My subscription fee seems wrong (too high)

Hey community, This is a question for Australia - not sure if this forum is global. So I'm currently on the free premium trial but the 'My Account' page says that I will renew at $14.99 per month. On the Spotify page to become a premium member it shows the cost is $11.99 per month. That seams more reasonable and more in line with Apple Music, Xbox Music etc. Does anyone know why I'd be setup to pay $14.99? Note that I did NOT sign up via Apple because i know that's 30% higher. I signed up directly on Spotify website. If it is wrong, how to I contact Spotify to fix it? Thanks.

Hello and welcome to the Spotify community.
You can contact support with this online form.
If you receive an automated email directing you to the community and/or help boards, make sure you reply directly to that email (even if it says it is no-reply) and an agent will get back to you as soon as possible.

Similar Messages

Apple watch resting calories seem far too high

I've had the apple watch since the 24th, and I've worn it continuously until bedtime. All of my metrics are accurate (height/weight).
My Resting Calories (found in the iPhone activity app by swiping left under the move row) are listed as 3600 Cal. This seems incredibly high to me. My BMR is 2100 Cal, as calculated here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/tools/bmr-calculator
I've used other BMR sites and they all give me a similar number.
Is anyone else having this issue? I can't comprehend how it could be so high. If I ate 3600 Cal in one day (without exercising) I would be gaining weight rapidly!

No.

My latency seems far too high.

Like many others here, I primarily use my internet connection for gaming, now along the way over the past few years with BT I've never had the best connection but for a long time my ping was normal.
A couple of months ago my internet was upgraded, maybe it was something to do with the nearest exchange, I'm not sure, it wasn't an upgrade I asked for, mind. We were given the brand new homehub as well.
So the upgrade went something like 1mb - > 4.5mb. Can't complain too much, better download speeds and what not. The biggest gripe I have, that is when this upgrade occurred, my latency sky rocketed from about 15-20 to 35-40 (average) on UK servers.
It's pretty **bleep** annoying to say the least, because when I connect to other european servers it's almost unplayable and I play on servers outside of the UK the most. I rang up BT to ask for interleaving to be turned off, as usual they pretended they didn't know what it was and ignored me. So what can I do, anything? Doesn't seem right that I get 40ping to a UK server, when most of the country sits on about 15ping.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/1510803701.png

hi if you want interleaving turning off then contact the forum mods at this link and get them to change you to fast http://bt.custhelp.com/app/contact_email/c/4951
they normally reply by email or phone directly to you within 72 hours
They are a UK based specialist team who have a good record at getting problems solved
If you want to say thanks for a helpful answer,please click on the Ratings star on the left-hand side If the reply answers your question then please mark as ’Mark as Accepted Solution’

X64 kernel reserve size too high?

I'm not really a noob (2yrs on Arch...), but maybe this question is. (Moderator move where you like..).
I upgraded my x32 system to x64 and now my fresh boot ram use is over ~300mb booted into openbox (~240mb booted to init 3), use to be ~200mb booted into openbox (~140 booted into init 3).
Here are some quick stats (let me know what more you need),
free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3958 879 3079 0 72 388
-/+ buffers/cache: 418 3539
Swap: 3812 0 3812
dmesg|grep Memory
[ 0.000000] Memory: 3981824k/4980736k available (4490k kernel code, 787336k absent, 211576k reserved, 4412k data, 736k init)
dmesg|grep TLB
[ 1.287810] HugeTLB registered 2 MB page size, pre-allocated 0 pages
Notice the reserve... 212mb seems too high to me. Others have said around 64mb....
Last edited by workdowg (2012-03-18 11:02:21)

karol wrote:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=135309
Edit: Found another user mentioning rather high reserved memory: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 21#p857921
I read through those... No real anwers... Maybe I'll just leave this topic open for a while because 212mb still seems way too high.
Edit: Thanks as usual Karol!
Last edited by workdowg (2012-03-18 12:11:29)

HT1212 ipad is locked as my daughter locked putting in the password wrong too many times. When I try and do a restore it seems to be doing it until the end and it say it can't do anything as it's locked, go to itunes to unlock.. It's driving me mental

My ipad 4 wif is ocked as my daughter locked putting in the password wrong too many times. When I try and do a restore it seems to be doing it until the end and then it say it can't do anything as it's locked, go to itunes to unlock.. It's driving me mental. tried twice now ...
I haven't synced with a password, I don't mind losing all the data I just want to be able to use it again !! I'm not sure what IOS it is, not sure it's the most recent, I have a feeling I'm not on IO7.
Thanks for all your help.

