Line Out - Comments on Is the Bit Shit?

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:54:10 -0800

Just to clarify: Lossless does not necessarily mean uncompressed, unless you're talking the full .wav or .aif files. FLAC files are allegedly lossless, but are magically compressed somehow.

I import all my CDs at 192, but 160 is decent. And, as you say, better than what people pay full price for on itunes.

Comment by konstantConsumer

konstantConsumer — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:55:55 -0800

listening to it, it seems fine to me. if there is some sound quality issues, it seems to me that a band such at radiohead would have done that for artistic reasons, not for the sake of being cheap. it seems like a variation of when bands record in a barn, or an old house, and you can hear incidental sounds on the recording.

Comment by drheavy

drheavy — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:05:17 -0800

I think fans should be happy that a band is offering their music for free in any format. Is it worth paying for, I don't know. Does it sound good enough for the general listener? Probably.

Hey don't look a gift horse in the mouth. And if you bought it and you didn't like it, don't buy the next download.

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:05:58 -0800

Speaking of bit rates: Is there a way to get the Stranger Bands Page to lift the per-song size restrictions? Maybe replace them with per-account restrictions? (15 mb of audio per page, rather than 3 songs at 5 mb, for instance.) If you write songs longer than 4 minutes you're kind of forced to post shabby quality mp3s.

Comment by MC Confused

MC Confused — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:06:32 -0800

Radioheads are prone to complain. Like when they elected Gore and got all pissy about Bush being president.

Comment by trent moorman

trent moorman — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:09:55 -0800

Thank you, Levi.

See, I need the quality to be the highest most perfect possible. Because I chose the $250 - Straight Up Your Ass option.

They are mailing me the box set, and I'm shoving it up my ass. So if there is deficient sound quality, I'm going to be able to tell, on the inside.

There is also a $5000 option where Thom Yorke flies to your home and shoves the album up your ass in person.

Comment by trent moorman

trent moorman — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:11:49 -0800

Levi, I'll forward your Stranger bit rate question on.

Comment by Sam M.

Sam M. — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:12:15 -0800

If audio nerds want to be anal, they could go to the trouble of opening a spectral analysis of the MP3s. Basically, you can use an audio editor to look at any frequency cutoffs in an audio file, which is where low MP3 quality generally comes from. From what I see, Radiohead picked the right encoder (read: NOT ITUNES), as the frequency cuts are pretty damn minimal.

Comment by kerri harrop

kerri harrop — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:48:53 -0800

this entire thread is exactly why i still prefer vinyl.

"in rainbows" is great. i bought the box set. i am looking forward to its arrival in december.

until then, i am happy with the new material and i appreciate the way radiohead is conducting their business.

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:55:34 -0800

Kerri, I assume you mean 180 gram vinyl, right? I could see going with 160, but I hope your not soiling your ears with 125.

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:56:19 -0800

I hope you're not . . .

Dammit.

Comment by gillsans

gillsans — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:04:26 -0800

That's horseshit. 160kbps is industry standard (or or higher) for legitimately downloaded digital music. How can people whine about free shit? If they don't like the quality, don't pay (or pay less).

BTW, iTunes sells 128kbps mp4 files, which in my opinion is comparable to a 160/192kbps mp3 (I encode my files as a 160kbps mp4).

Comment by rlv

rlv — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:16:13 -0800

i'm just happy to have the record and am thrilled with their release strategy and business choices -- they're making people take at least a moment to think about what music is worth to them.

it's going to sound amazing on vinyl, and can't wait for my box set to arrive in december.

Comment by MC Confused

MC Confused — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:24:11 -0800

I'm gonna wait for the movie.

Comment by gillsans

gillsans — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 12:28:15 -0800

BTW, with a decent set of headphones/speakers and the sound at a decent volume, you can tell the difference between a CD and a mp3. At least I can and I'm half-deaf.

Comment by Sally Struthers Lawnchair

Sally Struthers Lawnchair — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:11:00 -0800

This whole uproar has just got me in knots. I'll need a cup of tea now.

Comment by Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0800

160kbps is a perfect bit rate for portable music players. If people want higher bit rates, they can but the box set.

Comment by Shitter Onners

Shitter Onners — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:59:05 -0800

Man, some of you fuckers would critique a suicide note. Enjoy your free album.

Comment by matthew fisher wilder

matthew fisher wilder — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:05:04 -0800

This has been repeated in other forums again and again...

...but that there are people who are complaining about the bit rates of songs they may have purchased for mere pocket change is possibly the greatest testament to how fucking spoiled the 21st century generation of music fans truly are.

Comment by kerri harrop

kerri harrop — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:14:56 -0800

@10: please tell me you're joking.

Comment by biggie j guitar player for amplified rock outfit SSS

biggie j guitar player for amplified rock outfit SSS — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:57:42 -0800

I love how people argue about the quality of an mp3. Get over it. Either buy the box set or wait till someone posts the album with the extra tracks in december.
Looks like it might get a proper release anyway.
Does anyone like the new album?
I still have to listen to it here at home.
Can't wait for the vinyl!!!!!

Comment by brian

brian — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:13:17 -0800

reason is simple. you can't post anything below 192kbps on Oink. you can't transcode from one bit rate to another and post that to Oink either. since the album appeard on Oink this morning for 2 hrs, it had thousands of hits and was the number 1 download in only 120 minutes, pretty wild if you know Oink.

anyway, that's the reason. if you say you can tell the difference, delete your files and wait for the cd. btw, you're lying.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:41:20 -0800

160kbps is fucking garbage.

320kbps is the best. VBR sucks ass.

Thank you.

Comment by langston

langston — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:49:18 -0800

The issue isn't whether 160kpbs is "good enough" or not, or that we're spoiled children argueing over free candy.
The point is that this was music sold "at value" with the value up to the consumer to establish. With this equation, the consumer has reasonable right to expect the potential value of the material to be dependant on the musical quality, not the technical aspects.

I would have payed significantly more for a higher quality track, and would have better placed the amount I was willing to spend with some knowledge of the technical specs.

Comment by Rippy

Rippy — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:31:10 -0800

Wait, I paid nothing for it. I want my money back. This is a rip off.

Comment by rkpetersen

rkpetersen — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:35:18 -0800

160 is adequate. Barely.
I import at 256, which results in an reasonable balance of sound quality and file size.

Comment by no bark jinkens

no bark jinkens — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:30:32 -0800

WTF! I bet the people bitching the most spent more on Taco Bell this morning then their 160kbps RH download. Mother del fucking grande shut the fuck up.
Brilliant album btw

Comment by Levislade

Levislade — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:42:55 -0800

@20 - of course. Just messin' with ya.