Radiohead New Album- Interesting Pricing Scheme

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

if you liked a song and wanted to download it for free you'd grow a beard before you found a 320 kbs version on limewire or kazaa or whatever you use.

You know not what you speak.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I really like Thom Yorke's solo album.

i didn't hear the whole album, but the 3 singles i heard on XM i loved. think the names were "The Eraser", another was "Black Swan", forgot the name of the other. i'd know it if i saw it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

You know not what you speak.

hey dickly, i use Limewire and if i were to find a 320 version of a song i'd crap my pants.

needless to say, my shorts aren't stained.

highest you will see often is 192. i download whatever has the best connection. 128 is standard across the board. and regardless, if you're gonna listen to songs in tiny headphones then you need not bother being concerned with kbs.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

moron, if you could hear the difference between 160 and 192 kbs you'd be an engineer or record producer. if you liked a song and wanted to download it for free you'd grow a beard before you found a 320 kbs version on limewire or kazaa or whatever you use.

There is an audible difference between 128 and 192. I also have had some 160's that I felt were lacking in quality, but there could have been other factors in that. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if someone felt 160 was still isufficient for their tastes.

Now, I've never been able to discern a problem with 192, so I'm not sure what more can be gained from 320, but who knows? Everyone's ears are different.

Also, I've downloaded lots of music files at 320 via Torrents.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

hey dickly, i use Limewire and if i were to find a 320 version of a song i'd crap my pants.

Tha fact that you use Limewire proves my point.

[Anthony]

the fact that you use the spyware-filled kazaa (if that's what you use) is your problem, not mine.

i only use torrent for shows. takes too long for it to be something i use frequently.

[Ksyrup]

I use that which has no name. Kazaa and all of those other Napster-type spinoffs ceased to be effective in what, 1999 or so?

Actually - and this is entirely coincidental - we call non-new releases "trout." Apparently they have uses other than for sticking up your rectum. Who knew?

[highfiveoh]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

moron, if you could hear the difference between 160 and 192 kbs you'd be an engineer or record producer. if you liked a song and wanted to download it for free you'd grow a beard before you found a 320 kbs version on limewire or kazaa or whatever you use.

Hey, shit for brains:

a) I can tell the difference whether you believe it or not
b) Who the hell uses Limewire and Kazaa (besides teenyboppers)? If you want free music you use torrents. And if you used torrents at all you'd know that 320 is about all that is out there. Which makes sense considering just about everyone has broadband and there isn't a central server supplying bandwidth.

[rkmsuf]

Fellas, fellas. Isn't this whole downloading thing illegal anyway?

[highfiveoh]

не в России

[rkmsuf]

Is this russia? This isn't russia, no the question is do you want to go to college.

[Ksyrup]

Radiohead MP3 release a tactic to lift CD sales

By Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in London

Published: October 11 2007 03:00 | Last updated: October 11 2007 03:00

Radiohead's much-debated decision to let fans choose what they pay for its new album online is a promotional tactic to boost sales of compact discs, the band's management said yesterday.

"If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing," Bryce Edge of Courtyard Management told Music Week, the UK's industry magazine.

The decision to release In Rainbows online and to allow buyers to pay as little as they like has been lauded by some analysts as a ground-breaking model for an industry struggling to compete with free illegal downloads.

As many as half of those who registered for the download had paid more than the minimum 45p transaction fee, Mr Edge indicated, but he described the initiative as "a solution for Radiohead, not the industry", and defended the superior quality of CD recordings.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by highfiveoh

Hey, shit for brains:

a) I can tell the difference whether you believe it or not
b) Who the hell uses Limewire and Kazaa (besides teenyboppers)? If you want free music you use torrents. And if you used torrents at all you'd know that 320 is about all that is out there. Which makes sense considering just about everyone has broadband and there isn't a central server supplying bandwidth.

Between 192 and 160!??! No, you can't tell the difference. You really can't. You really, really, really can't.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

Between 192 and 160!??! No, you can't tell the difference. You really can't. You really, really, really can't.

When I listen to music as loud as I do with headphones or in the car, I can hear the tinniness and distortion of inferior bitrates. That's not to say 160 is completely unacceptable, but 128 is (to me). Even though it cuts down on the capacity of my MP3 players, I encode everything at a minimum of 192, and usually go with 256 or 320. It's not an option - I must have a full-sounding quality to my music when it's as loud as I have it.

[rkmsuf]

so turn it down there sizzle chest

[Ksyrup]

no

[Passacaglia]

WHAT?

[Daimyo]

Reminds me of the guy at work who insisted he could tell the difference between the DVI and VGA connections on his 19" LCD monitors... obviously, he couldn't when we actually tested him.

[Ksyrup]

I never claimed to be able to tell the difference between, say, 160 and 192. What I said was that I could hear the degradation in the sound of lower bitrate files. The lower the bitrate, the worse it becomes. 128 is unacceptable for me unless it's just background music. Then I don't care at all. But that's not the way I listen to music, so I try to stay away from the lower bitrate files and only encode my own at certain minimum levels.

[Fidatelo]

I agree with Ksyrup, 128 is not acceptable (and noticeably so). 192 and up for me.

[Anthony]

i would think you could only tell the difference at lower decibels. when the music is blaring through the speakers then how could you tell? that's bs. i have an excellent ear for music, but to say i can point out the bitrates in songs, especially the difference between 160 and 192, i'd be shitting you. i must've damaged my ears from too much loud music through my headphones. obviously one can tell the difference between 128 and anything over 192, that's more of a disparity. but i just listen to too much loud music to be able to discern. at a lower level i would think you could hear the subleties of a song. if you're listening to music in your car, especially loudly, then bitrate shouldn't concern you. unless you've invested in a high end car audio system, that's a different story.

i listen to satellite radio, and i find it decent/bearable. and that's nowhere near cd-quality sound.

