I just finished downloading their new album (decided to pay £5) and went looking for the encoder. Turns out they used Lame 3.93 at 160 kbs, but in CBR mode.

Compatibility or ignorance.

Yes, I know VBR is part of the MP3 spec.

MP3 was originally CBR, some implementation still CBR/ABR. Other codecs are VBR from the ground up. Outside HA what is MP3 VBR ? or what is another codec ?

Blame frontends. With other formats frontends are pretty standardised , But with MP3 there is no one way to encode . Every frontend dev has his / her own idea. LAME has had tuned VBR 0~9 for years and I think its the best way to go. Average joe understands CBR bitrate and VBR quality scale. You have to explain to them WHY to use VBR over CBR and they have to agree its more efficient / higher quality. With other codecs its again no issue because VBR was standard from the start.

Well, with them having chosen LAME, I was surprised they didn't go for presets.

If the encoder is 3.94 or more then they use presets even on cbr.

Ehm... I wrote 3.93 in the original post.

Hopefully at least it was joint stereo, or was it?

Yes, it's joint stereo.

Here's the output from metamp3's --info switch.

According to mp3gain, every track is clipping. Average volume = 98.3.

(Of course, I haven't used a download service that doesn't sell mp3s that don't clip, but...)

Um... you wanna double-check the number of negatives in that last sentence?

- M.

Hey, give me a break -- English is my first language.

How about this: All of the download music stores that I've used provide mp3s that clip.

Why do you care? Would you always replaygain your files BEFORE encoding them (lowering the SNR ratio)??? From my experience most mp3 decoders have no audible problem decoding the files that I've even amplified using MP3Gain... But, that's another topic

Believe, the CDs are also clipping... MP3 is just a reflection of that... (lowering the volume or not).

I find Radiohead's strategy ackward, it looks like the attitude "hey we're good, we're making digital downloads for you and you pay only what you can afford, ok?". I don't think that attitute meets any quality standards with MP3/160/CBR and it lets me think that their main product focus and sweet spot is intended to be the DISCBOX for 80 USD - there is a bonus disc with that package - which reinforces the idea that the 160/CBR download is not their primary product. And that is what they want for the fans to grasp. I think the digital download is only *yet* another marketing strategy. And with each marketing strategy, there comes a lie - a sweet subtle lie that you know you took advantage of something but at the same time it leaves you with a bitter feeling you didn't get something "good" enough.

It will likely to fail because the P2P, Soulseek and other clients are already _INFESTED_ with the 160/CBR copy. They figured this would happen...

What's on peer-to-peer networks is irrelevant, they were giving the MP3s away for free anyway.

The vast majority of people are happy with 128 CBR anything. So I think this idea that the fans will go "wait a minute, these 160 KPBS CBR MP3's are substandard! They want me to buy the $80 box!" is a little silly. The vast majority of people would understand one word out of the phrase "160 KPBS CBR MP3's." And that word is MP3. And you know what? Good for them. I actually envy them a little bit. They can just enjoy music without worrying over what format its saved in.

Let me put it simple:

What radiohead did, wasn't bad. It wasn't very good either. It was all in all just "fair".

The point however is, that without too much effort, they could have done an even better job, thus completely removing any "flaw". I asume creating the stage required quite a bit of effort - exceeding in the format and quality choice department wouldn't have been significantly more effort.

So, all in all - it was a fair deal and okay. They wasted a great chance of turning it into a "very good" deal. But failure to do that, doesn't make it bad.

- Lyx

What you got was a new Radiohead album for whatever price you're willing to pay. If you paid nothing, you got a free Radiohead album. That's a good thing, isn't it? If you paid $10, you bought a new Radiohead album for $10. If you want the fancy LP/CD package, you pay $80. If you don't, you don't pay $80 -- but you still have the album.


Probably, but it doesn't actually matter. If you want to pay for the album, you go through them. If you don't, you can go through them, or download it off P2P/Usenet. The end result is the same: you pay nothing, and they make nothing. The only distinction is that they don't have a strong idea how many are paying nothing as individuals go through P2P/Usenet.

Marketing or no, you still have an album in your "hands", and it's about iTunes-ish quality. I see nothing worth complaining about here.

Ignorance is bliss for most people as far as 160/CBR is concerned... but you go and ask to every member on this board if their favourite band did something like this... I don't care for Radiohead coz I never liked their music... but if it was one of my favourite bands, I would certainly be disappointed! And Lyx put it right, they just missed to turn this a very good deal - which is not.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2007/10/radiohea...in_rainbow.html

Rolling Stone quotes Jonny Greenwood as saying about the bit rate:

"I don’t know, we talked about it and we just wanted to make it a bit better than iTunes, which it is, so that’s kind of good enough, really. It’s never going to be CD quality, because that’s what CD does."

