Originally posted by Cyrone: They don't have to necessarily be mp3 files for them to be recorded at that bitrate.
When music is recorded digitally in a studio, in this day and age, it will NEVER be recorded at less than CD quality (16 bit, 44.1kHz). More often than not it will be recorded at a much higher rate, like 24 bit, 192kHz. When it's recorded on analog tape, it will eventually have to be transferred to digital format. This is the same story. It will be transferred at a very high digital quality, then dithered down to CD quality at the end of the process.
Perhaps you're confusing the sampling rate of a PCM file with the bit rate of an MP3?
Originally posted by raindogtrombone: i finally found a review that truly understands what this is all about. someone was finally brave enough to know this is a swindle and a trully terrible album:
Before I start, I'd like to say I don't usually agree with being offensive towards people on forums, however...
It takes a truly special kind of prick to register for a forum purely to point people towards a "review" (I'll explain why I put it in quotations later) they've written slagging off an album they haven't even bothered to listen to.
Some people love this album, some don't see what the fuss is all about. That's fine, I can respect that. At least they've actually listened to it. You though, "Maurice", are a pathetic little turd.
In your "review", you insult all Radiohead fans for having the temerity to like the band's music, irrationally call Radiohead a "bar band" (what bars do you go to?), berate Radiohead for choosing not to give most of the profit from the album to a record company (how dare they!) and generally rant without any regard for logic about anything from paying for the album ("why pay for it when you can get it free. Idiot." - yeah, how stupid do I feel for paying for my car when I could have just stolen it) to why a "collection of mp3s that don't actually exist" (what are you talking about?) can't be considered an album. Where have you been living the last five years or so?
So following your logic, your "review" doesn't actually exist, because it isn't written on paper. Which would be a good thing, as the main problem with your "review" is that it is badly written, ignorant, and clearly the work of someone with limited intelligence.
I can't understand for the life of me why Radiohead didn't send you a copy.
"I know that human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully"
Posts: 832 | Location: Glasgow | Registered: 21 December 2006
Originally posted by raindogtrombone: i finally found a review that truly understands what this is all about. someone was finally brave enough to know this is a swindle and a trully terrible album:
Those of you that think that In Rainbows is a step backwards for the group, what do you think of this review? The reviewer thought Kid A was the first of many steps backward for the group.
I don't agree with the review, but I thought it was an . . . unusual point of view.
________________ Fighting for peace, that's like screaming for quiet.
"Mission Accomplished (Because You Gotta Have Faith)" - Todd Snider Peace Queer
Posts: 561 | Location: Los Angeles | Registered: 18 December 2006
Originally posted by hudson: And as to the Radiohead album, i'm starting to warm up to "all i need". I listened to it last night with all the lights off, It was good.
That song was the first to really get to me too. and I'm definitely happy they finally got around to releasing a proper version of Nude. But this time around, if I want to enjoy this album it has to be with the mindset that I listened to the bends with. For whatever reason, I can't listen to this album with Kid A size expectations and have fun. which makes it a bit of a surprise to me that there has been this much discussion. sure they're a pretty big deal and all, but it seems people are going a little nuts on both sides (more yays than nays, it seems).
Originally posted by Cyrone: I'm getting most of my info from this one "Idiot's Guide To..." book I don't remember what it was called but it was very interesting.
I was going to respond with an exceptionally witty and snarky comment about the appropriateness of you reading an "Idiot's Guide", but I think Commontone handled the explanation quite nicely.
Originally posted by The Fall of Troy: Wow, that Dusted review was unduly harsh.
Those of you that think that In Rainbows is a step backwards for the group, what do you think of this review? The reviewer thought Kid A was the first of many steps backward for the group.
I don't agree with the review, but I thought it was an . . . unusual point of view.
I don't think In Rainbows is a revolutionary album of music, and I think their method of marketing it is unique, but a little underhanded. However, that review you are talking about isn't a review at all. It's just some moron that is trying to be contraversial and Shocking. I don't know why there are so many people that enjoy doing that kind of thing.
The worst thing we can do is keep mentioning it. If anyone finds a decent review by someone that doesn't think the album is worth more than a 60% I'd like to hear it, because I doubt that it's possible.
---------------------------- I'm the operator with my pocket calculator.
It doesn't seem underhanded to me. It's not ideal for everybody, but it's got relevance, I think, beyond that. It comes across as a pretty loosey-goosey, kind of off-the-cuff thing to do, as opposed to some cunning scheme. Maybe I'm naive, but that's the impression I get.
So I was at a party tonight and a bunch of us piled in my car to listen to "Let Down" (from OKC), "Videotape", and "All I Need", and everyone was writing down lyrics they liked in the condensation on the glass. It was neat. Dear In Rainbows I love you very much. Love, Brian.
next time you go out to your car to listen to radiohead please invite me?
thanks
Sure thing.
Posts: 766 | Location: San Diego ==> Duke U. 2012 :D | Registered: 24 July 2006
Originally posted by Commontone: More often than not it will be recorded at a much higher rate, like 24 bit, 192kHz.
