truly the conclusion, then we'd all think that inflation was a great thing.

And *that's* the thing I was commenting on. Maybe it's a wording thing we're hung up and disagree on. I guess I am missing the relation to the spending power of the customers in your guys' example.

Well...if ALL you needed in life was Sample libraries, if it was the only thing you'd need to spend your money on, and you now get more money than before due to inflation and their prices stayed the same then yes, you'd be right.
In this case one could argue that they got "cheaper" as the first commenter tried to put it. Personally I have not yet ascended to that level of VI-Cism.

It sounds to me as if you approach the definition of inflation solely as a rise of the circulation of money but you're not taking into account the root of the problem which is the drop in spending power due to rising prices in the economy. Yes, the latter might not apply to the one single product group we're talking about here but that doesn't mean that said product is getting effectively cheaper. Or rather...that's a nice theoretic thought but in practice that's not the case.
You are correct in saying that these products weren't price adjusted according to inflation, yes. That doesn't mean I can buy more of them. Probably the opposite because while I might have more money than before, I also need to spend even more for everything else, more so than before.
And that doesn't technically mean libraries got more expensive...it just means that I lost spending power (which in turn might be understood as "more expensive" depending of you approach that expression). But it certainly doesn't mean they got cheaper.

Tl;Dr: they might got cheaper in relation to the absolute amount of money that you have now, yes. But in relation to the expendable money that you have, they did not. The latter is more applicable to how one has to go about making purchases I would say and that's the factor that I was missing in the comments that were being made earlier. And my conclusion of this state would not be, that they effectively got cheaper.
Click to expand...
All good buddy. Reading your thoughts, I think you are touching on the unequal impact of recent inflation on the society. Indeed, it's a real issue of our times. In many countries, we can see it's hollowing out the purchasing power of many working families, with income growing slower than inflation, some just can't make ends meet after the significant increase in mortgage costs, power bills, groceries and other necessities. At the same time, sales of luxury cars have gone up. But that's too big a topic for my small brain . Back to sample land, I am just glad the likes of CSS is still $399 after all these years.
 
Crevalation said:
All good buddy. Reading your thoughts, I think you are touching on the unequal impact of recent inflation on the society. Indeed, it's a real issue of our times. In many countries, we can see it's hollowing out the purchasing power of many working families, with income growing slower than inflation, some just can't make ends meet after the significant increase in mortgage costs, power bills, groceries and other necessities. At the same time, sales of luxury cars have gone up. But that's too big a topic for my small brain . Back to sample land, I am just glad the likes of CSS is still $399 after all these years.
Click to expand...
I touched on inflation. The devaluation of money due to an increase of prices. Which often leads to the outcome of higher amounts of money in circulation (or these two things but the other way around). The loss of purchasing power which leads to you being able to buy less things, not more. It has nothing to do with how recent it is. That's inflation.
You cannot talk about one without the other. If we could cherry pick our way through inflation, then I too would just take the "having more money" part but unfortunately that's not where inflation ends.

To be clear: it could be a difference in understanding of the definition (and what other things to take into consideration while talking about it) of the term we're talking about.
I am very interested where this disagreement is coming from and I started some conversations with some people just to learn how this topic is being taught elsewhere compared to where I'm from.
Because to me, it was pretty clear that one couldn't argue: "inflation leads to more money in my hands. A price of a product didn't get raised. Hence inflation makes things objectively cheaper."

But I'm curious where the differences in approach are coming from and I'm trying to learn how to follow those opinions.
I might sound like an ass in my former comments but that wasn't my intention. I enjoy this conversation and I'll try to understand the other sides better.
Admittedly I have a very hard time following that line of thinking though.
 
Last edited:
Denkii said:
I touched on inflation. The devaluation of money due to an increase of prices. Which often leads to the outcome of higher amounts of money in circulation (or these two things but the other way around). The loss of purchasing power which leads to you being able to buy less things, not more. It has nothing to do with how recent it is. That's inflation.
You cannot talk about one without the other. If we could cherry pick our way through inflation, then I too would just take the "having more money" part but unfortunately that's not where inflation ends.

