[Dublo7]

I paid 1 pound.

This album is absolutely incredible. Shame about the ****** 160kbps mp3's. They're distorting like crazy.

 

[ninjapixie]

I paid 1 pound + credit fee which equaled just over $3 Australian dollars. I never ended up getting the email code so I got it via a torrent. I will definitely buy the cd if/when it comes out.

 

[krmathis]

I paid $0, because of the low bitrate MP3 files.
Would have happily paid $10 for a lossless encoded album though.

 

[miroslav]

Indeed, low bit rate = low trust rate, IMO. They have pocketed certain amount of extra $$$ on the fact that the quality of the digital download was not clearly stated before the purchase.

Just take a look at how Trent Reznor and Saul Williams took the RH`s "idea" and transformed into something totally honest and beautiful:

This is revolution.

hail hail hail

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miroslav /img/forum/go_quote.gif Indeed, low bit rate = low trust rate, IMO. They have pocketed certain amount of extra $$$ on the fact that the quality of the digital download was not clearly stated before the purchase.

Yes it would have been best if they had clearly stated the format of the files you get to download.

But it's hardly like they are the only ones benefitting from this transactional arrangement. Folks are buying at a much lower cost than for a full CD the entire "CD" and are enjoying the music. I paid 1 pound. And I am enjoying the music. If they had required me to pay the equivalent of $9-$12 for this, I would feel ripped off, but I can't say I am poorer for spending what I DID spend to get to enjoy their music now.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miroslav /img/forum/go_quote.gif Indeed, low bit rate = low trust rate, IMO. They have pocketed certain amount of extra $$$ on the fact that the quality of the digital download was not clearly stated before the purchase. Just take a look at how Trent Reznor and Saul Williams took the RH`s "idea" and transformed into something totally honest and beautiful: This is revolution. hail hail hail

Agreed. I read the interview with Reznor and Williams and I felt that they knew exactly what was going on and how to go about it. The fact that Reznor was a member or Oink speaks loudly exactly how he sees the industry. Free 192's...awesome! Pay for the album and get FLACs! AWESOME!!!

with Radiohead, I bought the boxed set because I want the vinyl. I'll rip the CD and get my FLAC/ALACs but having the 160s now, as a preview, I'm fine with it. Had I paid for the mp3s though, I would have wanted to know the bitrate before hand. I would have paid because I would want to support the method, the idea etc, like Reznor did, first 10 then 5k for the album. They don't need the money, and he can afford it, but its the supporting it all, supporting alternatives this is key right now.

 

[jay.money]

I can't believe how cheap most of you are. If it's worth listening to, is it not worth paying for?

I haven't downloaded it but I'd buy it if I could have the disc and case. Yes, at retail prices.

 

[Duggeh]

I didn't pay for it because I have no desire to listen to it, even for free, I just don't seem to "get" Radiohead.

Its a damn shame, I really wish I loved them, and by all rights I should. Quite mysterious.

 

[goldenratiophi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't pay for it because I have no desire to listen to it, even for free, I just don't seem to "get" Radiohead. Its a damn shame, I really wish I loved them, and by all rights I should. Quite mysterious.

You'll obviously never get Radiohead if you never listen to Radiohead

 

[miroslav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay.money /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't believe how cheap most of you are. If it's worth listening to, is it not worth paying for?

If there`s something cheap in this situation, it`s the fact that there was no clear reference to the quality of the digital download on the pages they were selling it from - until now:

And the latest "correction" of the info on the In Rainbows site coincides with the arrival of the "physical" release.

This is so lame.

 

[discord]

Zero.

Thank god.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miroslav /img/forum/go_quote.gif If there`s something cheap in this situation, it`s the fact that there was no clear reference to the quality of the digital download on the pages they were selling it from - until now: And the latest "correction" of the info on the In Rainbows site coincides with the arrival of the "physical" release. This is so lame.

How is this lame in any way? One didn't need to pay for the files PRIOR to downloading. No not in the least. One could and many did...quite easily, download the tracks for free have a fine listen and if anyone felt the music was worth their money, they could RETURN TO THE SITE AND PAY FOR THEM.

How anyone can complain at all is beyond me. Free is free. There were no strings, zero, not a single string attached in grabbing these tracks for free. Everyone in the entire world had the opportunity to try before buying. So lame? No. Would it have been nice to have them at a higher bitrate? Of course, for folks like us, but there are so many in the world that don't care, or don't know they should care, or don't know they can care about sound quality. The CD is coming, folks can pay for it and rip to FLAC. Depending on the country one resides in, one is permitted to redownload the album in a higher format given that they paid for the album in some form.

Not paying is fine. Paying is fine. Complaining about this trial run as being lame is caustic, juvenile and embarassing.

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miroslav /img/forum/go_quote.gif If there`s something cheap in this situation, it`s the fact that there was no clear reference to the quality of the digital download on the pages they were selling it from - until now: And the latest "correction" of the info on the In Rainbows site coincides with the arrival of the "physical" release. This is so lame.

Free music and you still bitch

Maybe you'd be happy if they paid you to listen to it?

 

[Bluetick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif How is this lame in any way? One didn't need to pay for the files PRIOR to downloading. No not in the least. One could and many did...quite easily, download the tracks for free have a fine listen and if anyone felt the music was worth their money, they could RETURN TO THE SITE AND PAY FOR THEM. How anyone can complain at all is beyond me. Free is free. There were no strings, zero, not a single string attached in grabbing these tracks for free. Everyone in the entire world had the opportunity to try before buying. So lame? No. Would it have been nice to have them at a higher bitrate? Of course, for folks like us, but there are so many in the world that don't care, or don't know they should care, or don't know they can care about sound quality. The CD is coming, folks can pay for it and rip to FLAC. Depending on the country one resides in, one is permitted to redownload the album in a higher format given that they paid for the album in some form. Not paying is fine. Paying is fine. Complaining about this trial run as being lame is caustic, juvenile and embarassing.

Yeah, what you said. Amen.

Reminds me of something I said earlier here:
Scroll down to nov1st. Travis.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miroslav /img/forum/go_quote.gif And the latest "correction" of the info on the In Rainbows site coincides with the arrival of the "physical" release. This is so lame.

You obviously think Radiohead have engaged in some kind of conspiracy to rip people off. I don't agree.