Force iPad into Recovery Mode. Follow step 1 to 6 very closely.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1808
Note: You may have to repeat the above a few times.

I have a macbook pro OS 10.5.8. I've sync'ed it with an iPad 2. I would like to access the "cloud" but it seems my Leopard isn't sufficient. How high an OS upgrade would i need to use cloud? Most of my current apps wouldn't work with a too high upgrade.

I have a macbook pro OS leopard 10.5.8. I've synced it with an iPad 2. I cannot access the cloud because my OS is insufficient. Problem is most of my most- used applications would not work with a too-high system upgrade. I can't afford to upgrade all my apps. I need to know: what would be the least-high system upgrade I can install in order to access the cloud on my new iPad 2?
MAC O.S. 10.5.8 - LEOPARD
MacBookPro
MacBookPro4,1
Intel Core 2 Duo - 2.5 GHz; speed 800 MHz
Quark Express 7.3
Adobe Acrobat 8 Pro
Adobe Photoshop CS 3
Adobe Illustrator CS 3
Adobe InDesign CS 3
Microsoft Office 2008
Extensis Suitcase Fusion 12.1.7
Stuffit 12
Thanx
calico6

Define "access the cloud". I can access my iCloud.com account on my 5 year old iMac at work running OS X 10.4.11 Tiger. I can download and upload Word documents and Pages documents in the iWorks section of my iCloud.com account.
What do you want to access in "the cloud"?
Snow Leopard would be your next system upgrade and you should be OK with the CS3 applications, and Office 2008. I cannot confirm that the other applications will work.
This is quite old, but take a look or Google the other applications to see if they are compatible with SL.
http://www.macintouch.com/specialreports/snowleopard/slcompat.html

Is my bit rate too high?!

I'm new to DVDSP but thought I'd figured it out. I'm burning a 30 minute film, with 13 chapters, to HD-DVD. The simulation works fine, and the build and format seems to go through fine, but the resulting dvd works only on my computer (that I burnt it on).
It suddenly occurred to me that maybe by encoding settings are wrong, that perhaps the bit rate is too high? So only my computer can play it...?
The video file is a full 1920x1080 quicktime movie, and the MPEG-2 HD encoding was on about 18mbps, with a max bit rate of around 26mbps. (The footage itself is orginially 35mbps, but that's enormous for an encoded DVD, no?) Perhaps that's why it's saying that the DVD wil be 4.6GB, even though it's only 30 minutes.
I've knocked the bit rate down to 13mbps, with a max of 16mbps. I'll try another burn with those new settings.
Does it sound like I'm onto something here?!
Thanks,
Jamie Kennerley

From your master sequence, you should be exporting an uncompressed (or lossless) 720x480 (NTSC) 16x9 Anamorphic 23.98 file. Bring this into Compressor and adjust your bitrate according to time. The best way is to get a good bitrate calculator. Here's a simple one thats works good:
http://www.videohelp.com/calc.htm
Based on the amount of TIME of your piece you would adjust your bitrate and encode.
1. Export out an uncompressed or lossless 720x480 16x9 Anammorphic @ 23.98 (4444 is a waste since you're not dealing with any Alpha Channel for the encoding)
2. Determine how many minutes you have and find the optimum bitrate with the calculator
3. Plug your file into Compressor and set the correct bitrate and Encode
DVD has a max bitrate of 9.8 for Video so you need to keep it well below this. The only reason you should be going above 8mb/s is if you plan to replicate your disc. Even with that you should be checking your bitrates with a bitrate viewer to make sure every things Ok

