Blogcritics Comments on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Comment by Tom Johnson on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:22:54 EST

Thank you, asdf. You're among the very few that did get it. I also only paid $3 knowing that if it were worth more, I could always go back and contribute more - something everyone seems to conveniently forget. I'll be buying the CD when it comes out Jan. 2 instead.

Comment by asdf on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:13:41 EST

The dudes jumping on Tom are seriously lacking reading comprehension skill. Nobody here is getting it for free and complaining at the bitrate. You're just spinning it like that so that you have an excuse to flame. The point is that some of us would voluntarily pay a reasonable price (hell I was considering paying around CD price just to reciprocate for this nice move), but not for 160kbit/s. The reason he paid only 3$ is because he *expected* this. I'm sure he would pay a decent price for good quality. But he's not given the option to, that's the point. I'm not actually sure whether well-encoded 160kbit/s vs CD is still audible; I'm writing this under the assumption that it is.

Comment by oOoOoOo on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Thu, 18 Oct 2007 03:54:13 EDT

Not me, they just got busted is all. Screw em.

Comment by doctoronsen on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:05:12 EDT

weej said: "No one deserves a refund". I am very glad that Radiohead and the people at WASTE seem to think otherwise. I just got an email announcing that I will get my money back indeed. I think they realized that what they did translated into educating music listeners to expect nothing from a digital download, and therefore pay nothing (want proof? read half of the comments on this page!). Which is a severe danger to the future of their business model. They now have restored my faith in their ecommerce activities somewhat.

Comment by weej on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:07:43 EDT

Radiohead releases an album online and allows customers to pay nothing, if that is what they wish. When reading about this move, and the 80$ disc box coming in the future, I was intrigued but somewhat confused; that is until I stopped and thought about it. Why would Radiohead confine their album sales to an expensive box set and a download? Of course, album artwork is important to them and their fans. There are going to be plenty of people who will want to own a hard copy of the album but not pay 80$. I would find it hard to believe Radiohead never thought of this. They will settle on a label and release a "normal" cd, probably within the first few months of 2008. I payed 2$ for my download, though in retrospect I should have payed nothing, and treated the download as a preview, planning on buying the normal release, whenever it comes. Oh well. If you were worried that the download was going to be less than perfect quality, you should have payed nothing for it. You had that option, after all. No one deserves a refund. And by the way, I'm guessing that at least 95% of all listeners will not hear the difference between 160 and 256. Not an issue. Sounds great to me. It was free, after all...

Comment by oOoOoOo on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:25:15 EDT

I totally agree. And I see some small irony that your final sentence refers to "customers", not "fans."

Comment by doctoronsen on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:21:46 EDT

Kamil, iTunes is not the same thing as a designated website selling a brand new record as one single item. I was trusting Radiohead to give me the best possible quality. And the widely accepted standard for this is distributing uncompromised audio files using a lossless compression scheme like FLAC or SHN, so they would still contain all the music (because high frequencies do matter!). Radiohead obviously do not want to give their customers the best possible quality. My claim for my money back is not valid, you say. That may have to do with the legal system you are living in (or should I say: suffering under?). On another note, and apart from any legal issues, I have just learned to never trust any Radiohead online marketing campaign. And I will never buy a single item from this band anymore, I will probably even stop listening to my old records because they will now always remind me how little they think of their customers.

Comment by ladida on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:16:38 EDT

But surely the omission of such information doesn;t bode well for Radiohead's intentions.

Comment by Tom Johnson on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:42:27 EDT

Kamil, once again, please do not compare Itunes' AAC file bitrate with mp3 file bitrates. They are not the same. Itunes files are essentially one step above the quality of mp3 files at the same bitrate - 128 Itunes files equal 160 mp3. And no lossy compression scheme will ever be considered "CD quality," so I agree, there is no basis for getting a refund.

Comment by Kamil on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:11:49 EDT

Doctoronsen: There was no indication they would be superior or inferior. You made an assumption. You should not have made that assumption considering that the largest online music provider iTunes distributes its music at 128. Furthermore there was no warranty, express or implied, that the files would be of a particular bit rate. The reasonable bit rate for a music file is determined by standard industry practice. The standard industry practice is what I quoted above. Thus, you have no valid claim for you money back.

Comment by doctoronsen on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:18:39 EDT

I sympathized (sic! past tense!) with the band and paid the equivalent of about 10 USD. I just sent them an email asking for my money back. There was no indication on the website selling the download that the audio files would differ from CD audio standards, and come in inferior quality. Radiohead really did their business model as well as their "brand" a huge disservice.