To be clear: it could be a difference in understanding of the definition (and what other things to take into consideration while talking about it) of the term we're talking about.
I am very interested where this disagreement is coming from and I started some conversations with some people just to learn how this topic is being taught elsewhere compared to where I'm from.
Because to me, it was pretty clear that one couldn't argue: "inflation leads to more money in my hands. A price of a product didn't get raised. Hence inflation makes things objectively cheaper."

But I'm curious where the differences in approach are coming from and I'm trying to learn how to follow those opinions.
I might sound like an ass in my former comments but that wasn't my intention. I enjoy this conversation and I'll try to understand the other sides better.
Admittedly I have a very hard time following that line of thinking though.
Click to expand...
The impact of inflation is unequal to every consumers, and to every profit-seeking company as a matter of fact, and to every government as well. There are winners and losers, just like everything on life.

At a personal level, the equation comprises: income and expenses.

For income - =some people’s income could increase in line with inflation, some couldn’t - all depends on your occupation and your ability to raise it. If you are a wage earner, chances are you will get a lower number unless you are pretty unique in your skill sets and play the game of negotiation and getting a competing job offer. There are anomalies, some lower paid workers just received an inflation-matching salary increase in Australia (>8%). If you are a pensioner who depends on fixed income return from your investment, your are screwed. If you are a the lucky capitalist who invested in AI-stocks recently, you are in luck. If you are running a business, if all depends on the price elasticities of your product - are you able to raise price without hampering volume and therefore lower your revenue in real terms? Are all your competitors raising price and already set the new market price level? It depends on your pricing power, market dynamics, your market share, uniqueness etc.

For expenses, it all depends whether the weighted average growth of your basket of expenses exceed the headline inflation number. Every consumer is different. Those who have already retired and own their home and cars outright (no mortgage, no rent) and consume less potentially could have a lower average growth in expenses compared to headline number. Those who just bought their house in lower interest rate environment in the last two years, have a growing family (food, school fees, health insurance), capital works to fix the house - you are most likely experiencing a higher than headline number.

Could go on and on. But in the end, it’s down to the personal income and expense. For me personally, I am appreciating that I am lucky enough to be viewing the same $399 CSS price in 2016 and 2023 to be a lower price today in real terms because my income and expense dynamics (my leftovers income for sample library is a lot higher in real terms in 2023, because my income has been reset upwards and expense didn’t skyrocket). However, I do understand there are others whose income and expenses are ravaged by inflation and hence poorer. In that case, it won’t be just sample libraries being expensive, it will be almost EVERY other single thing that cause the person to have financial stress: mortagage, groceries, gasoline, kids tuition fees. The only difference is these items have gone up by 40% since 2016 and CSS is still $399.
 
Last edited:
Some are but many are very affordable compared to 15 years ago. Considering the crazy amount of work you have to put into them and the market they are for the prices are fine nowadays.
 
Crevalation said:
The impact of inflation is unequal to [...]
Click to expand...
Ok so reading this, I now understand that we do in fact understand the meaning in a similar enough way. We just approached it from different perspectives in the conversation that we had earlier.

Thank you for sharing more detail of your position on this. I can now see where you were coming from and yeah, if that's the case then you are right for your individual situation.

I would still say that the line of argumentation that has been brought up originally about the whole "I need to work less for more money hence inflation makes things cheaper" is flawed in general but that's pretty nitpicky and irrelevant at this point since I do believe we can agree enough to understand each other. The way you just layed out your thoughts tells me you know you oversimplified for effect ;)
 
Crevalation said:
... For me personally, I am appreciating that I am lucky enough to be viewing the same $399 CSS price in 2016 and 2023 to be a lower price today in real terms because my income and expense dynamics (my leftovers income for sample library is a lot higher in real terms in 2023, because my income has been reset upwards and expense didn’t skyrocket). However, I do understand there are others whose income and expenses are ravaged by inflation and hence poorer. In that case, it won’t be just sample libraries being expensive, it will be almost EVERY other single thing that cause the person to have financial stress: mortagage, groceries, gasoline, kids tuition fees. The only difference is these items have gone up by 40% since 2016 and CSS is still $399.
Click to expand...
An interesting addendum to this could be inflation from the perspective of a developer, which may or may not hold some weight in the debate about a sample library's value.