Too High Wakeups-from-idle per second

I am using Arch for the past few months and I have been noticing that the battery is draining much quicker than it used to be in windows.
I used powertop and found out that the "Wakeups-from-idle per second" is way too high. It is ~300 per second on average and once i even saw numbers like 8000 !!
The link http://www.linuxpowertop.org/powertop.php quotes it is possible to get 3 wakeups running a full GNOME desktop. It says that 193 is lot more than 3.
But in my case the numbers are way too high than expected. I run Arch with XFCE4.
Can somebody explain why am I seeing such high numbers and is this the reason for my battery draining ?

nachiappan wrote:Can somebody explain why am I seeing such high numbers and is this the reason for my battery draining ?
Powertop shows what is causing the wakeups. If it is the kernel, trying a different frequency governor might help.
More than likely tweaking a few different settings together will get you more battery life, the wakeups alone won't be doing all the battery draining.
There's lots of helpful hints on power saving here:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/La … ttery_life
edit: seems your cpu isn't being monitored correctly. 3000% seems so wrong.
What kernel and cpu are you using?
Last edited by moetunes (2012-02-23 00:12:46)

I rendered an h.264 m2ts file at 17M bitrate, why Encore says bitrate is too high?

I rendered a h.264 m2ts file at 17M bitrate, why Encore says bitrate is too high?
17M is so low, so I have to render an AVI file and import it to Encore and let Encore transcode it, bitrate can be set to 40M, why? Encore's transcoding is toooo slow!
I rendered the m2ts files use Edius.
Help!
Thanks everyone!

Thank you Stan Jones!
I had set Maximum Audio/Video Bitrate to 40Mbbps in Project Settings' Default Transcode Setting dialog, and my Authoring Mode is Blu-ray. Things did not change.
But my m2ts file should be set to "Don't Transcode", so the values of transcode settings should not affect my m2ts file.
I've just find one thing: it seems that m2ts files rendered by Edius 5 will not work well in encore, while Edius 6's work better. I test some Edius 6's m2ts files over 30Mbps, it work. Is there something wrong with Edius or Encore?

MSI 280x max temp is too high

hi,
I just got 2 second hand MSI 280x from someone. Quickly ran FurMark on these cards (1 after another, not crossfire) and their temperature both pass 95+ celsius degree at 100% fan speed. Both cards in mint condition, only few dust on the heatsink.
Thinking the heat problem may come from dry thermal compound, I apply some Noctua NT-H1 to one of those cards and its temperature never pass 85 celsius degree. This seems still little too high because this review shows max temp of such card is well under 80C www. tomshardware. com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-third-party-round-up,3655-4.html
What could go wrong and How I can make these cards cooler?
Thanks

Quote from: Suxipo on 15-November-14, 09:24:14
I apply some Noctua NT-H1 to one of those cards and its temperature never pass 85 celsius degree.
This temperature is fine. There is no issue anymore.
Quote from: Suxipo on 15-November-14, 09:24:14
This seems still little too high because this review shows max temp of such card is well under 80C www. tomshardware. com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-third-party-round-up,3655-4.html
What could go wrong and How I can make these cards cooler?
Thanks
You can't compare reviews to your real life experience in a working machine instead of an open system used for short benachmark sessions. Temperature results are individual and as said before card now performs well with new paste.

When I print business cards, they sometimes print 1/4 too high but not always.

I have my business cards in a Word document using an Avery template. I have used the same file for years. I never had a problem with my Canon printer but after buying an HP Photosmart D110 I have had nothing but problems. When I print then they print about 1/4 inch too high ruining the cardstock and wasting ink. This doesn't happen all the time. Sometimes I print and they are perfect but when I go back and print another, the problem returns. This is the same card stock I have used for years and when it is inserted in the printer it doesn't matter if it is a single page or a stack of them. I have tried previewing the page before printing and the alignment is correct. I've tried printing to a PDF and then printing the PDF, same problem. I try it on the Canon and no problem. Only reason I bought this in the first place was the cartridges were cheaper and I do a lot of color printing and scanning! I have just replaced the cartridges and did a head alignment so that is not the problem. I have tried it with regular paper and the problem persists. I'm ready to drop kick this thing and buy another Canon!
This question was solved.
View Solution.

