Radiohead - In Rainbows

[Franciscus]

i bet no lower than 192, but probably at least 256

yeah, 256 i think. :)

[Bob Dylan]

160 KBPS = LOL

 

I'm buying this at 0 bucks and I'll wait for the CD. No way I'll fuck up the fidelity and quality of the music when they spend hours tweaking a quality sound with Nigel Godrich and the group.

 

 

They could have given us say, SUPERIOR sound to Redbook CD standards, that would have been the fucking deal. Just make it as a TORRENT, it wouldn't have been higher than 500mb to have 192 kHz / 24 Bits stereo recording of 60 minutes music.

[eugene]

nothing wrong with 160kbps, i believe they did a couple of tests with different encoding configs..

the mp3 version of the album is the first version that will see the world, they wouldn't of released it like that if it sounded wrong to them.

[goDel]

160? What the fak. morons

[Guest Mod Mozart]

I'm quite excited to hear this tomorrow...but slightly worried. It's either going to be one of their best (considering the amount of time they put into it) or a total disappointment. Some of the tracks have been in the works since 1997 so I think people have some large expectations.

 

Hail to the Thief was pretty mediocre IMO, so if Radiohead don't come through on this record I think we'll start to see the end of them.

[Bob Dylan]

nothing wrong with 160kbps

 

 

Yep nothing wrong with it for 0$. I'll wait for the CD to pay for it. Just imagine the slap on the face of the industy had this was made in Torrent format, and in superior format to Redbook CD standards. The users sharing the album, not the warehouses method. But nooooooo, let's compress the shit out of the mastering they worked HARD on it (all the production, Nigel Godrich, the band, the technicians, etc...) with bad psychoacoustic algorithms only for the sake of keeping the file size low. None of that "they listened to it and it sounds fine" excuse, that's bollocks.

 

Really this is 2007, file size doesn't matter anymore, if somebody want it they will get it. There is no excuse for low MP3 bitrates anymore. It's like a fucking cent per GB in Hard Drive price today.

[playbynumbers]

160 is a bit low ... with 256 i can't tell the difference between that and a CD, with 192 i can barely tell, but 160 is getting down there

[kaini]

:(

[BobDobalina]

160 KBPS = LOL

 

I'm buying this at 0 bucks and I'll wait for the CD. No way I'll fuck up the fidelity and quality of the music when they spend hours tweaking a quality sound with Nigel Godrich and the group.

 

They could have given us say, SUPERIOR sound to Redbook CD standards, that would have been the fucking deal. Just make it as a TORRENT, it wouldn't have been higher than 500mb to have 192 kHz / 24 Bits stereo recording of 60 minutes music.

 

Yep nothing wrong with it for 0$. I'll wait for the CD to pay for it. Just imagine the slap on the face of the industy had this was made in Torrent format, and in superior format to Redbook CD standards. The users sharing the album, not the warehouses method. But nooooooo, let's compress the shit out of the mastering they worked HARD on it (all the production, Nigel Godrich, the band, the technicians, etc...) with bad psychoacoustic algorithms only for the sake of keeping the file size low. None of that "they listened to it and it sounds fine" excuse, that's bollocks.

 

Really this is 2007, file size doesn't matter anymore, if somebody want it they will get it. There is no excuse for low MP3 bitrates anymore. It's like a fucking cent per GB in Hard Drive price today.

Dude quit your bitching, neither you nor any other human being can tell the difference between 44.1/16 and 192/24. 160kbps is more than adequate too, if you think it's so shitty then prove it to yourself by doing a double-blind listening test vs. an uncompressed sample. Believe it or not most people can't distinguish 128kbps vs. the original.

[Squee]

160 KBPS = LOL

 

I'm buying this at 0 bucks and I'll wait for the CD. No way I'll fuck up the fidelity and quality of the music when they spend hours tweaking a quality sound with Nigel Godrich and the group.

