quote:

You don't find it in the least disingenuous, really? Hmm.

Maybe a little bit. I can see why people think they should have released that information earlier.

quote:

It's not actually free -- they let you pick your price. There's a huge difference

Hmm...I guess I can see some difference, but I again reiterate that you can't complain when you chose to pay for it.

quote:

Originally posted by less_success:
Hmm...I guess I can see some difference, but I again reiterate that you can't complain when you chose to pay for it.

"Buyer beware" is essentially what you're saying, then?

Man, you people are way too quick with your responses. The conversation is already moving on a bit by the time I respond.

Yeah, the only reason I used 192 is that seems to be the number people were expecting. I feel like I've heard several times "they should've given us 192". I know that you don't like mp3s, which is why I didn't want to direct that question to just you.

It seems to me that you have to expect them to release the album in mp3 format. It's the most common, and for users who don't know the difference, the most useful format. Also, given that i-tunes releases albums at 128(which I didn't even realize until now), 128-192 seems like a reasonable expectation.

I guess I'm saying that it's unfortunate that people had the wrong expectation. Could Radiohead have done something to alleviate that? Of course. Should they have? In hindsight, yes. Do I view it as sleazy that they didn't? Not really. I just don't understand why anyone would expect cd quality. I wasn't expecting anything better than 192, and knowing the i-tunes bit rate reaffirms that expectation. That's why I was asking why we should've expected it.

OK, so I downloaded this album yesterday and I have to say, it's underwhelming. In Rainbows couldn't possibly have lived up to the hype storm that preceded it, but I didn't expect it to be so... lukewarm.

Radiohead's IDM rock arrangements have always been some of my favorites, but on this album they seem to be cynically retreading previous ground, recycling sounds from Hail To The Thief without really doing anything fresh. Radiohead sounded adventurous on Kid A and Amnesiac, like a bunch of kids just learning how to produce an album and doing it while discovering how great electronic music was.

In contrast, this album, especially with the dual (perhaps triple) release, feels like a cynical cash-in. A few songs ("All I Need," "Reckoner," "House of Cards") stand out on the album, but for the most part it's almost instantly forgettable. (Edit: OK, I'm going through it a second time right now and it's a grower.)

The release of the album also leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Radiohead fans are among the most rabid, excitable people in the world and the whole download/discbox thing is really just there to exploit them. You should always look at what you're buying before you shell out for it, but Radiohead knew that their most diehard fans would open their wallets without really looking too carefully, and they exploited that. That's pretty low.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: The Twinkie That Wouldn't Die,

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat:
Alright, I'm probably only showing my own ignorance here, but I've got two questions:

1) Was there any reason to expect a higher bit-rate?
2) Would having 192 rather than 160 really have made anybody that much happier?

It seems like if your ears are discerning enough to actually be bothered by the difference between 192 and 160, than you probably shouldn't be listening to mp3s in the first place.

I'm not criticizing you, Dork, and I certainly respect that you're waiting for the cd to come out. I'm just curious why there's any outrage over the bit rate.

192Kbps for mp3 is generally considered the lowest threshold to get near CD quality audio. Lower than that, and you do get some noticeable drop off.

E-music usually rips all of their music between 192K and 320K.

iTunes encodes their music as a 128Kbps AAC file. You'll notice the bitrate is lower, but the compression is different than mp3. A 128Kbps AAC file sounds the same as a 192Kbps mp3.

I think a lot of the people paid a higher price than they would have thinking they were getting iTunes quality (the current standard in digital music) audio.

It's hard to say Radiohead cheated anybody, because there was no set price. You could get it for free if you wanted. But there were a lot of loyal fans who paid top dollar (someone above said they paid 10 pounds!)for the download, thinking they were getting a better product than they did.

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat:
Also, given that i-tunes releases albums at 128(which I didn't even realize until now), 128-192 seems like a reasonable expectation.

Without getting into the actual technical aspects of this, the files sold on ITunes use a different codec which is actually more equivalent to a 192k MP3 file.

EDIT: Crap, beat me to it eric...

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat:
Man, you people are way too quick with your responses. The conversation is already moving on a bit by the time I respond.

quote:

Yeah, the only reason I used 192 is that seems to be the number people were expecting. I feel like I've heard several times "they should've given us 192". I know that you don't like mp3s, which is why I didn't want to direct that question to just you.

It seems to me that you have to expect them to release the album in mp3 format. It's the most common, and for users who don't know the difference, the most useful format. Also, given that i-tunes releases albums at 128(which I didn't even realize until now), 128-192 seems like a reasonable expectation.

There was no reason they couldn't have given people different options, you know. Crappy mp3s, better mp3s, FLAC, Vorbis. Anything. They did not.

quote:

I guess I'm saying that it's unfortunate that people had the wrong expectation. Could Radiohead have done something to alleviate that? Of course. Should they have? In hindsight, yes. Do I view it as sleazy that they didn't? Not really. I just don't understand why anyone would expect cd quality. I wasn't expecting anything better than 192, and knowing the i-tunes bit rate reaffirms that expectation. That's why I was asking why we should've expected it.

iTunes uses 192... so what? Radiohead isn't iTunes.