As you say, CSS (and almost all other products) have kept their same dollar value through different economic times. I wonder, would that indicate that for a developer to make the same product today, it would cost them more money now in real terms, due to inflation and the increased wages needing to be paid during production, and yet they would still need to price it competitively and thus stay within the price ceiling that was created ten years ago.
It (presumably) costs more now to create these products, and yet will earn less per sale.
So it has become less and less viable for developers to take risks in creating truly comprehensive, niche, or innovative options that raise the bar when compared to current/previous offerings, due to the associated costs, and instead rely on finding that "sweet spot" middle ground that ultimately targets quantity over quality.
Meanwhile, consumers are still wanting "cheaper! cheaper! Too expensive!"

So... fast forward another 10 years... Are we still expecting new flagship libraries at $399 a pop?
I aint a financial adviser, but that almost sounds unsustainable to me...
 
Jdiggity1 said:
It (presumably) costs more now to create these products, and yet will earn less per sale.
Click to expand...
I imagine a big chunk of that is compensated by sales volume, which certainly saw an increase due to the lower entrance barrier with reference to more obtainable pricing and the necessary equipment (that the users need) and a growing target audience in general.

That's the factor I have brought up in my first comment: like in almost any other industry, the small devs will continue to have it exponentially harder here than bigger/more established ones.
The margin (supposedly?) shrinks but the volume goes up. I imagine it's very hard to get a piece of that cake if you try to set a foot into this industry though - just as it is in any other industry.

You'd really have to offer something as the new kid in town, especially if you want to price your first product(s) higher than the competition (in order to still being able to drive a margin that allows you to recoup the production cost...which naturally is likely a higher risk for you than for someone who's been in it for a long time).
Then again we know the products that are circulating in this industry. Cynics might argue that you'd already be better off than a lot of your competition if you did the same thing that everyone else is doing but you did it right ;)

Whether or not and if so when inflation from the perspective of devs will make them feel forced to raise prices is something we'll need to wait and see.

There are certainly other Industries that saw a similar pricing stability while still being able to earn more profit due to the growth of the market they operate in.
 
I wish they were cheaper, but that's not the same thing. Having to hire an orchestra for several hours and the hall, I get it.

But some direct-input guitar libraries, while cheaper than orchestral ones, are probably easier to argue for being overpriced. (Even then, I might be willing to pay for the scripting they had to do.)
 
A few decades ago there was a different market for beginners, amateurs and pros. This concerns all areas: sports, photo/movie, tools, gardening, cooking, instruments/amps/pa, and studio as well.

Meanwhile every beginner and hobbyist wants professional tools. From biking clothes and high resolution cameras over automatic garden watering to programmable cookers with bakingoven, professional instruments for weekend hobby musicians with high end PA systems in the garage.

The times are gone when family pics were made with a cheap pocket camera. Studio beginners have and use the same DAWs like pro's and don't start with a 4-track tape deck and a self made guitar amp made of a tube radio. And rarely the first trumpet lessons today happens using uncle Herbert's old "good enough" cornet from the attic. But pro equipment was unreachable for amateurs not long ago.

Today the market is much bigger to sell stuff. If sample libraries were made for pro's only we wouldn't be able to buy a string library for 300,-$£€.

So yes, today sample libraries are cheap. Especially for pro's (compared to a separated pro market).

If professional sample libraries are cheap for a hobbyist is another question. As a hobbyist you don't 'need' the professional tools. It's just a thing you want to have for fun. There is a lot of free and affordable stuff out there. And you don't become a pro just because of buying the pro equipment. It's just GAS.

So the only question is: do you have and want to spend the money for your fun? And that's a simple yes/no question everybody has to answer him/herself.
 
Last edited:
Saxer said:
And you don't become a pro just because of buying the pro equipment. It's just GAS.
Click to expand...
Amen. Know lots of people in the industry making a great career using a handful of basic Spitfire libraries and built-in plugins in Logic / etc. Work ethic and being a good collaborator is 1000x more important than whether your strings sound 91% realistic instead of 89%.
 
