Really lossy equals lossless? That is news to me... hehehehe Though that wasn't the reason I posted it...I posted it to show that the fanbase was upset due to Radiohead's half-hearted effort. Granted it was pay whatever you want but that is still a poor excuse to anger your fanbase, is it not?

Do I go about giving people an amount of money they specify than hit them below the kneecaps with my aluminum bat? Do you think they would allow me to get away with the excuse that they paid for what they got and could set their own price, so they can't complain, right? (Slapstick hooray!!)

*Waits with aluminum batted breath to go out amongst the people*

Anyways...I kid...I haven't listened to Radiohead since OK Computer, so quite frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn.

Although, if Trent follows this route I will complain because Trent should know better. Though I don't think Trent will pull that whole *Name your own price* stunt so that it sort of forces people to get the CD for some quality choice music.

Adeiu,
G-Ack

The question is: would the band object against people ripping from the CD once it's out, if they already payed online for the mp3s?

I think you (or they) are confusing a few audiophiles with a massive fanbase.

As I said before: this talk of a rip-off is just nonsense. Granted, those people who pre-ordered expecting something that they didn't get (from 192kbps CBR to FLAC and a pat on the head) may have some cause to feel dispappointed - if you forget the fact that they were indifferent enough to pre-order something without knowing what it actually was. I use "indifferent" rather than "dumb", as many people will have pre-ordered and are now totally happy that they can listen to In Rainbows well before the boxset is released, oblivious to the fact that some audiophiles feel peeved because they anticipated something else.

However, where is the rip off now that the album has been released? It's easy to find out what format the tracks are in (I assume they have not felt the need to make a statement on their site). Are people still downloading it for as little as 0p and as much as £10? Indubitably.

If the subtext of this is "Have they released 160kbps knowing that users will end up feeling the need to buy the CD?" then I very much hope - and expect - not. I for one am clinging to the fact that there was no malice or subdefuge in their actions. They released the album in a quality that they saw (it seems quite accurately) equitable to the main supplier of downloaded tracks (iTunes). Granted this was without considering iTunes' recent (partial) update to 256kbps, or the new Amazon service.

The thing is, I would never pay as much for a download as for a CD, where you have full (release) quality, artwork, and a physical object. With that in mind I don't think it would be morally right for me to download a lossless version because I have paid for the MP3s. I paid knowing that all I'd get was a lossy version of the album.

If I had paid CD price then it would not feel quite so wrong, as I wouldn't be getting the artwork, physical media, etc.

Edit: Actually, given the premise that the download is an alternative version (or medium) of the album - not an addition to the boxset or CD - then I suppose you could say that it would be fair to do so (and therefore I believe the answer to be 'no' (got there in the end)). My problem is that I'm still fixed on CDs, and never see downloaded MP3s as a full replacement...

sorry to be ignorant, but what is wrong with that statement? i know technically mp3 can reach 640kbps, but no-one really uses it with those parameters, over 99% of the time the highest quality mp3 is 320kbps.

Probably that "quality," which is usually subjective by definition, between an MP3 encoding and a CD doesn't depend on the bitrate of the MP3, but on the transparency of the audio when comparing two samples.

What a circus . While you all debate about the quality of the download folks, please bear in mind that this move by Radiohead is unprecedented. So there is a learning curve. They will see how the audience are taking this. They will probably accommodate to various preferences in the future. They may seed a lossless version for a while and then encourage fans to do their turn seeding. How long the album stay seeded among listeners could be a gauge of how popular the work is. But the essential thing is that they fix no price for their work. This is just like in the old days when musicians performed in public places and then pass round the hat. Through this goodwill, there should be no reason to download a torrent file other than from their site. And how much would you have have to pay to download that file? It is up to you. No really, it is up to you .

The problem is that flash players might display the wrong track length when using VBR, even with proper headers. That happened to me last time, so I switched back to Lame CBR.

[edit]on-topic: 160 kbs CBR is fine by me. I'll buy the CD anyway.

Should of been flac

Thus, a circus is required. If there was no discussion there would be no cohesive feedback.

Anyone else here the glitch in 04. Weird Fishes/Arpeggi at 2.32-2.33.? Almost sounds like it's been ripped from a damaged disc.

edit: (this isn't about the MP3 quality)

edit2: and another in 05. All I Need 1:39-1:40

This is my first listen under headphones.

don't know if this deserves it's own thread yet but trent reznor is doing a similar thing, but with 192kbps or 320kpbs mp3, or flac:
http://www.aversion.com/news/news_article.cfm?news_id=9575

You never know. I went to a Metallica concert several years ago, and I got an ad on the way out that said you could buy a copy of the show online. I decided to take a look at the site, and to my surprise, I found that they had MP3 and FLAC as options.

Faint, left channel?
Yes, clearly. I'll await the CD for comparison...

Well, I'm bored. Pro Tools cap at sample 6723962 at ~2:32.470:



You tell me

Two hits here. First is sample 4368097 at ~1:39.049, mainly left channel, then 4369502 at ~1:39.081, mainly right, but both channels have traces. Similar waveform as the photo above but less severe.

I think it certainly does, and one already exists:

New Saul Williams album sold Radiohead-style, but done RIGHT

Please keep discussion regarding this (interesting) move in that thread.

Ya, I hear those 'tics' as well guys. Odd, but not unheard of in MP3 encodings... Check out the Iron & Wine - Innocent Bones track on my site; first post on Oct 23rd if you wanna' hear some strange sounds. I think that they're in the studio (home studio?).

With regards to Radiohead, I agree with several folks who stated that, in a nutshell, this is their first kick at the proverbial cat and the quality of their next release may just be better and more varied. MP3 and OOG at highest bitrate would be great as well as WAV and FLAC options. That way, no one would have anything to moan about! I'm sure that they've been shown the bitching online about 'sound quality'.

Moderation: Link to track, and leeched image, removed. Please refrain from posting direct links to copyright material and leeching (unnecessary) images from other websites. In the interest of keeping this post relevant: here is a link to the Iron And Wine artist page on Sub Pop from where the MP3 link was leeched; users may download the file from there, as intended.

Andrew D.
Cdnav.com

You'll have to elaborate. This is, as far as I'm aware, unrelated to MP3 encodings. It would be a fair comment if there was a sync error in the stream, but there is not.

There could be more problems, I've not done the whole album yet.

Well, Radiohead doesn´t always produce perfect masters not only in this release it seems. In Hail To The Thief i always wondered about the strange stutter at ~1.44 in Backdrifts (Honeymoon Is Over).

The £2 I paid for it I can't complain, its a bit loud and the trouble I tend to avoid loud music restoration (Declipped, reduced and attacked) on compressed files.