Radiohead's move to save CD sales

I think that Jonny's comments are being taken out of context. He is indicating that the only true cd - quality audio is found on cd's. And not that they are holding back the cd quality exclusively for those that paid for the discbox. He refers to iTunes to illustrate that they wanted to use a better than average bit-rate than the already accepted norm. iTunes is using 128 bit-rate. I think that 192 bit-rate would have been a better choice, to completely avoid all of this quibbling. I think this experiment was a genius move, from many perspectives : (marketing, message, social implications). The album is great too ;-). Why quibble if your enjoying it. Thats the main thing. I mean what do you have to compare it too, the only release (for now) is in digital 160kbps.

That's a fair interpretation of his comments, but it's also a bit tautological, isn't it? And in terms of the average fan's perception, CD quality *is* available from sources other than CDs. But it requires either more bits or a much better codec than MP3.
iTunes, by the way, uses AAC. Opinions are all over the map as to whether AAC is better than MP3 (depending in part on which MP3 encoder is used); my own ears respond better to AAC than MP3, but that's just me.

I think this negative reaction to the release of In Rainbows is being fed by a music industry being forced to confront an uncomfortable reality. This is a non-story. Music executives are watching (potentially) millions of dollars being paid for music and they are not going to see one cent. Radiohead made the album avalible for whatever price the consumer was willing to pay for it. What is a 160 kbps file worth versus 192kpbs file? Quit complaining and decide for yourself.

I have to agree with the above poster; this is a non-story. It seems that many people have put their own expectations onto the "pay what you want" experiment without really looking at the statements that were made. Primarly, Greenwood said something to the affect that it would be cool to have everyone get the album at the same time. In many ways that was revolutuionary. Despite the bit rate, it is still better then what millions of people get from itunes. And besides, it does not sound bad at all and I would think that most Radiohead fans are happy to have the oppurtunity to hear it now rather than next year.

Althought 160 kbps mp3 isn't CD quality, most people can't tell the difference. Even if they did have the chance at ripping the actual CD audio, they would probably use the same sample rate. 192 is almost exactly CD quality so I don't mind saving a little hard drive space. Also, Itunes uses 128 kbps sample rate for Apple's AAC format, which most tests have proven is just as good in sound quality as 192 kbps mp3. 320 kbps is just a waste of space and is not really lossless like aiff, flac, or wav. Most 320 kbps files online are just from people converting 192 kbps files up, making no difference in sound quality.

I agree with Jon Healey. SPIN SPIN SPIN. Non-story.

It's nice to have someone agree with me, but I think what Katie meant is that she agreed with the comment by "John" above. I don't share that view. As far as I can tell, the major labels aren't trying to spin this issue at all. And while some people might not care about the bitrate, those who do got an unpleasant surprise when Radiohead disclosed that the files were encoded at 160 Kbps. The info should have been clear from the start, IMHO.

I agree that Jonny's comments are being misconstrued as well. Of course there was a fair bit of cunning marketing going on with this whole plan, but I don't think it's as sketchy as the media has been making it out to be the past couple of days. Industry propaganda? Perhaps. I wouldn't put it past them - I'm sure they're pooping their collective pants over this at the very least.

The concept is as artful as the music, and I think just creating such a unique buzz and giving the fans a feeling of unity by letting everyone hear it for the first time on the same day are priceless. It was a refreshing experience for me - downloading, and listening to it as I started to read all the reviews coming in simultaneously. It was a cool thing. I don't know if they are going to fully 'revolutionize' the business in one fell swoop, but they have taken a bold first step forward, as only a band in their position could. This is admirable, and it brings new life and ads an interesting shift to a debate (about downloading, digital music, rights, etc.) that was going around in nauseating circles previously. I think they set out mostly to turn the whole notion of downloading, commerce, and distribution on it's head in a very simple, eloquent way. And they did. Look at all the discussion about it everywhere.

For those people complaining about the bitrate: Have you heard the album? I think they did a fine job of compressing it. Sure, the CD may have more life to it when it arrives, but this is still a well-mixed, clear and sharp-sounding bunch of MP3s. I have had several enjoyable listening experiences with it already, and I have a trained musician ear. I seriously doubt that 95% of the 'bah, I can't handle such a ridiculously shoddy bitrate' blogger/commenter crowd can actually tell the difference between 192 or 160, especially on the system or player they normally use. And I guarantee you that if you looked at most of these folks' MP3 collections, they have PLENTY of 129 kbps tracks that they frequently listen to. It just comes off as rather vacantly elitist to jump on the bitrate bashing bandwagon. So what if you paid for it? Have you NEVER downloaded anything for free when you shouldn't have? Do you not think Radiohead deserves it for the effort? Don't you think it's cool that almost all of the proceeds are finally going to the artist? Anyway, you didn't HAVE to pay. Why complain about anything?

Re: Wingo --
"Have you heard the album?"
Yes, multiple times.
"I think they did a fine job of compressing it."
Agreed, but....
"Sure, the CD may have more life to it when it arrives, but this is still a well-mixed, clear and sharp-sounding bunch of MP3s."
Why not have MP3s that have more life?
"I have had several enjoyable listening experiences with it already, and I have a trained musician ear."
Me, too.
"I seriously doubt that 95% of the 'bah, I can't handle such a ridiculously shoddy bitrate' blogger/commenter crowd can actually tell the difference between 192 or 160, especially on the system or player they normally use."
I can tell the difference, which is why I encode at 224 Kbps VBR.
"And I guarantee you that if you looked at most of these folks' MP3 collections, they have PLENTY of 129 kbps tracks that they frequently listen to."
You won't find any in mine. I ripped all my own tracks, and recognized early on that 128 didn't cut it.
"It just comes off as rather vacantly elitist to jump on the bitrate bashing bandwagon."
Huh? It's elitist to care how the tracks sound?
"So what if you paid for it? Have you NEVER downloaded anything for free when you shouldn't have?"
No, I haven't. But that's not the issue here. The crux of the complaint is that the standard now for purchased MP3s is well north of 160 Kbps -- witness what eMusic, Amazon.com and iTunes are doing. Radiohead delivered less, and it didn't disclose the specs in advance so people would know before deciding how much to pay. That strikes me as an attempt to have it both ways: getting some paid downloads and still selling lots of CDs.
"Anyway, you didn't HAVE to pay. Why complain about anything?"
Because I did pay, assuming that Radiohead cared as much about sound quality as I did.