Did you ever find a solution for this problem? I have no problem printing the business cards out on a Canon printer, or a different HP printer I used to have, but the D110 is nothing but a pain in the you know what ! I'm using publisher and the avery 8371 card stock, I searched solutions for days and did everything possible but still they're not printing correctly!! I'm dissapointed in this printer, every time I have a problem with something it always seems to be an HP product!!! Very frustrating because I never had to mess with any settings in the other printers I had, I would just put the file in, change the quality and click the print button with no problems. I'm ready to throw this printer out the window Anyway thanks in advance and I hope somebody can help me with this issue !!!

In reply to MK re: print too high...

MichaelKazlow:in Re: print too high;
I'm using A.Reader v.9.3.4 in XP.3 and Officejet J4540 series; I do think you are on to something with print preview composite showing Zoom 94% & page set to 8.27 x 11.69" but where to change to 8.5 x 11 inches since the zoom @ 94% does not jibe with over 11 lgth X less than 8.5 inches which would seem logical if the 94% issue were the trouble...please expound ~ Jaye ~

I'm not on Windows now, but the Windows dialog box is similar to the Mac Print dialog box.
You can see under Comments there is a Page scaling dialog box. Click on the drop down menu and switch from None to Shrink to Printable Area.
If you need to continue this discussion stay here or the original thread (at this point here might be better). Do not create yet another thread.

MSI R7950 TF 3GD5/OC BE too high stock voltage

Hi, this is my first post so please be gentle with me
I just bought a MSI R7950 TF 3GD5/OC BE video card which is 960mhz stock speed, but I found out that this card has a too high stock voltage which displays 1.18v in GPUZ and 1.25v in afterburner. I don't think the card can last long with such a high voltage so I want to lower it.
I try to adjust the voltage in afterburner, it seems it changes in the software (the slide did change). But GPUZ still displays the same voltage.
Can anyone help me with this?
Thanks.

Quote from: tails on 07-April-13, 22:29:57
Thanks for the reply.
I've found the solution for that. I downloaded the version 3.00beta9 of afterburner and now it can change the vcore.
I changed the vcore from 1.25 to 1.05v. Now the card is running at 1050mhz, 57degree with 60% fan speed, cool and quiet. Before was 75 degree and 80% fan speed.
I'm satisfied now.
Ive got Afterburner 2.31, its allows undervolting as well. But problem is that in boost mode new values are ignored and back to default. So in that case cant see any sense in doing that. Is that changed in ver 3?
D.

ORA-25307: Enqueue rate too high, flow control enabled

I am stuck. I have my stream setup and they were previously working on two of my dev environments well. Now when I get the streams setup the CAPTURE process has a state of "CAPTURING CHANGES" for like 10 seconds and then changes to state "PAUSED FOR FLOW CONTROL". I believe this is happening because the PROPAGATION process is showing an error of "ORA-25307: Enqueue rate too high, flow control enabled".
I don't know what to tweak to get rid of this error message. The two environments are dev databases and there is minimal activity on them so i don't think it's a case of the APPLY process is lagging behind the PROPAGATION process. Has anyone run into this issue?? I've verified my db link works, my stream admin user has dba access. Any help or advise would be greatly appreciated.
thanks, dave