Well now you've piqued my interest again. What is there to gain from sampling at 192kHz?
Non-CD releases, like Super Audio CDs, vinyl. Stuff like that.
Also, stuff gets remastered over the years and having the absolute best quality audio files as the master tapes doesn't hurt.
Well, admittedly I have a rudimentary understanding of sampling theory, but I know two things: 1) Humans can't hear sounds that are much higher than 20kHz 2) 44.1kHz, being more than double 20kHz, is all that is necessary to capture a sound audible to humans(Nyquist theory). My understanding is that there is no frequency that we can hear that can't be captured by 44.1kHz.
I was hoping for a slightly more technical answer(sorry for those who have no interest in this).
Posts: 708 | Location: DC | Registered: 05 January 2007
it's not surprising news. Actually it's a "normal" amount of money. If they had gain like 10 millions then i would had probably be surprised. What Radiohead is going to do with 4 millions?...mmmm.....maybe each member will buy a Hummer and make a huge tennis court on their property. Ha....Thom Yorke with a Hummer and big sunglasses....i'm tired sorry....
Originally posted by eggTweedyegg: it's not surprising news. Actually it's a "normal" amount of money. If they had gain like 10 millions then i would had probably be surprised. What Radiohead is going to do with 4 millions?...mmmm.....maybe each member will buy a Hummer and make a huge tennis court on their property. Ha....Thom Yorke with a Hummer and big sunglasses....i'm tired sorry....
Originally posted by MajorNougat: Well, admittedly I have a rudimentary understanding of sampling theory, but I know two things: 1) Humans can't hear sounds that are much higher than 20kHz 2) 44.1kHz, being more than double 20kHz, is all that is necessary to capture a sound audible to humans(Nyquist theory). My understanding is that there is no frequency that we can hear that can't be captured by 44.1kHz.
You're confusing a sound's frequency rate with sampling rate. Yes, humans can theoretically hear from 20Hz to 20kHz (though by middle age, that range will have narrowed significantly for most people). We can hear the indirect effects of harmonics beyond 20kHz, but that's another story. Anyway all that has nothing to do with the sampling rate--the sampling rate is the resolution of the signal in time.
Think of sampling rate like the frame rate in movies. In the US, the standard playback rate is 24 frames per second in a movie theater (though most DVDs are 29.97). Every second, you see 24 images in succession.
It's the same basic principal for digital sound. When you're listening to a CD, you're hearing 44,100 "snapshots" of sound per second. Again, it's independent of frequency range; a signal with a sampling rate of 11kHz can still contain the entire audible range of sound, it will just be lo-fi sounding.
So if we apply your logic to film, it's kind of like saying, "humans can see more than 24 different colors, so the frame rate needs to be much higher to see everything." Makes no sense. (not picking on you, just an educational example)
Unlike the film example, the threshold at which the sampling rate of digital sound becomes difficult to detect is much higher. Our eyes can't really see a difference between 30 and 50 frames per second, but our ears are much more sensitive. If they weren't, a Super Audio CD wouldn't sound any better to us than a regular CD.
I'm not totally up to speed on the Nyquist stuff but I think it has more to do with *equipment* than the actual *signal.* It's more about bandwidth and aliasing, and things equipment must do to manage a signal.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Commontone,
Well the pitchreview done, they gave it the same as hail to the thief, 9.3. Radiohead is in best new music, that seems really wierd.
In rainbows dropped from 89 to 84 due to that stupid dust magazine review. Now with a pitchscore of 9.3 and maybe a ign score (thought I don't think they have ign on their panel) as well as another 20 sites yet to post their review (spin magazine gave httt 100 so they will probably give in rainbows a high score) it could go back up again.
The head of state has called for me, but I don't have time for him
Posts: 272 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 07 September 2006
Another terrible Pfork review, is anyone surprised?
Oh and PrairieFire, I hope you aren't losing sleep over the number-crunching. Despite being members of these forums, I think most people on here don't give a crap about arbitrary scoring (this has its own thread elsewhere I just couldn't resist).
Amusing observation: In the "Radiohead" vs. "Avante-Garde" thread compario...Radiohead wins! And it fits nicely that they achieved such a voluminous thread with their first album to really avoid the Avante-Garde altogether in many years.
Originally posted by PrairieFire: Well the pitchreview done, they gave it the same as hail to the thief, 9.3. Radiohead is in best new music, that seems really wierd.
In rainbows dropped from 89 to 84 due to that stupid dust magazine review. Now with a pitchscore of 9.3 and maybe a ign score (thought I don't think they have ign on their panel) as well as another 20 sites yet to post their review (spin magazine gave httt 100 so they will probably give in rainbows a high score) it could go back up again.
I just went to pitchforkmedia.com, I didn't see the 9.3, just 2 blank slots to enter your own score. I guess it's supposed to be a play on Radiohead's "pay what you want" method.