People who hate Radiohead for this release either paid too much for it or listen for artifacts instead of listening to the music.

Anyone will agree MP3/160/CBR is better than iTunes AAC/128/VBR ?
I mean... these guys know _nothing_ when it comes down to real world... and the answer that is not going to be CD quality is very ignorant. Lame/V2 is pretty much CD quality for 99.9% of music.

160 CBR should be at least neck to neck with 128k AAC. There is too much bitrate difference - why should I believe that it is inferior ?

Having said that, sold CBR encoding is totaly retarded in 2007. Makes you wonder if all the constant development of mp3 and other codecs is for nothing.

CBR is less efficient than VBR. Agree?
AAC is a technically better codec than MP3. Agree?
They could have done this better and not in a lousy way...

Yes - Although at high bitrate the quality advantage is probably nonexistant in most cases. MP3 VBR is not better than 256 k fixed / ABR, but it is more efficient.
Yes - but there is a big difference between 128 and 160k. HA never had public 160 k tests.
Yes

At least I have comfort knowing that when Nine Inch Nails releases albums online, Trent will encode them properly.

like shadowkking said... and i agree... It's pretty retarded encoding 160/CBR in 2007.

I think people have lost their sense of reality.

The album quality should be near-transparent; perfectly adequate for most. In fact, a very sensible and secure DAP setting.

You are too focused on mechanics rather than the album content.

I don't think some of you would ever have been happy; if it had been FLAC you'd complain it wasn't TAK (hyperbole).

Two questions to those complaining:

1. Why did you pre-order without knowing the quality of the files?
2. How much did you pay?

Whatever your answers to the two questions above my response will be either "More fool you", or "Well then, STFU".

There is talk of this being a sly move by Radiohead; yet this is only a concern if you pre-ordered before knowing what the product is. For downloads orders since the 9th there can be no hidden agenda.

a bit off topic. to avoid this in the future, maybe lame should disable cbr and all other switches altogether and only have the -V switch enabled.

They would have to map CBR - bitrate to Vx.. Actually I feel that for CBR why not just use FHG / Xing and Co ? LAME is bleeding edge quality so why even bother with CBR operations .

Full ACK.

who is that little japanese girl playing guitar in your avatar synthetic-soul...

I'm sorry, if that was directed at me I don't know the acronym, so I can't respond. Ooh, a Google search looks like that means "Full ACKnowledgement". Cool.

How can you tell that she's little?

It's Kaori Tsuchida from The Go! Team. She rocks!

Sorry, should be more careful with less common acronyms :)

@Synthetic... hm... she is little as in short, right? that's what I meant... LOL

All in all this was a case of Radiohead pulling a fast one on fans but gave a little by offering it for the "name your price" deal. Still it was a good way to piss off the fanbase and fall back on the excuse "you paid whatever price you wanted". Hopefully future artists learn from this start from Radiohead and don't repeat it. Heh!

Last time I listened to Radiohead was OK Computer...after that I quit listening because I just don't like them anymore as compared to their earlier work.

What can I say...but I'm a creep.

You can't please all the people all the time, I guess.

Have anyone actually listened to the album instead of complaining why something given for free is not good enough for your standards?

Obviously this reply comes from an "average stupid joe doe", just to point out how funny you guys look from here (the "outside").

Given that people regularly pay almost-CD price for albums on iTunes that are 128 kbps AAC files, I still don't understand how this is "pulling a fast one." How were you led to expect anything different?

Don't assume I even bought the tracks...I didn't but if by looking at the fanbase and their general feeling of being cheated than obviously a fast one was pulled...either that they were expecting too much from them.

Myself, I wouldn't expect anything less...hell at least it is 160kbps CBR and Lame...I was truthfully expecting 128kbps Fraunhoffer CBR. Than again I am a cynical person when it comes to these kinds of artists gimics.

*Once again I reiterate I didn't buy the Radiohead album nor will buy anything Radiohead because I have the three albums I like by Radiohead and after that I didn't like them anymore. Once again, I was not fooled but reading from posts and news it seems like their fanbase was. Lastly, I was not cheated because quite frankly IMO Radiohead went downhill after OK Computer and I did not get the album nor will I get the album anytime in any forseeable future on any format whether it is CD, Lossless or Lossy.*

Hell at least on iTunes Music Store you can see what you are buying but fans were not even told...that is a difference is it not?