As rule of thumb, you don't need to set GLOBAL_NAME=TRUE as long as your are 100% GLOBAL_NAME compliant.
So, setting GLOBAL_NAME=TRUE will not have any effect if your dblink is not global_name compliant
and if your installation is global_name compliant, you don't need to set GLOBAL_NAME=TRUE.
The first thing when you diagnose is to get the exact facts.
Please run this queries both on source and target so that to see what are in the queues and where.
Run it multiple time to see if figures evolves.
- If they are fixed, then your Streams is stuck in its last stage. As a cheap and good starting point, just stop/start the capture, propagation and target apply process. Check also the alert.log on both site. when you have a propagation problem, they do contains information's. If you have re-bounced everything and no improvement then the real diagnose work must start here but then we know that the message is wrong and the problems is elsewhere.
- if they are not fixed then your apply really lag behind for what ever good reason, but this is usually easy to find.
set termout off
col version new_value version noprint
col queue_table format A26 head 'Queue Table'
col queue_name format A32 head 'Queue Name'
select substr(version,1,instr(version,'.',1)-1) version from v$instance;
col mysql new_value mysql noprint
col primary_instance format 9999 head 'Prim|inst'
col secondary_instance format 9999 head 'Sec|inst'
col owner_instance format 99 head 'Own|inst'
COLUMN MEM_MSG HEADING 'Messages|in Memory' FORMAT 99999999
COLUMN SPILL_MSGS HEADING 'Messages|Spilled' FORMAT 99999999
COLUMN NUM_MSGS HEADING 'Total Messages|in Buffered Queue' FORMAT 99999999
set linesize 150
select case
when &version=9 then ' distinct a.QID, a.owner||''.''||a.name nam, a.queue_table,
              decode(a.queue_type,''NORMAL_QUEUE'',''NORMAL'', ''EXCEPTION_QUEUE'',''EXCEPTION'',a.queue_type) qt,
              trim(a.enqueue_enabled) enq, trim(a.dequeue_enabled) deq, x.bufqm_nmsg msg, b.recipients
              from dba_queues a , sys.v_$bufqm x, dba_queue_tables b
        where
               a.qid = x.bufqm_qid (+) and a.owner not like ''SYS%''
           and a.queue_table = b.queue_table (+)
           and a.name not like ''%_E'' '
   when &version=10 then ' a.owner||''.''|| a.name nam, a.queue_table,
              decode(a.queue_type,''NORMAL_QUEUE'',''NORMAL'', ''EXCEPTION_QUEUE'',''EXCEPTION'',a.queue_type) qt,
              trim(a.enqueue_enabled) enq, trim(a.dequeue_enabled) deq, (NUM_MSGS - SPILL_MSGS) MEM_MSG, spill_msgs, x.num_msgs msg,
              x.INST_ID owner_instance
              from dba_queues a , sys.gv_$buffered_queues x
        where
               a.qid = x.queue_id (+) and a.owner not in ( ''SYS'',''SYSTEM'',''WMSYS'') order by a.owner ,qt desc'
   end mysql
from dual
set termout on
select &mysql
/B. Polarski

PGC...data rate too high

Hallo,
message
nunew33, "Mpeg not valid error message" #4, 31 Jan 2006 3:29 pm describes a certain error message. The user had problems with an imported MPEG movie.
Now I receive the same message, but the MPEG that is causing the problem is created by Encore DVD itself!?
I am working with the german version, but here is a rough translation of the message:
"PGC 'Weitere Bilder' has an error at 00:36:42:07.
The data rate of this file is too high for DVD. You must replace the file with one of a lower data rate. - PGC Info: Name = Weitere Bilder, Ref = SApgc, Time = 00:36:42:07"
My test project has two menus and a slide show with approx. 25 slides and blending as transition. The menus are ok, I verified that before.
First I thought it was a problem with the audio I use in the slide show. Because I am still in the state of learning how to use the application, I use some test data. The audio tracks are MP3s. I learned already that it is better to convert the MP3s to WAV files with certain properties.
I did that, but still the DVD generation was not successful.
Then I deleted all slides from the slide show but the first. Now the generation worked!? As far as a single slide (an image file) can not have a bitrate per second, and there was no sound any more, and as far as the error message appears AFTER the slide shows are generated, while Encore DVD is importing video and audio just before the burning process, I think that the MPEG that is showing the slide show is the problem.
But this MPEG is created by Encore DVD itself. Can Encore DVD create Data that is not compliant to the DVD specs?
The last two days I had to find out the cause for a "general error". Eventually I found out that image names must not be too long. Now there is something else, and I still have to just waste time for finding solutions for apparent bugs in Encore DVD. Why doesn't the project check find and tell me such problems? Problem is that the errors appear at the end of the generation process, so I always have to wait for - in my case - approx. 30 minutes.
If the project check would have told me before that there are files with file names that are too long, I wouldn't have had to search or this for two days.
Now I get this PGC error (what is PGC by the way?), and still have no clue, cause again the project check didn't mention anything.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Christian Kirchhoff

