also uh...the radiohead fans on the internet maybe just maybe are the ones who found out about this? I mean, the ones NOT ON THE INTERNET are not ones who are going to find out about this. also nerds on the internet are a huge part of radiohead's market! I don't see how you can say THEY ARE SMALL when this entire experiment caters to those exact fans that would find out first.

pretty much every radiohead fan knew about this. hell, it was on BBC news yesterday morning. that's how widespread the release is. it's been picked up by everyone. the entire album was broadcast on XFM at 12pm.

also also your options are paying a price to support the experiment and get a shitty version' date=' paying 80 dollars for a box set, or waiting...what is it, OCTOBER? at least three months of waiting?[/quote']
how about paying nothing for the download which you believe is inadequate, then buying the CD when it comes out?! holy shit what an idea

how about not being screwed into buying an inferior version how are you not getting this.

IF YOU WANTED A GOOD VERSON YOU'D WAIT THREE MONTHS OR PAY 80 BUCKS (PS WE DIDN'T MENTION THIS UNTIL AFTER YOU BOUGHT IT).

jesus christ they didn't tell anyone what the bitrate was, it isn't out of bounds to expect it to be good quality.

I honestly don't want to continue this anymore because it seems pretty clear PRECIOUS RADIOHEAD can't make a horrible marketing mistake they are just doing everyone a favor desune @_@ so whatever, you're just being really bullheaded about the fact that their experiment was pretty much the exact opposite of what they were trying to prove and they disappointed a lot of people that were trying to buy the album without ridiculous monetary/time constraints.

but if you can't see that, it's not like I can make you throw up the Radiohead koolaid so.

This album was pretty boring but I really liked the first song!

jesus christ they didn't tell anyone what the bitrate was, it isn't out of bounds to expect it to be good quality.

160kbps is good quality. it's not perfect and it's not terrible. it is stupid to expect it to be great quality when no promises were made or even hinted at. just because you WANT radiohead to release it as perfect quality doesnt mean they SHOULD or HAVE to.

if they had actually said "we will release this at great quality" maybe youd have an argument

jesus christ they didn't tell anyone what the bitrate was, it isn't out of bounds to expect it to be good quality.

What are you talking about 160kpbs is hardly BAD.

what the fuck are you all complaining about
half my mp3s are 128 and they are not noticeably different

what are you talking about.

you got unsalted lima beans but it wasn't shit on a plate, don't complain about thanksgiving dinner.

yeah, they gave you full turkey dinners before but you got this one for free don't complain eat your beans Charlie Brown go for the football!

Are you pissed off because you paid for the album or something? Because you seem pretty adamant about getting your point across, which we all get already. . .

Yeah, so I am too lazy to search for a torrent on the second disc but wouldn't it not exists anyway? Also, Videotape is the best closer to any Radiohead album IMO.

Everyone I know so far that has bought the album doesn't really give two shits that it's 160 kps

Yeah maybe if it was a better album not so many people would be complaining about AUDIO QUALITY :/

Everyone I know so far that has bought the album doesn't really give two shits that it's 160 kps

yeah well everyone I know with the exception of myself hates wine.

doesn't mean an appreciation of wine isn't a good thing.

also I guess everyone here has a very slim grasp of what a bait and switch is and thinks that an experiment designed to go over the heads of record labels delivering a product that isn't as good as it would be had it gone through the record labels is still a WONDERFUL SUCCESS.

the cognitive dissonance is so thick you could cut it with a knife...

I must admit, when I found out that this was going to be less than CD quality, I was a tad annoyed. However, I don't think that it affects the record at all, and besides, if you were to digitally download an album from iTunes, the quality would be worse than 160kps, wouldn't it?

Oh, and I really like the album. It's very subtle and NICE. The strings really add something. It's unusual because the likes of Ok Computer and Kid A were big statements and this is very subtle, just 10 songs, quite short, but every song is wonderful. It's a wonderful record.

here's the deal actually listen to the fucking album because it SOUNDS FINE

I'm an idiot, posted this in the wrong topic:

I don't know about you, but I did the "Finding an Ideal Bit Rate" thing on this page, and I could barely minutely almost forcibly but NOT REALLY tell a difference between 128 and 256, and that was only in a split-second post-echo vocal reverb thing. All the instruments sounded the same.

everything above 128 sounded exactly the same to me with no difference whatsoever.

why is no one realizing this.

this was an experiment to show that fans would be willing to pay money for an album without the record industry's influence, to the degree that they could set their own price. however the experiment was a failure because it did not provide the same quality album one would get via the record industry.

this means the release was a bait-and-switch! almost every other band ever does something similar to this, releasing the album via a myspace stream or something similar in lower quality and forcing you to buy the record industry's version. since this entire experiment was to prove you DIDN'T need the record industry, it was a failure. the fact that it was listenable (and I love the people saying DID YOU LISTEN TO IT or whatever, because no shit and more importantly some of us do notice the pretty striking difference between 192 and 160, when you have decent headphones or a good system, and if you're listening to fucking RADIOHEAD with anything else, I don't know why you would even argue in this topic!) does not excuse the fact that the experiment was to provide a replacement for industry purchasing, and instead gives you this!

also everyone know that iTunes is a fucking ripoff, please don't use it as an example of QUALITY DOWNLOADING or some industry standard.

in case these analogies are all failing!



imagine this was for sale. at a distance, you can't notice how bad it is. at a lower resolution, you might not pick up the artifacts.

but the second you view it, you know, HOW IT SHOULD BE, you notice all the mistakes.

you guys are arguing in favor of a shitty product as if it is validated by the free price, when you aren't realizing that not only is it a shittier product (and it is, your personal opinion doesn't matter; I personally have quite a few 160 mP3s, I just don't ever use my headphones for them or really care about their audiofidelity much (LED ZEPPELIN)) but the point was to provide the same product as if the record industry had released it via cd, and when the band made the decision to give less than cd quality, they fucked up their experiment!

as the release is quite a big thing.

so.

instead of discussing the release which you said was quite a big thing.

i should talk about the album.

ok just wanted to point that out!

ps this album was so boring i turned it off halfway through lmao. in all seriousness I am having a dinner party and considering putting some tracks on, any suggestions? most people disagree with my ideas of what is good dinner music and I'd like to try this album out on an audience that isn't radiohead obsessed so.

people need to chill out

128 is enough


and oh yeah, i never listen to music in headphones. that's just not how music is supposed to be.

rofl dont you make club music, which is the one genre that needs absolutely perfect bitrates since it is broadcasted on really expensive bassheavy systems?

however the experiment was a failure because it did not provide the same quality album one would get via the record industry[/b].

except you're wrong because a 160kbps MP3 is better than or equal to the "industry standard" (itunes) quality of 128kbps AAC

notice how i'm comparing a download with a download whereas you are comparing a download with a CD. nobody paid for a CD, they paid for a download.