[stevenkelby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve_C /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. Paid $0 2. If you truly enjoy the music, having a flat dynamic range should not be a problem anyway. 3. Also, if you are holding your money back for the CD release, there is no guarantee that the dynamics will be much better, with all the compression that we got nowadays. 4. Please pay anything - even a dollar will do, that will differentiate you from the music leechers, as you actually paid for your music! 5. I apologise sincerely if I have offended anyone in my above post.

No offense at all, but I have to say:


Points 1. and 4. seem contradictory, perhaps hypocritical, even though you say you will probably pay.

2. Many of us cannot truly enjoy the music in a low bitrate. Can you enjoy music if you have earplugs in? What about if it's in the next room? How about if the music is way up the street and you can't hear half of it? Obviously, audibly missing out on a great deal of the music decreases enjoyment. We all have a different threshold, but as you say, audiophiles want to enjoy the music to the full.

3. I disagree, and it's not just dynamic range that suffers at 160k

5. Not at all, never be scared to voice your opinion!

 

[lmilhan]

I have a multi-part payment strategy.

For the "Pay what you think it's worth section", I paid $10, which is about my pain threshold for what I am willing to pay for a CD. But believe me when I say I am not paying for the low bitrate mp3s as much as I am supporting the cause.

For fidelity reasons, I will be purchasing the CD in addition to the mp3s. I will also take my wife (huge fan) to their next concert that shows up in my area to support them further.

For those paying $0, you are completely and utterly blowing your chance to say ****** you to RIAA. So what if you don't like the bitrate of the MP3s? (neither do I). You should still support the cause. Even if you donate just a dollar, you will help greatly in stearing the music industry into the right direction, and taking it away from the mafia known as RIAA, and their antiquated, crooked business model. Now is your chance to stick it to "the man", and by paying $0, you are helping to support RIAA in my eyes.

It is highly likely that RIAA is watching what Radiohead is doing, and sweating profusely over it. I am also quite confident that many other people in high level and influential positions in the music industry are keeping a very close eye on the business model Radiohead has set up.

If it turns out to be as big of a success that I hope it will be, we will soon see other artists following in the footsteps of Radiohead, by cutting out the thieving middle men.

This is the future of music distribution, people - embrace and support it. If the business model is a success, it will improve as time goes on, I'm sure. This is the first time (that I'm aware of) that a high profile, and very popular band that is capable of pulling in some "real" money has done something like this. Even if you hate Radiohead (but hate RIAA even more) you should still donate some money to the cause. Now is your chance to become part of a musical revolution. This is the chance every RIAA despising person has been hoping, praying and screaming for. Don't let this chance to bend RIAA over a barrel pass you by.

Think about it.



/end my 2 cents.

 

[stewtheking]

I got it for zero. This is because I know I will be buying the CD when it is available on it's own, and not part of a ludicrous box set.

I intend to pay, but I refuse point blank to pay twice.

 

[stevenkelby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lmilhan /img/forum/go_quote.gif For those paying $0, you are completely and utterly blowing your chance to say ****** you to RIAA.

Good point, that's why I gave my measley stinking 2 pounds instead of 0 or torrenting it.

I think it was a fair price for the quality, no more no less. I only wish that lossless was available now too, whatever the price.

 

[Steve_C]

Re: stevenkelby

For the record, I bought the pre-order, so there ya go

You're obviously exaggerating (I hope you are, anyway) on the comparison of hearing the music in other room or up the street, but I'm really curious to find out what other losses in audio quality we would expect from a 160k mp3s, please do explain.

Also, Imilhan just pulled the words straight outta my mouth, I couldn't have said it better. Amen, brother.

 

[stevenkelby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve_C /img/forum/go_quote.gif Re: stevenkelby For the record, I bought the pre-order, so there ya go You're obviously exaggerating (I hope you are, anyway) on the comparison of hearing the music in other room or up the street, but I'm really curious to find out what other losses in audio quality we would expect from a 160k mp3s, please do explain. Also, Imilhan just pulled the words straight outta my mouth, I couldn't have said it better. Amen, brother.