Hallo,
thanks, Ruud and Jeff, for your comments.
The images are all scans of ancient paintings. And they are all rather dark. They are not "optimized", meaning they are JPGs right now (RGB), and they are bigger then the resolution for PAL 3:4 would require. I just found out that if I choose "None" as scaling, there is no error, and the generation of the DVD is much, much faster.
A DVD with a slide show containing two slides and a 4 second transition takes about 3 minutes to generate when the scaling is set to something other than "None". Without scaling it takes approx. 14 seconds. The resulting movies size is the same (5,35 MB).
I wonder why the time differs so much. Obviously the images have to be scaled to the target size. But it seems that the images are not scaled only once, that those scaled versions of the source images are cached, and those cached versions are used to generate then blend effect, but for every frame the source images seem to be scaled again.
So I presume that the scaling - unfortunately - has an effect on the resulting movie, too, and thus influences the success of the process of DVD generation.
basic situation:
good image > 4 secs blend > bad image => error
variations:
other blend times don't cause an error:
good image > 2 secs blend > bad image => success
good image > 8 secs blend > bad image => success
other transitions cause an error, too:
good image > 4 secs fade to black > bad image => error
good image > 4 secs page turn > bad image => error
changing the image order prevents the error:
bad image > 4 secs blend > good image => success
changing the format of the bad image to TIFF doesn't prevent the error.
changing colors/brightness of the bad image: a drastic change prevents the error. I adjusted the histogram and made everything much lighter.
Just a gamma correction with values between 1.2 and 2.0 didn't help.
changing the image size prevents the error. I decreased the size. The resulting image was still bigger than the monitor area, thus it still had to be scaled a bit by Encore DVD, but with this smaller version the error didn't occur. The original image is approx. 2000 px x 1400 px. Decreasing the size by 50% helped. Less scaling (I tried 90%, 80%, 70% and 60%, too) didn't help.
using a slightly blurred version (gaussian blur, 2 px, in Photoshop CS) of the bad image prevents the error.
My guess is that the error depends on rather subtle image properties. The blur doesn't change the images average brightness, the balance of colors or the size of the image, but still the error was gone afterwards.
The problem is that I will work with slide shows that contain more images than two. It would be too time consuming to try to generate the DVD over and over again, look at which slide an error occurs, change that slide, and then generate again. Even the testing I am doing right now already "ate" a couple of days of my working time.
Only thing I can do is to use a two image slide show and test image couple after image couple. If n is the number of images, I will spend (n - 1) times 3 minutes (which is the average time to create a two slides slide how with a blend). But of course I will try to prepare the images and make them as big as the monitor resolution, so Encore DVD doesn't have to scale the images any more. That'll make the whole generation process much shorter.
If I use JPGs or TIFFs, the pixel aspect ratio is not preserved when the image is imported. I scaled one of the images in Photoshop, using a modified menu file that was installed with Encore DVD, because it already has the correct size for PAL, the pixel aspect ratio and the guides for the save areas. I saved the image as TIFF and as PSD and imported both into Encore DVD. The TIFF is rendered with a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio and NOT with the D1/DV PAL aspect ration that is stored in the TIFF. Thus the image gets narrowed and isn't displayed the way I wanted it any more. Only the PSD looks correct. But I think I saw this already in another thread...
I cannot really understand why the MPEG encoding engine would produce bit rates that are illegal and that are not accepted afterwards, when Encore DVD is putting together all the stuff. Why is the MPEG encoding engine itself not throwing an error during the encoding process? This would save the developer so much time. Instead they have to wait until the end, thinking everything went right, and find out then that there was a problem.
Still, if sometime somebody finds out more about the whole matter I would be glad about further explanations.
Best regards,
Christian

My subscription fee seems wrong (too high)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for