Comment by annoyed on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Sun, 14 Oct 2007 02:48:08 EDT

I think people are missing the point. Pay what you want - was for a preview and I don't care what band it is but that's not worth 20c - that's advertising - last I checked that's where if anything, they pay you. Revolutionary is pay what you want for the album (in place of the traditional CD) - This is not what Radiohead did, but it is was cunningly what Radiohead made a lot of people think. So they got a few extra dollars from their biggest fans and managed to spread the album - and catch the attention of the media. Marketing bliss to the corporate, I suppose. Except for what a lot of fans now think of the band for their actions. Radio head can get stuffed and I for one will not be buying a preview or a CD or anything else.

Comment by tonyo123 on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 19:42:31 EDT

The sound quality with 160 kbs MP3 is horrible. The first two songs in particular, 15 Step & Bodysnatchers, are paricularly distorted due to the inability of the codec to keep up with the variations and ovetones. Frnakly, on a good stereo system or even an iPod with decent headphones, they are unlistenable. I keep thinking it's the source device but no. You can compare the complex layers in these songs to the more simple ones that sound better since mp3 doesn't have as much to keep up with. Frankly, the cymbals and guitar are about as bad as screeching a chalkboard with your nails. This is a very bad and annoying choice. What should have been done is for those that paid for the standard fownload let it be at 160. For those that bought the deluxe package they should have offered 192 or 320 kbs with vbr. RH, as a big fan you've disappointed me. By the way, any chance you'll release this and other albums (OK Computer) on SACD high bit rate? Now that would be cool. I agree with a prior suggestion of paying per bit. Here's my suggestion for standard packaging: - 128 kbs - $1 - 160 bbs - $3 - 192 kbs - $5 - 320 kbs - $7 - Lossless - $9 - HBR DSD (SACD) - $12 and with Premium Package

Comment by James on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:23:18 EDT

Who said that rational behaviour is common in the realm of feelings ;-D

Comment by Michael J. West on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:01:14 EDT

Oh, I know. And people can feel however they want to feel. All I'm saying is that their reasons for feeling that way aren't very good.

Comment by Tom Johnson on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:02:29 EDT

The article states what people feel, Michael. That's all I can say.

Comment by Michael J. West on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:26:35 EDT

Of course, letting NME, Rolling Stone, and Pitchfork - you know, the major online music-press outlets - in on your plans, that doesn't actually count.

Comment by Tom Johnson on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:24:37 EDT

Via MTV:

Radiohead Fans Feel Duped By In Rainbows' Poor Sound Quality, Possible Ulterior Motives Statements from band's management seem to indicate that downloadable album was just promotional tool for physical CD. ... The sentiment among many fans seems to have gone from admiration for the group's willingness to let the consumer decide how much to pay for the new album to anger over the low quality of the downloads — and dismay over the band's manager's statement that the you-choose-the-price downloads were just a promotional tool for the release of the physical CD. ... "In November we have to start with the mass-market plans and get them under way," Hufford told the magazine. "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing," Edge said. To many, those comments sounded strangely, well, capitalistic and seemed to confirm that the lower-quality downloadable version of the album was little more than a promotional tool for the actual CD. (It didn't help that Edge is quoted as saying that "CDs are a fantastic bit of kit. ... You can't listen to a Radiohead record on MP3 and hear the detail; it's impossible.") And if that was the case, it probably would've been nice if the band — or its management — had let fans know before they paid (or, you know, didn't pay) to download it. Attempts to contact Edge for clarification on his comments were unsuccessful at press time.

Comment by zkrog on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:19:13 EDT

It was also mentioned in Pitchfork, Tiny Mix Tapes, and Rollingstone that I can remember. It was pretty much common knowlege that it would be released on CD in early 2008. Most people were paying for the sneak peak, not the bitrate.

Comment by Michael J. West on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:59:43 EDT

So that one article out there is the band's "get out of jail free" card, huh? You're pretty generous. Well, that one article out there let me know that I could get the traditional CD in early 2008. If I could find it, you could too. Like I said, the band has been shady about this - they could have said, "Here's our mp3s. Pay what you want for them. We'll also be selling CDs early next year." They chose not to. Why? You tell me. Well, as I said, "that one article" was enough to indicate that they DID say that. But, let's say for the sake of argument that you're right. Perhaps the band were being shady. That doesn't change the fact, or excuse, that many consumers were too impulsive, too intellectually lazy, or both of the above, to wait and see. There was a full ten days between the announcement of the album and its release; even if you HAD to have the album, you didn't have to pre-order it. You could have waited to see if there would be a CD release. You could have waited for more details about the mp3's to surface. You could even have waited until everybody else's preorders came in, read their reviews and/or experiences, THEN bought the mp3s. You had all of those options, and they are all completely reasonable and rational options, especially when you weren't given a whole lot of information from the start. If you (and this is a general "you," not you, Tom, in particular) chose not to exercise those options, but instead acted on impulse and on your own bald assumptions about what you'd be getting in the electronic order, then you, and nobody else, are to blame.

Comment by Tom Johnson on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:47:18 EDT

So that one article out there is the band's "get out of jail free" card, huh? You're pretty generous. I guess if the baker in question in my example put a one-line note in an article in one location, he gets off too? Like I said, the band has been shady about this - they could have said, "Here's our mp3s. Pay what you want for them. We'll also be selling CDs early next year." They chose not to. Why? You tell me. We're just going around in circles here - I've said all I have to say, so don't expect any more answers from me.

Comment by Michael J. West on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:46:31 EDT

Michael, that was pure speculation about a forthcoming, widespread CD release. Really? Because an article on NME.com that was published on October 1 says, and I quote, "The album, the band's seventh studio effort, will only be available exclusive through Radiohead.com for now, but Radiohead say they are current planning a 'traditional CD release' of 'In Rainbows' for early next year." That doesn't sound like pure speculation to me. And how come you didn't answer my question? How much would you have paid for the mp3s had you known in advance that, say, January 22, 2008, you could get a CD with artwork, lyrics, etc., and possibly bonus tracks? I DID answer your question. Owing to the above quote, I DID KNOW IN ADVANCE that I would be able to get a CD with artwork, lyrics, etc. in early 2008. (Just because YOU weren't aware that the band had made such an announcement doesn't mean that they hadn't.) And knowing that that would happen, I paid $8. For the convenience of not having to wait 3 1/2 months. The contempt goes to the band - they chose to be shady with details they knew would affect the choices people made. Bullshit. The contempt goes to the buyer who received no details, no promises, not even any implications, and simply made the purchase sight unseen based on (in your words) pure speculation about the specifics of what they'd be getting. And to those who didn't bother to look around at sites like, say, NME.com, where they could have easily found out as early as October 1 that Radiohead were planning a traditional CD release in early 2008.

Comment by Tom Johnson on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:39:33 EDT

Michael, that was pure speculation about a forthcoming, widespread CD release. EVERYONE was saying that, including me. The band remained completely silent and let the fans do as they pleased until right before the download date. Who do you think that serves best? And how come you didn't answer my question? How much would you have paid for the mp3s had you known in advance that, say, January 22, 2008, you could get a CD with artwork, lyrics, etc., and possibly bonus tracks? (I'm real curious to see what happens on this front - will the second CD remain a box-only item? I highly doubt it, but I also wonder if there's going to be a third release of the album later next year with the extra tracks. I really hope not.) The contempt goes to the band - they chose to be shady with details they knew would affect the choices people made. It is deceptive and conniving to operate this way knowing that something else was likely to happen - and they knew they had plans to release a regular CD in some way, through someone, at some point in the near future. This is akin to a baker saying to a hungry man that he only has one bagel left, and asking how much he's willing to pay for it, but knowing what the starving man does not - that he has a dozen more baking up in the oven, and batches of dough waiting to go for many more. Technically, he's not doing anything illegal, but it's certainly wrong, deceptive, and distasteful, and is taking advantage of a situation in which the buyer cannot know the full details. Does the buyer deserve contempt here, too? Same situation, just different products.

Comment by Brian aka Guppusmaximus on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:41:36 EDT

"(�15 for Studio Master FLAC, 96 kHz/ 24 bit)." IF Radiohead is recording the master at DVDA format rate then I would question why the band doesn't just release an actual DVDA recording. This is why I don't believe that they are recording at anything higher than PCM (44kHz,16-bit)because why invest in something that you're never gonna use?? AND, by the looks of it,the people chiming in on this thread probably wouldn't appreciate it or notice a difference from CD. Then, you can take the actual album... The music on there, though it is intriguing, doesn't sound like something that would stand up well in the DVDA format.(Just my opinion)Not enough instrumentation or creative writing to cover 5-7.1 surround channels.

Comment by Michael J. West on Radiohead - In Rainbows: Forward Thinking With A Bitrate Of 160kpbs?

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:07:52 EDT

I'll ask once again, both here and in the other piece I wrote the week before: if you had known there was going to be a CD release, would any of you have paid anything for this? On the same day on which I bought the mp3s, I saw a note in NME saying that there would likely be a CD release. But rather than wait an indefinite amount of time for that, I paid $8 USD, with a definitive 10 days wait. I'm not ashamed of it, I don't regret it. Now let me ask a question. You guys who are pissed off saw Radiohead offering a deal that seemed too good to be true. You took the deal, and it turned out it WAS too good to be true. Of the two parties here who could potentially be deserving of contempt and eye-rolling, what makes you think that it's Radiohead?