For another thing the band has already admitted that this wasn't the full release of the album, as it was hyped and announced to be. That's the sleazier thing, IMO, giving people an option to pay for what they think will be the Real Deal, what you said is the Real Deal, and only later saying -- Ooops! If you want the Real Deal you also have to pay for a CD (in several months) or a massive, perhaps tad overpriced box set (in two or three months).

Radiohead is going to make millions off this (not that I begrudge them money, don't get me wrong). Brilliant, brilliant marketing strategy, but I don't like it one bit.

I paid three dollars for it, and I'm going to feel fine with downloading the higher quality version whenever it leaks, which I typically wouldn't do.

Yeah, I knew the apple format was better than mp3, but I didn't realize it was comparable to 192k. I agree they probably should've released it at better quality then, but I still think that consumers should wait to find out what they're buying before they throw down money for it.

Maybe I just give people the benefit of the doubt, but I find it hard to believe that Radiohead was trying to cheat people.

quote:

Originally posted by less_success:
Hmm...I guess I can see some difference, but I again reiterate that you can't complain when you chose to pay for it.

Well, let's use this scenario Less. Let's say for a minute that you're thirsty. And I say I've got some water I can sell you. When you ask me how much, I say, "Just give me whatever you think is fair". Being the nice guy that you are, you give me a $1, figuring that if you went down to 7-11 you could probably pick up a bottle of water for that much. You give me the dollar and I give you a tiny shot glass filled with water.

I didn't really cheat you because I told you to pay me whatever you wanted, and you didn't bother asking how much water I was giving you. You just made an assumption based on your previous experience purchasing water.

Wouldn't you feel like you were taken advantage of just a little bit?

I'm not really taking any stance here because I don't particularly care about format, in many instances I feel that many, especially some of the audiophiles that peruse this forum, are far too concerned with 'numbers' with regards audio quality. (I'm lookin' at you Dork! )

After listening to this album quite a few times, the sound quality has a few noticable bad spots in it, but nothing that is unlistenable in any way. If you are at least marginally interested in hearing this album, I would implore you to download it, regardless of what bitrate it is at.

I've got mixed opinions regarding the marketing strategy at play here, but it is very doubtful that Radiohead are in it for the money at this point. Thom Yorke probably isn't saving up to get a diamond plated leer jet.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mike's Psuedo-Psychotic Pseudonym,

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
After listening to this album quite a few times, the sound quality has a few noticeable bad spots in it, but nothing that is unlistenable in any way. If you are at least marginally interested in hearing this album, I would implore you to download it, regardless of what bitrate it is at.

I do agree with you here. The quality isn't poor to the point where the album suffers, but still, let people know what they're paying for. It's not that tough to type "160kpbs mp3" on your website.

I was telling my mate today that I'd downloaded the new album, and living in a cave as he does, he hadn't heard about it. I explained that they'd made it available to download, and you could pay whatever you wanted for it, from a minimum of 45p.

He asked what it was like, and I told him I thought it was excellent. He said "any chance you could burn me a copy?"

I mean... honestly...

I burned a copy for myself, but gave it away to someone who didn't know who Radiohead were. I hope they like it as much as I do...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
someone who didn't know who Radiohead were...

I like having un-sensitive ears. I can't tell that the album is OH LAWDY LAWDY HAWRIBBLE QUALITY.

Yep... sounds fine to me. It's not vinyl, but it doesn't make me want to write a strongly worded letter to Thom.

Dork, you realize that if they released the official album at 160, that probably means they recorded it in the studio at the rate as well. I usually stick to 192, but past that there's rarely any difference to the human ear especially since most mainstream bands RECORD their CD's at 128. So if you borrow a CD that was burned at 128, and rip it at 320, you're simply wasting memory.

Not only that, but 320 would be wayy too big (~7 megs per song) for 1.2 million people to download off their site in 1 day. The site would have crashed easily. So think of it this way - if it was meant to be in 160, then be happy with the output of 160.

EDIT: And by the way, I use super-high quality, $150 headphones, and used them for In Rainbows. The track "All I Need" was absolutely beautiful on them, absolutely no increase in quality could possibly be imagined. So cut the crap.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrone:
Dork, you realize that if they released the official album at 160, that probably means they recorded it in the studio at the rate as well. I usually stick to 192, but past that there's rarely any difference to the human ear especially since most mainstream bands RECORD their CD's at 128. So if you borrow a CD that was burned at 128, and rip it at 320, you're simply wasting memory.

Not only that, but 320 would be wayy too big (~7 megs per song) for 1.2 million people to download off their site in 1 day. The site would have crashed easily. So think of it this way - if it was meant to be in 160, then be happy with the output of 160.

EDIT: And by the way, I use super-high quality, $150 headphones, and used them for In Rainbows. The track "All I Need" was absolutely beautiful on them, absolutely no increase in quality could possibly be imagined. So cut the crap.

Bullshit. I can hear the difference between 128 and 192 and on some albums 192 and v0, I can definitely tell the difference between 192/v0 and 320. If there was no difference, then there would be no talk of "cd quality" (or lossless formats) and people would stick to 128kbps.

Any albums with a lot of electronics, really big differences in highs and lows, and/or string sections should be at a higher bitrate.

Use audacity sometime and check out the differences in audio files, see where they drop off, then tell me that there isn't a difference (I can hear it and I wouldn't even say my ears are super-sensitive).

Gawd, who gives a shit if it's 195,287 or 1. Buy the CD in 2008 and enjoy what you have now.