A pre-order is a pre-order. I pre-order games quite frequently, even if I have no idea how they'll actually play. However, I know the developer, and I'm familiar with the concept, and I trust that there'll be a satisfactory execution. Individuals who pre-ordered essentially jumped into a dark abyss -- a leap of faith, if you will. If they find that the bottom isn't what they were expecting, is that Radiohead's fault?

I previewed the album before I bought it. I downloaded it for free, but using an alternate method (as the site was essentially slammed). I thought "Okay, I like this, so now I'll pay". Radiohead encouraged that, and it's no big deal. Don't be naive by saying that we had no idea what we were getting into.

It seems you're just desperately seeking for some sort of platform from which to complain about, even it's illogical. If you're not complaining, but rather relaying what you've seen from the fans, then they're doing the same thing.

This is one of those moments where a "reality check" would suffice.

I recken their new release will be in 320 CBR iTunes encoded mp3s just like thire leaks of Year Zero tracks that got left as usb sticks. And also Trent Reznor knows abit about bittorrent .

"It's all in your head."

That phrase is true in so many ways about this thread. I wonder how many people here would be able to ABX the 160kbps copy from the lossless one. This thread shows how many of ha.org's audience, which calls itself "objective" and "knowledgeable" are actually more guided by beliefs and dogmatism, rather than truth and logic. There is another recent thread which showed similiar attitudes.

This thread reeks of lube.

Lyx identified the hypocrisy here. HA members choose their preferred encoders and settings based on evidence, but complaints on this thread and others lack any objective basis.

To the gripers: please post any audio samples for which you can ABX an original wav from Lame 3.93 at 160 kbps CBR so we can all feel indignant together. Be sure to bring your harpsichord. (The band made no claims to transparency, but go ahead and justify your bitterness. Until then, the objectivists are not the arrogant ones in this discussion.)

Edit: LOL! I like Axon's reply better than my own.

I said it in my post, there is a big difference between cbr 128 and 160. Take a very old lame encoder and you will see where 128 will sound horrid , 160 will often sound ok. The real problem is Lame frontends.

The way your posts read, it seems that you were at least partially agreeing or aligning with that particular camp. You're the one who originally stated that Radiohead "pulled a fast one" on their buyers/fanbase, which just seems like a fairly absurd opinion regardless of how much or how little you might like Radiohead as an artist/content producer. I just can't seem to fathom the justification for such an opinion, frankly. It's one of those things I just can't seem to wrap my head around.

If that isn't your personal opinion, great, but it seemed to read that way in your previous posts, and I don't feel as if I've jumped to the gun, in a manner of speaking, based on what you've said.


Odds are you would have pre-ordered before reviews start rolling out, but maybe I'm placing too much on the idea of the pre-order for this discussion. In any case, with every review you read, you're still taking that leap of faith. Unless you play through the whole game, or listen to the entire album, you're never too sure what you'll end up getting. The demo has always been one of our greatest luxuries as gamers, and artists should always give us a similar sort of luxury, I'll admit (the ubiquitous Nine Inch Nails is, and has been, very much into the idea, but few others have been).

Speaking of the disappointed fan base, I'm still struggling to understand the nature of the complaint. If you pre-order, you're effectively buying into the idea that what you'll be receiving will be to your satisfaction, or at least you'll be hopeful that it'll be to your satisfaction. Had Radiohead gone with 64kbps Shine, then that might be different, but those who know MP3 know that 160kbps CBR LAME is pretty solid. They should have hired a consultant to make the encoding decision, but I don't feel like it's a big thing. Audiophiles might be disappointed, yeah, but it's not as if In Rainbows is never going to be released in a lossless fashion, and audiophiles tend to vilify lossy encoding just for the sake of vilifying it (often out of pure ignorance, though there are doubtless other reasons, some valid and some not). So, I think a lot of opinions one might see out on the grand intarweb would probably have been formed without really having enough knowledge about certain things, which would make those opinions less...meaningful.


I have the UT3 demo sitting on my drive, yeah. I'll likely have some time tomorrow to give a go, though I'm hearing complaints about mouse acceleration (again), and that's a deal breaker for me. Some of these once very PC-centric developers are starting to slip up on these little details that manage to completely ruin me

TOS #5 about UT3 moved to a new thread in Off Topic. Exchange between Bourne and Lyx sent to Recycle bin.

Please stay on topic - even if that does mean bitching about an album that you didn't even download...

Trent said this back in May:



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5006024,00.html

Sounds promising.

Yes it does! Well lets see what Trent does and see if the trend will continue with Radiohead's example or take the lead from Trent's example. Just have to wait on Trent's new album that is all...