 

They could have given us say, SUPERIOR sound to Redbook CD standards, that would have been the fucking deal. Just make it as a TORRENT, it wouldn't have been higher than 500mb to have 192 kHz / 24 Bits stereo recording of 60 minutes music.

 

Yep nothing wrong with it for 0$. I'll wait for the CD to pay for it. Just imagine the slap on the face of the industy had this was made in Torrent format, and in superior format to Redbook CD standards. The users sharing the album, not the warehouses method. But nooooooo, let's compress the shit out of the mastering they worked HARD on it (all the production, Nigel Godrich, the band, the technicians, etc...) with bad psychoacoustic algorithms only for the sake of keeping the file size low. None of that "they listened to it and it sounds fine" excuse, that's bollocks.

 

Really this is 2007, file size doesn't matter anymore, if somebody want it they will get it. There is no excuse for low MP3 bitrates anymore. It's like a fucking cent per GB in Hard Drive price today.

Dude quit your bitching, neither you nor any other human being can tell the difference between 44.1/16 and 192/24. 160kbps is more than adequate too, if you think it's so shitty then prove it to yourself by doing a double-blind listening test vs. an uncompressed sample. Believe it or not most people can't distinguish 128kbps vs. the original.

 

That depends on where you play these 128 kbps mp3s. At home there's wrong with it, but if you play them at a club... then you're fucked!

[Franciscus]

128 sucks,

 

192 is good,

 

but the album is on 160kbps. so what's your problem?

[Guest Rook]

zero dollars

[eugene]

nothing wrong with 160kbps

 

 

Yep nothing wrong with it for 0$. I'll wait for the CD to pay for it. Just imagine the slap on the face of the industy had this was made in Torrent format, and in superior format to Redbook CD standards. The users sharing the album, not the warehouses method. But nooooooo, let's compress the shit out of the mastering they worked HARD on it (all the production, Nigel Godrich, the band, the technicians, etc...) with bad psychoacoustic algorithms only for the sake of keeping the file size low. None of that "they listened to it and it sounds fine" excuse, that's bollocks.

 

Really this is 2007, file size doesn't matter anymore, if somebody want it they will get it. There is no excuse for low MP3 bitrates anymore. It's like a fucking cent per GB in Hard Drive price today.

well i agree that it would be cooler in torrent and "HQ", but they're coming from a different place, they are a commercial band after all. for them, releasing in 160kbps is a step above the itunes market which is all 128kbps..that's whom they're "competing" i reckon. also i believe they want to pronounce this "we did it, on our own, on our own site without anyone's help and with no record labels" notion..their servers are going to blow up tomorrow, lol.

 

i disagree completely with the second half of you post, they're not going to butcher their own work..they were quite pissed when unmastered httt leaked to the internets i remember. noone's dictating them their will anymore, it was solely their decision to release it like that and in that quality. i don't see how this "excuse" can be unsatisfying to the average fan.

 

in my music downloading experience i choose different quality for different albums, if i realize that there's no audible difference between flac and mp3 higher/lower bitrate - i stay with mp3.

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

i think i'm gonna do an experiment with this one tomorrow (if i'll be arsed), gonna transcode it to 256 and fiddle with the EQ a bit to make it sound a bit brighter..maybe add some more stereo seperation, then post the results on atease as some kind of incognito studio engineer who nicked the high quality masters..should be a laugh.

[Bob Dylan]

iTunes is eliminating their entire 128kbps library in two years for the tierce plan of having it all in that other format in better quality. Cmon 128kbps is a relic of half a decade ago when it was the best compromise over the low bandwidth of early high-speed internet access and 56kbps dial-up. Bandwidth price is now 1/10th of what it was for networking and 1/10th too for the storage.

 

It doesn't hold a candle over ANY reasoning, especially not that guy who thinks that you can't find a difference LOL. That guy has no clue about psychoacoustics, probably living in a self-absorbed negativism that "humans are stupid they cannot distinguish".