Good man. I must be honest and say that I don't always pay full price for music, the Russians sell me a fair few flacs

. I don't like the RIAA as much as anyone and don't feel guilty about it. It would be great if I could buy those flacs straight from the source, making the artist some great profit, and possibly saving me money too.

Yeah with the exaggeration I was just trying to show that at some point there is a loss of quality which affects your enjoyment of the music, for me it's anything under 320 kbps, even then I prefer lossless but notice it more on some stuff than others. I used to be happy with tapes. Head-fi ruined tat pretty quick!

It seemed to me that you thought dynamic compression was the only, or at least main, disadvantage to a low bit rate mp3. There are also audible artifacts, some details are lost altogether, the soundstage looses cohesion, instrument s blend together instead of staying separate, treble is cut (audible to me) and I'm sure there are other things I can't remember.

 

[KevDo]

haven't bought it on the grounds that i'm not paying for crappy MP3's which i detest the thought of. I'm not paying for something which isn't even physical and i have to write it to a CD myself (it just isn't the same).

I'll pay for the CD when it comes out (that is, if course, the album is worth buying)..

If, they had the same model but based on distributing CD's at CD quality, even if the starting price was that that they'd still make the same profit as they would normally have done so in the past.. then i think that that would be the way to do things..

all the plus points minus all of the bad points, and you've got a normal, standard CD in your hands and not some .zip file or whatever it comes down as.

 

[Hoppergrass]

discbox

 

[Zanth]

I didn't pay anything for the download...I'm listening to it right now. I did however buy the Discbox...so I guess I did pay for the download in a way, at least fair use for it

 

[Arjisme]

Initially I was going to pay as little as possible ($0 + fee) thinking I would pay for the CD later when it is released. Then I thought about how paying $0 now just proves the RIAA's point that people are just basically cheap thieving bastards and, although this would not be theft since we can name our own price, it still demonstrates that people think getting something for nothing is perfectly acceptable.

My principle with shareware software has been that if I get genuine value out of it (via it's utility or entertainment value, for example), I should be willing to pay for that. And I do. So, I decided to pay one pound for this album. I know I like Radiohead so the chances are great I will like the new album at least some. If I really like it a lot, I plan to either buy the CD when it is released or buy the box set. However, the box set is very expensive and I think it will be hard to sell myself on spending for that.

 

[odoe]

What was total cost on the discbox shipped to the US?

 

[devin_mm]

shipping is included
so 40GBP

 

[Superpredator]

Discbox just a few seconds ago. I had no idea it came with multiple CDs (which doesn't really mean anything to me) and multiple vinyl (which might some day).

 

[Zanth]

The discbox offers some interesting features...it's made to order, that is cool. So, really, if they decide this opportunity is a one time thing, then getting in now is better than missing out. Of course, the lps and the cd will be readily available in the new year, so the only differences are the book, the packaging and this bonus cd. Truly, unless one wants the vinyl and the cd, it is much more cost effective to just wait for the cd release. I'm in the camp that wants the LPs more than the cds even so it was not horrid spending the cash. My main reason for doing it rather than just waiting for the LPs to hit the shoppes was to support their efforts. I would have paid for the download on principle to support them, even though the bitrate is horrid (I'm listening right now streamed over my network, amped via my macbook pro straight to iGrados and the sure this is a bad way to listen but it is also clear that the encoding is poo. the experiment though is the key, let this experiment work at least somewhat, let it prove that folks are willing to support alternative methods of music delivery in conjunction with the old models. I love lps, that means I need the old method, but I have a DAP, I WANT the new methods (ideally FLAC files) so that I don't need to buy the CD. One great idea is to always sell a one time download of the album with the purchase of the vinyl format. Many indie labels are doing this. I can't wait until they go lossless instead of 192.

 

[stevenkelby]

I just folded and ordered the discbox. The mp3 download was enough to convince me that I like the album enough, I can't stand low bit rate MP3 so would have gotten the CD anyway, and I am going to get into vinyl one day. Plus I'm impatient, December is closer than 2008...