I think everyone is missing the point here. 160 is fine if the fans downloaded for free, or even paid an itunes price for the album. But it's a total rip-off for the people that paid more, believing they were getting cd quality.

John, I think there are 2 possible mistakes in your article. You state Radiohead "should have offered songs encoded losslessly (say, 320 Kbps MP3s)", however 320 Kbps is not lossless.
Secondly you state many people downloaded the album "for the minimum price of 1 pence (plus 45 pence handling, which translates into a bit less than $1)." You may be referring to the minimum price, however it was possible to enter 0 into the price field and pay nothing, including no credit card surcharge. I'm not sure of the download statistics, but I'm imaginging many people paid absolutely nothing (or at least had the opportunity to).
Purchasers also had the opportunity to request a refund of their order, albeit only in a day time frame, but still, if they didn't think 160kbps was worth it, they could have had their payment refunded.

I don't think this whole thing is a non-issue, but I certainly don't think it deserves the attention or implied cynicism that it's receiving.

Cheers

Radiohead should have done 128!! This is a non issue put out there by the RIAA, but at the end of the day this is so stupid. Jesus people! Why are so many nerds so damn picky over something so freaking minor. They potentially could have had, and may have had millions, of people running to the site, paying nothing and downloading 320kbps tracks at the same time. When the concept of value of music comes up in debate, the last thing that matters is what the guy at Circuit City says is important. If your a Radiohead fan, it's an awesome album.. notice that you haven't seen anybody saying "I paid 10 bucks for it; thinking it was going to be good.. and the album sucked.. I want to go back and pay zero now like everybody else did." Nobody forced anyone to pay 10 bucks, nor was band obliged to have the availabilty of a bit rate that is usless to 99% of the population (i'd rather the album not take up anymore of needed porn space thank you). This reminds me of Life of Brian when a leper (Michael Palin) runs into jesus and is upset because he was Cured... cause now he's out of work as a beger. Brian hears this and reacts with "There's no pleasing some people." The leper then goes to say "That's exactly what Jesus said sir."

To Istoba: You're right on both counts -- 320 Kbps MP3 isn't lossless, although perceptually it's pretty darn close, and the 1 pence minimum is 1 pence too high. I tried to correct that in a subsequent post, but should have noted as much here as well.
Now if only you could spell my name correctly....
As for Steve's remark, I would have no problem with Radiohead offering 128, 64 or 32 Kbps, as long as they disclosed as much *before* customers paid for the tracks. As I said in an earlier comment, everyone else who sells MP3s these days encodes at much higher bit rates. They've set the de facto standard.

CD quality?

By current state of technology, I think that's kinda of too little. 2 channels when you have 5+1 speakers? Who damned cares about CD or 192, they should release album with 5+1 channels.

What really disturbs me is nobody is complaining about lousy 2 channels, inability to encode lyrics in format, turn off singer to get karaoke version, have each instrument encoded in 5+1 channels and anytime can switch of any of the instruments, noone came with idea to put tablatures on "CD" with songs... Whatever, the possibilities are infinite...

Sorry, $8 is too much for me for getting this little... In fact I think it too much for most of the people, they just payed such price to show what they think about whole industry... The next album will sell for 6 and next for 4 (nevertheless there will be a lot more people buying it)... Until somebody reinvents next evolutionary step of what album in 21st century should look like.. I mean what the hell are recording companies about anyway? They got there two microphones or what??? If they have done their jobs better and promote better formats they never would be where they are now. (stuck with 80s technology.. geeeez)

This is a non-issue.Most audiophiles would agree that 128kbps IS cd quality.Fact of the matter is most human ears cannot decipher anything above that. Case closed,thanx RADIOHEAD:)

That's quite an assertion, MC. "Most" audiophiles would agree that 128 Kbps is CD quality???? My guess is exactly the opposite -- most audiophiles would agree that it's not, and you won't get CD quality unless you use a codec like FLAC.
Again, the point here isn't the quality of the songs or the sound. It's the bait-and-switch element. As the band's manager recently told UK's Music Week, the files were designed to give people a taste of the record and encourage them to buy the CD, not to serve as a substitute for the CD. (See http://idolator.com/tunes/the-not_so_new-model/radiohead-management-to-fans-please-buy-in-rainbows-on-cd-please-309627.php) But when the band invited pre-orders, it didn't say "Hey, the files are merely intended for sampling." They invited you to pay, suggesting that they trusted you to pay what the downloaded album was worth to you. For me, I don't want plastic discs any more. I just want the files. So I expected Radiohead to deliver the files at the same bitrate that other sources do when substituting for a CD (e.g., eMusic and Amazon.com), not a bitrate suitable just for sampling. Sucker! Thankx, Radiohead!

One thing people are forgetting is that an .mp3 made from an original master is going to sound better than one ripped from a CD. I'm downloading the Radiohead album right now so, hopefully, a 160 .mp3 ripped from the master will sound as good as a 192 ripped from a CD. I've upped my ripping rate to 256 for most things now that hard drive space is cheaper, but am not going to go back and rerip the 5,000 CD's in my collection which are now just boxed up in the garage.