Yes. It's actually quite bad I feel.

 

Something needs to be done. I have a music technology degree and know a fair bit about audio and with 160Kbps you really are missing so much sound/music. I mean all mp3's are far less quality than CD 16-Bit 44.1 Khz...But a least 192 and 256kbps encoded mp3's have enough quality about them so that it's almost impossible to tell on the standard of audio system people use. Only high-end equipment would bring out the ugly audio compression artefacts.

 

We weren't even told about this before buying.

 

I think everyone should email...seriously.

 

I know a fair bit about encoding aswell, and I'm the sort of person who's willing to sacrifice the space on his mp3 player for good quality tracks. Now I do have some songs encoded at 128kbps on my computer which sound fine, but these are not complex tracks and I have a feeling that a Radiohead album will be taking advantage of the stereo channels, and I know as well as losing some of the crispness in sound on the higher end, the quality of the stereo sounds also suffers.

 

Lets hope 160kbps manages to overcome these losses in quality enough for me to enjoy it.

160 kbps will hold me over quite fine considering I will not be paying anything for it.

I see... you still think it will be available at midnight tonight?

 

Have you got your download link for it yet?

Have you got your download link for it yet?

 

No, I dont think anybody has yet.

No, I dont think anybody has yet.

 

It will be available to download when the download links get sent out.

 

I for one will be downloading from a rapidshare link, as I think the offical site will be slow

^ I'll probably end up doing the same thing.

It will be available to download when the download links get sent out.

 

I for one will be downloading from a rapidshare link, as I think the offical site will be slow

 

As long as the uploader hasn't re-encoded it, yes I think that's a phesable option.

 

I would skip lectures tomorrow but it so happens that tomorrow is the busiest day of the week and my absence will most probably be noticed. :angry:

Bets on when the site will crash?

 

Working on 10:00 as Zero-Hour:

 

I say 0:02:00

^Thats seems like a good estimate, maybe even a little before.

 

We can all head over to NME and listen to it streaming as they do the first blog update ever on it!

I know a fair bit about encoding aswell, and I'm the sort of person who's willing to sacrifice the space on his mp3 player for good quality tracks. Now I do have some songs encoded at 128kbps on my computer which sound fine, but these are not complex tracks and I have a feeling that a Radiohead album will be taking advantage of the stereo channels, and I know as well as losing some of the crispness in sound on the higher end, the quality of the stereo sounds also suffers.

 

Lets hope 160kbps manages to overcome these losses in quality enough for me to enjoy it.

 

Hmm, the only thing is that there are a lot of people actually paid a decent price for the download...and for what? Well....most won't even notice.....but I certainly will.

At least it's in mp3 and not some ultra-protected wma format

^Yeah thank goodness. I hate those ultra-protected files. I have a few razorlight ones like that and never listen to them since they don't work on iTunes.

At least it's in mp3 and not some ultra-protected wma format

 

Even though I am against DRM - I'd rather it be a high quality protected format the a low quality unprotected one.....because....

 

Most people can simply record the output of a protected file as a wav file (thus losing no quality) and burn a CD from that. I've done it pretty much on anything protected I've downloaded - and it works like a charm.

Not sure yet, I ain't checked my statement..

 

BUT the download is only 160Kbps mp3.....I've sent a big email to them about this and everyone should.....that's some bad quality right there!!!

 

Email them about it here - [email protected]

 

Seriously people have paid money for this and they get 160kbps???

 

Crap.

 

 

i don't understand why people are complaining. the shit on iTunes is only 128 kbps, i don't see anyone bitching about that.

i don't understand why people are complaining. the shit on iTunes is only 128 kbps, i don't see anyone bitching about that.

 

 

Well, they really should, because it is literally "shit". Never buy 128 files (whatever the format) it's low bandwidth audio that should be WAY cheaper than it is currently priced. They are saving money in distributing lower bandwidth/quality audio and that saving isn't being passed on fairly - we are getting lower and lower quality audio!

 

None sale single disc CD's in UK shops cost anything from £8-12 (generally)

 

Digital downloads of full albums on iTunes cost around £8!!! With such massive reductions is sound fidelity.

i don't understand why people are complaining. the shit on iTunes is only 128 kbps, i don't see anyone bitching about that.

I just thought Radiohead would give us considerably better than what iTunes puts out.

Well, they really should, because it is literally "shit".

 

Thats why I don't buy from iTunes!

160 kbps is really not that bad, although i expected better. i suppose they also had to look at how much traffic their servers could handle without crashing within the first 10 minutes. so...i'm just glad i'll get to hear the album, finally. besides, the difference between 160 and 192 kbps is very minimal, you probably won't even notice it anyway.

I read somewhere that a 128 kbps AAC file is the same quality as a 192 mp3

I feel terrible because i didnt pay for the download, so i decided to email them..:nice:

 

'I'm sooooo sorry that I payed nothing for the download but I don't have a creditcard

and for sure I'll buy the album when it's for sale in the stores here.. But I just have to

say that I really wanted to pay for it and I feel terrible because it's worth so much..

I'm sorry!'

 

 

:P

I read somewhere that a 128 kbps AAC file is the same quality as a 192 mp3

 

yeah, that's what iTunes want you to believe. :laugh3:

I feel terrible because i didnt pay for the download, so i decided to email them..:nice:

 

'I'm sooooo sorry that I payed nothing for the download but I don't have a creditcard

and for sure I'll buy the album when it's for sale in the stores here.. But I just have to

say that I really wanted to pay for it and I feel terrible because it's worth so much..

I'm sorry!'

 

 

:P

 

awwwww :wacko:

yeah, that's what iTunes want you to believe. :laugh3:

 

It was on the gadget show I believe they did a test between the 3 formats.

I read somewhere that a 128 kbps AAC file is the same quality as a 192 mp3

 

I think it's been said that 128 kbps AAC is better than 128mp3, but sounding better than a 192 kbps mp3 file is technologically impossible.

I read somewhere that a 128 kbps AAC file is the same quality as a 192 mp3

 

Not exactly....it sounds closer to 192 mp3's to normal folk listening on headphones shipped with iPod (mp3) players. Not on better equipment.

 

Sure 192kbps sounds fairly decent most of the time....(160 is just low enough to be able to hear some audio issues).....

 

.....But even 192 isn't really a fair biterate - considering 192 Mp3 is the minimum standard on most widespead "FREE" download torrent sites - and in fact you can download better quality illegally than when you pay for it on iTunes etc!!

 

So when you consider that we are paying for music we love then the quality NEEDS to be higher or the prices slashed! (I'd rather the quality up!) 256 CBR or 320 VBR would be a decent effort.

 

As I said before - They are saving money in distributing lower bandwidth/quality audio and that saving isn't being passed on fairly - we are getting lower and lower quality audio!

 

Radiohead said pay what you want.....they should have said what exactly we were going to be buying....it's just fairness. I would have paid £2 for this 160kbps version....and the £7 for a much better quality one.

 

There's not doubt it's going to be a great album but this whole issue seems to negate what they are trying to do slighty.