 

FFS, this lowest common denominator retarded way of thinking will lead us to a idiocracy society. Level things UP and all will be better in the end. This is good capitalism.

 

Anyway play a stereo layer of a DVD-A and the best 128kbps mp3 of that same song and it'll be night and day over any kind of good stereo. Just concentrate a fucking half second on any instrument in the mix and it'll be like hitting a brick wall.

 

 

In the end this is a half-assed attempt to go the other way than simple normal distribution of an album. Low-quality MP3 with a full-release CD in December probably when they were trying to push it as a "new way to buy an album", fully-fledged release without the help of a label or a giant deal. Uh that didn't happen, we're getting something else. Thank god we'll get at least a redbook CD standard quality.

[beneboi]

It's like a fucking cent per GB in Hard Drive price today.

 

wow, if thats true my 500 gb hd i bought recently should have only been 5 bucks

 

i got ripped off

[Guest Mod Mozart]

Forget all this bit rate shit. Back to what I was saying: do you guys think that the music will be any good?

[eugene]

dunno, some of the songs that are going to appear on this album are very good (judging from live shows), some are average..but i remember that i wasn't too impressed with live performances of the songs that later appeared on kid a back in 2000, which turned out to be a masterpiece..imo.

 

here, spoil it yourself : http://theultimatebootlegexperience.blogsp...nbows-live.html - all of the songs performed live in "in rainbows" official order (excluding faust arp, which wasn't played live, at least not under this name...that song is called "spooks")

[Guest Mod Mozart]

See, I purposely didn't listen to any of the live material they ended up using on the record (which is mostly all of it). I remember when Amnesiac came out I had already heard some of the live versions so the ezperienced ended up being a little anti-climatic.

 

Tomorrow I'm going to come home, light up a huge spliff and put this on on some headphones and pray that's its the best thing I've heard in a while. But to be honest, I hated HTTT and was only a little impressed with The Eraser, so we'll see.

[Guest Moebius]

Where are you guys getting this information about it being 160kbps? The website still lacks exact details.

 

Also iTunes uses a different format, 128kbps in AAC is better than the same bitrate in MP3 (or so the conventional wisdom goes).

[Guest Mod Mozart]

Mystery revealed: http://www.ateaseweb.com/2007/10/09/in-rai...in-the-morning/

[eugene]

Where are you guys getting this information about it being 160kbps? The website still lacks exact details.

 

Also iTunes uses a different format, 128kbps in AAC is better than the same bitrate in MP3 (or so the conventional wisdom goes).

 

people are starting to receive their 2nd confirmation emails, if atease worked i'd post it here..but basically it says that everything is cool the download will be 40something mbs, 10 mp3 files, in 160 kbps, and that it will be available tomorrow morning uk time.

 

aac then..yeah, i've also heard that it is considered more hi-fi than the mp3 of the same size..bitrate.

but i think the quality of the encoder itself is a very significant factor for quality..not just the bitrate. things have changed since 1998s after all..

[beneboi]

people are starting to receive their 2nd confirmation emails, if atease worked i'd post it here..but basically it says that everything is cool the download will be 40something mbs, 10 mp3 files, in 160 kbps, and that it will be available tomorrow morning uk time.

 

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

[Guest olson]

Dude quit your bitching, neither you nor any other human being can tell the difference between 44.1/16 and 192/24. 160kbps is more than adequate too, if you think it's so shitty then prove it to yourself by doing a double-blind listening test vs. an uncompressed sample. Believe it or not most people can't distinguish 128kbps vs. the original.

 

i hope this is true, because i bought a decent set of sennheisers and still can barely tell the difference between 128 and 192+ on most songs.

[kaini]

YOUR UNIQUE ACTIVATION CODE(S) WILL BE SENT OUT TOMORROW MORNING 10th OCT(UK TIME).

THIS CODE/LINK 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.

 

one chap i know claims to have it. some early leak or something

[Guest olson]

said chap is a liar.