Last edited:
Are sample libraries too expensive? As with most goods being sold, the answer is both "yes" and "no". There are simply too many ways to evaluate that question to arrive at one succinct answer:

- Are sample libraries too expensive for me personally?
- Are sample libraries too expensive according to my wife?
- Are sample libraries too expensive for professional composers?
- Are sample libraries too expensive for amateurs and hobbyists?
- Are sample libraries too expensive considering what it costs to produce them?
- Are sample libraries too expensive relative to buying and recording actual instruments?
- Are sample libraries too expensive relative to hiring live musicians?
- Are orchestral sample libraries too expensive?
- Are drum sample libraries too expensive?
- Are finger cymbal sample libraries too expensive?
- Are XYZ developer's sample libraries too expensive?

and so on...

Pricing any good is a delicate balance between covering the cost of production, setting a profit margin, and assessing what the market will bear.

Are Ferraris too expensive? If you evaluate them as functional cars with 4 wheels, 2 seats, and motor, then yes, they're beyond ridiculously expensive. But if you then consider the craftsmanship that goes into designing, testing, and manufacturing them, and the fact that they are intended to be status symbols that exponentially increase your chances of getting laid by smoking hot superficial twenty-somethings, then no, they're not too expensive at all! :rofl:
 
Last edited:
NekujaK said:
Are sample libraries too expensive? As with most goods being sold, the answer is both "yes" and "no". There are simply too many ways to evaluate that question to arrive at one succinct answer:

- Are sample libraries too expensive for me personally?
- Are sample libraries too expensive according to my wife?
- Are sample libraries too expensive for professional composers?
- Are sample libraries too expensive for amateurs and hobbyists?
- Are sample libraries too expensive considering what it costs to produce them?
- Are sample libraries too expensive relative to buying and recording actual instruments?
- Are sample libraries too expensive relative to hiring live musicians?
- Are orchestral sample libraries too expensive?
- Are drum sample libraries too expensive?
- Are finger cymbal sample libraries too expensive?
- Are XYZ developer's sample libraries too expensive?

and so on...

Pricing any good is a delicate balance between covering the cost of production, setting a profit margin, and assessing what the market will bear.

Are Ferraris too expensive? If you evaluate them as functional cars with 4 wheels, 2 seats, and motor, then yes, they're beyond ridiculously expensive. But if you then consider the craftsmanship that goes into designing, testing, and manufacturing them, and the fact that they are intended to be status symbols that exponentially increase your chances of getting laid by smoking hot superficial twenty-somethings, then no, they're not too expensive at all! :rofl:
Click to expand...
A haiku:

Develop samples
They sad buy a Ferrari
They lied oh they lied
 
Last edited:
Whenever threads like this pop up is the only time I ever feel my age. Damn when I was getting music jobs in the 90's I'd have to spend every dime practically just on the tools and musicians to get the job done. Your average price for a sampler was $1200 on sale. Synths were $2500 used and you hadn't even started to hire musicians or book studio time. I did one record job back then and it cost me $30,000. Back in those days you really had to believe in yourself and think of it all as an investment.

Now the field is cluttered with people that are not taking it very seriously because the barrier to entry is in the realm of everybody that doesn't live in an economically suppressed society. It's good and bad really. But as for the original question, I think it's greed that makes it too expensive these days. And, I don't mean developer greed. I mean consumer greed. People have hundreds of libraries when it fact they just NEED 2 or 3. Dozens of strings libraries, dozens of brass, etc....

So then people start thinking that the field is expensive and devs are charging "too much". I've even fallen victim to that. I think Orchestral Tools and Spitfire and VSL charge too much. But do they really? They offer libraries sub $500 for the most part. VSL just released a string library for around $500. So in essence it seems like a lot if you're in the market for every string library ever made, but if you just used Cinematic Studio Strings and VSL Duality for variety you'd have strings covered in many, many real world usages and you've not even hit a grand. And, you don't even have to go that route. HOOPUS and Pacific Strings would do just as well if not better in some instances and you've got a full orchestra at your finger tips with killer strings as well.

So to get on my soapbox a bit, I really think we need to celebrate the choices we have and get what we can afford but not worry about the price of it all. The market is so crushed I'm more worried that it collapses and we end up having to hold on to dated libraries that aren't being upgrade or start to sample our own libraries again or worst of all fears, everything goes subscription.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom