I just got this in an email:
THANK YOU FOR ORDERING IN RAINBOWS. THIS IS AN UPDATE.
YOUR UNIQUE ACTIVATION CODE(S) WILL BE SENT OUT TOMORROW MORNING (UK TIME). THIS WILL TAKE YOU STRAIGHT TO THE DOWNLOAD AREA.
HERE IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE DOWNLOAD:
THE ALBUM WILL COME AS A 48.4MB ZIP FILE CONTAINING 10 X 160KBPS DRM FREE MP3s.
MOST COMPUTERS NOW HAVE ZIP SOFTWARE AS PART OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM; IF YOUR COMPUTER DOES NOT, YOU NEED TO GET WINZIP OR ZIPIT INSTALLED PRIOR.
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THEM HERE:
PC: http://www.winzip.com/
MAC: http://www.maczipit.com/
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS DOWNLOADING YOUR FILE, PLEASE CONTACT OUR DOWNLOAD CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM AT downloadinrainbows@waste.uk.com
Great
160? :(
192 at least, surely?
Ah, another incentive to buy the box set.
I already bought it.
s'not THAT bad
one step short of my preferred rate, but wuddevva
I had a feeling they might
use a shit bitrate. Bastards. Still, in 24 hours I'm hearing the new Radiohead album!!
:D
christ
it's a free album, arguing about bitrates
seems a bit insignificant
and
it'll sound find on headphones, which is
the way I always listen to Radiohead
free album *of the year
It's free if you want. You might have paid a tenner for it, though
I just realised. 48.8MB @ 160kbps = ~40mins?
AWESOME!!! :D
Think it'll be released
before 7am? I'd like to listen on the bus to school..
I haven't got this email
despite having ordered the album. Has everyone else who ordered it recieved this?
Yup, I've got it
It's from update@waste.co.uk
not yet
though I only ordered it a couple of days ago.
I ordered mine an hour ago.
Got the e-mail instantly.
sorry but that's really shitty.
i don't even like radiohead, but i think the idea of essentially releasing this album at 160kbps is really fucking lame.
how can they justify this?
it doesn't matter how much people payed for it, it's a piece of art and the artist should want to show it off as the best it can possibly be. this is basically a half-finished piece of work and it's not even worth listening to.
this just reeks of 'you should've bought the boxset so we can make even more money'.
they aren't "sticking it to the man" at all, what started out seeming like a nice gesture and a good idea has ended up being some sort of money grabbing trick.
fuck you, radiohead.
I don't really care.
At all. I listen to most stuff at this bit rate anyway. If I want it to sound that little better I listen to a CD. I don't really see the problem.
it's just the principle.
it's like if you're really really craving some cake, and then someone gave you a piece of cake for free, except it was snot flavour cake (but they didn't tell you it was snot flavour at first) and when you got indignant about eating snot cake they said "well you can buy this delicious chocolate cake for £40 if you really want cake".
Well not quite...
Seeing as though I generally use that bitrate. So it's more like me wanting a cake looking in the cupboard and finding a cupcake instead of a fresh cream victoria sponge. I'd prefer the sponge, but I rarely buy them. I normally eat cupcakes.
Yeah?
Hmm.
160 kbps is fine with me
I import CD's into iTunes at 128 so 160 will be an improvement on that. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between 128 and 256 (see http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/003993.html), although I'm no expert and I'm told it may depend on the quality on the system you play it through??
To say its a half-finished piece of work/not worth listening to is a major over-reaction IMO.
BESIDES
I like the flavour of snot.
^ basically this
this whole endevour has flipped around in my estimation. It's become a massive "fuck you" to the people who paid money for the product, and pretty much goes against a lot of the values Radiohead seem to push. It's anti-art, basically catering to the neo 10 cds a year man, i.e. the people who get all their music off iTunes/listen through iBuds and give not two fucks about the subtlety of a good record
You might think i'm overreacting, but i really hate the way in which "music as sound" has been devalued and decayed so much. And Radiohead going along with it, probably just to give people some impetus to buy the "real" product.. well, it annoys me deeply
What?
This makes no sense. You're making all sorts of strawman arguments for the sake of making your anger sound more justified. Of course it isn't "basically a half-finished piece of work"- you know it isn't. Anyone with half an ear knows that any MP3 encoding sounds inferior to uncompressed CD audio, and encoding it at 192kb/s wouldn't change that. When you say "show it off as the best it can possibly be", that would involve not not compressing it as an MP3 at all. In fact, given that nearly all digital-based studios operate at at least 24 bit/48kHz these days, it couldn't even be released on a CD. Should everyone release music as DVD audio?
You're also laying all sorts of inferences on this- who, exactly are you quoting when you say "sticking it to the man"? When did they claim that?
I'm not some sort of Radiohead freak coming out of the woodwork- I'm more of a stickler for a decent, logical argument. I can see you're angry; I'm not sure exactly what about, though.
yeah, but 160kbps sucks
big time
oh come on
i don't mean they should release it as DVD audio or whatever, i'm saying they should have a bit more pride in their work. 160kbs though? seriously? i've gotten albums off soulseek with better quality than that.
it's just the fact it's been made out to be this kind gesture to their adoring fans, when really they couldn't give a fuck is what makes me angry.
i'm not even angry though, as i said, i don't even like radiohead. but if it was a band i'd like i would instantly lose all respect for them. i'd still downlaod the album though.
I don't know your background...
...you might well be a professional audio engineer, for all I know. Personally, I dabble and know a little about the technicalities of it all. General opinion, currently is that transparency in MP3 encoding (ie. artefacts are easily missed- that splashy sound on cymbals, for example) comes somewhere between 160kb/s and 192kb/s.
It's quite subjective, of course. Having done a few tests on myself, it's possible to tell the difference if you do an A/B test (and you know what you're listening for), but it's very hard to say with any confidence what rate something's encoded at (at these high rates) without comparing the same section of a bit of music.
And to make it all more complex, it also varies with which MP3 encoder you use. I would be genuinely surprised, though, if these particular ones had any of the MP3 artefacts we're all familiar with. I guess we'll find out.
no, i know pretty much nothing about mp3 encoding
but i can definitely tell the difference between 160 and 320kbps.
i'm just saying they could have done better.
"this just reeks of 'you should've bought the boxset so we can make even more money'."
Well you know, they're releasing a *CD* early next year so if you don't want to download it for free or pay £40 for the box set, then DON'T. You can pay about a tenner for a CD from an actual shop when it gets released and have it at the desired kbps you want. Most leaked album are at 160kbps anyway.
To be honest, I doubt I could tell the difference anyway.
no most people won't
be able to tell the difference.
if it hadn't of been mentioned in their email then no one would have given it a second thought.
just enjoy what i hope will be one of the best buys of the century.
even if they hadn't mentioned it
it's probably one of the things i'd have checked first. But i'm a ponce like that
160kbps sucks?
what are you people? fucking die hard audophiles? i rip most of my cds at 128k and there's nothing wrong with them. that comment that said 'releasing it at 160k is like releasing it half finished' literally made me snort, sending unsavoury things in all directions. don't be ridiculous.
yeah, you're right
i take back everything i've ever said about sound quality. If you think there's "nothing wrong" with 128kbps then great, i'm willing to accept that.
Any more nuggets of pure knowledge you want to bestow on us?
the way
you go on about it, you'd think 160 was unlistenable. if you're so fussy about the sound quality then buy the box set. the download is free, but then, being the smart cunt that you are you already knew that.
i don't understand people who aren't perfectionists
did they really type in capitals?
I don't have zip and I'm not going to buy zip so I suppose my dilemma has been solved.
you don't have to buy
it's freeware.
And built into Windows in any case
its funny...
to watch all the people complaining about this (esp over at Oink).
I must admit i would have liked 192+, but nevermind... i imagine they were trying to balance server load with musical quality.
As long as its encoded with a good encoder, it should sound quite lovely. Encoders probably play a bigger part within certain bitrate ranges than the actual bit rate. Its no wonder so many people are exclaiming they can tell such a big difference between 192 and 320... I've heard massive differencs between 192 and 192 recordings.
On another forum someone did some blind testing of mp3s with a good encoder and the results were very interesting. Its interesting what a psychological difference these things can make.
Anyway, it might not be perfect and for those on something high-end (i have a lovely all linn system for instance) that might tell the difference and feel robbed for paying (perhaps) for poor quality files, just download the loseless rips that will no doubt emerge from the cds from the box!
this has made me laugh
and I've been in a bad mood for most of today, but this has really made me chuckle!
I would'ave thought it would be higher...
but its not a disaster. 160kbps is alright.
no
192kbps is 'alright'.
160 is a joke.
no
i'm pretty sure I read something somewhere that said anything above 256 for "pop" music was excessive.
Plus, i can't notice that much of a difference. Sure, it's there, but so are the songs.
call me a simple person
but personally, I'm just please I'm getting the album I put about £7:00 towards.
as it's something that can be free, e.g. you're getting something for nothing, can anyone whose not paid really complain, and if they read this first and did pay, then again, can they complain?
if you did pay, and don't like it, you could try cancelling your order?
You do all realise
this is perhaps the stupidest technical argument ever? (Not counting those people who moan about digital radio signals, obviously)
would it be so fun to read
if it wasn't?
^ true ^
this thread is ultra mega mega lame.
Not really
they should'ave said what bitrate it was going to be in before the checkout, but its not a disaster
agreed
but people can still try and cancel their order!
if they don't like it, or they think the music deserves less, they can try and cancel, and re-order, with a different price.
oh fuck off
I didn't get this e-mail
should I be worried?
me neither
i'm getting a bit twitchy now - was hoping i could get it at midnight!
Me neither
Post up when you do though.
I didn't think I'd be this suseptable to hype but my palms are sweaty.
I haven't looked forward to getting an album on day of release this much
since SMiLE. I guess the hype's got me too.
The best thing about this way of releasing is how everyone's in the same boat right now, no-one's heard it, and everyone will be hearing it for the first time at the same time on release day.
Compare that to Neon Bible or Weekend In The City - all the leaks and torrents kinda took the anticipation away.
definitely
you only have to look at the amount of radiohead posts on this board at the mo..
As soon as anyone mentions
"...has leaked" I run a mile. It's like a spoiler. I have been waiting for this album for quite a while. I never post in the evening but it's just got to be done!!
so where'
this fukking aalbum then eh?
Office hours maybe?
i don't think it's going to arrive tonight
The problem with office hours
Are that I'm supposed to spend them in work :( Hope it arrives by 9am
10 mins past 12 and I'm already sulking
hahaha. Ah well. Who fancies taking a sicking with me tomorrow morning?
i've read 12:01
numerous places, although i am preparing for mass disappointment/same old crap on my ipod tomorrow :(
Do you mean in the afternoon?
Isn't that when Xfm are playing it?
no no 12:01AM
as in 00:01, as in 11 minutes ago
:(
It clearly says "morning" in the email
they'll do it when most people are asleep/at work rather than when all the nerds like us have stayed up especially.
.
i had microsoft word open ready to start my dis fan review, i think this may be my mid life crisis lol
NEWSFLASH
Radiohead fans are nerds like us.
thats what i mean
I have to admit
this IS the most nerdy thing I have ever done. I'm embracing the inner geek.
This is "the morning"
at this very moment!
this is how i feel right now...
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w47/ollygoodland/jesus.jpg
And it could even
be the morning at 11:59 AM.
:(
My guess is that it will be office hours, if it was going up overnight it would have happened by now.
hehe :)
Like Christmas?? Thom Yorke has to fly around the world sneaking into our chimneys/inboxes when we're asleep!
.
it really does feel like waiting for santa, oh radiohead how you toy with my emotions
w*nk w*nk
where the w*nk is it?
ergs, it better be here by the time I finally get home tonight (I'm staying after school today, oh, why must destiny play with my heart, why?)
you're all going to hear it before me, aren't you!
(I hope you all get a system error)