[Calis]

Not to derail the thread or anything but....

Anyone have any impressions? I haven't actually listened to it yet and wondered how it was.

[dawgfan]

Listened to it once after I downloaded it, initial impressions are I like it and like most Radiohead records, will get better with repeated listens.

I wish I'd been paying more attention to the details of this release though - if I'd realized there was a standard CD release planned later, I wouldn't have paid them so much for the download (I paid $10, or about what I think CD's ought to cost).

[ThunderingHERD]

re: bit rates

128 vs. 256 vs CD

Participants selected for musical qualifications (a guy that worked on AAC, a guy that works on audio processing algorithms for hearing aids, etc.), listening to $20,000 system (and equally ridiculous headphones). They were played the CD as a reference for each sample before the test began. They could flip back and forth between recordings. See the article for results (which I think they interpret too generously--wish I had the raw data).


They also raise a great point:

... it isn’t those with perfect hearing, but those that deviate strongly from normal that seem to be especially sensitive to MP3 artifacts. Psycho-acoustic masking effects are at the basis of the MP3 encoding algorithm (the alarm clock goes on ticking even when it rings [but the algorithm doesn’t encode the ticking because it will be masked by the ringing anyway G.]; and the algorithm relies upon such effects also in the case of the generated normalization noises, which in general are supposed to be masked by the useful signals. But when a hearing impairment cause these noises to surface they will be much easier to detect.

Maybe some people need to have their hearing checked?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

re: bit rates

128 vs. 256 vs CD

Participants selected for musical qualifications (a guy that worked on AAC, a guy that works on audio processing algorithms for hearing aids, etc.), listening to $20,000 system (and equally ridiculous headphones). They were played the CD as a reference for each sample before the test began. They could flip back and forth between recordings. See the article for results (which I think they interpret too generously--wish I had the raw data).


They also raise a great point:

Maybe some people need to have their hearing checked?

Actually I do have bad ears, so this might make sense as to why I can tell the difference...

[PilotMan]

Just a bump

Today (the 10th) is the last day to get the download for your own price. It still works as I just picked it up (almost forgot about it.)

The result has been a huge success for the band (according to themselves and media.)

I have heard that the US release for In Rainbows will be Jan 1.

[Groundhog]

I didn't realise it was still available on the site and downloaded it from a torrent instead a month or so ago.

Some nice songs, but I just don't know how many spins this will get from me.

[Groundhog]

dola

So I guess it's a little dissapointing, given Radiohead have been one of my top-3 bands since I was about 14 or 15.

[Router Help]

Some really really good songs, but also some not so good.

I can't get enough of Last Flowers rigth now. (cd2)

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I can tell the difference with songs that I've heard many, many times, and could perfectly, in time, sing the whole song word-for-word without the actual song playing in the background.

But....no it probably won't make much of a difference for songs that I haven't heard. You crank that shit up high enough, it doesn't really matter.

Lots of people say they can. When it comes to double blinds, they cant.

[Daimyo]

I've listened to this album repeatedly over the last several weeks and I love it. IMO, it is so much better than Hail to the Thief. Its not as good OK Computer or The Bends (although at this stage in my life it matches my mood much better than the latter). Its still too early for me to say how it stacks up to the other albums... have to wait and see if I'm still listening and enjoying it months and years from now like I do the others.

If I had to make a single disc Best of Radiohead compilation today Bodysnatchers and Jigsaw Falling Into Place would both make the cut.

[Vince]

Have they released any figures anywhere? Interested to see what a "huge success" actually is.

[miked]

Got tickets to see them play here in the A. Haven't seen them for 4-5 years, the last time they were on tour I saw them in NH (Tweeter Center). I hate Lakewood, but at least it's Radiohead.

[Ksyrup]

If you're talking about internet sales of the pre-release MP3s, I don't think they have given any of that info out. But considering the whole thing was nothing more than a profitable PR campaign that allowed the band to take control of the leaks that would inevitably happen between completion of the album and the release of the physical CD, I'd say it was hugely successful. They made tons of money off of poor quality MP3s that would have just been traded freely otherwise, AND they had the #1 album the week the physical CD was released.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Vince

Have they released any figures anywhere? Interested to see what a "huge success" actually is.

I know there was a quote from one of the band members who said they made more money of the internet sales than they had on all prior albums combined. Take that for what it's worth. It is not in any way hard to believe given how little artists generally get from a CD sale.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I know there was a quote from one of the band members who said they made more money of the internet sales than they had on all prior albums combined. Take that for what it's worth. It is not in any way hard to believe given how little artists generally get from a CD sale.

Actually, I believe the quote from Yorke was that they made more money from the digital download pre-sale than the digital downloads of all of their previous studio albums. I'm fairly certain he was not referring to physical CD sales.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Actually, I believe the quote from Yorke was that they made more money from the digital download pre-sale than the digital downloads of all of their previous studio albums. I'm fairly certain he was not referring to physical CD sales.

He also said they weren't receiving any money from digital downloads though, and specifically referenced their contract. So to me I don't see how it doesn't mean that:

digital sales of In Rainbows > all money received for sales of their back catalogue

He didn't out-and-out put it in the language I am, but I think it's a pretty clear implication.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

He also said they weren't receiving any money from digital downloads though, and specifically referenced their contract. So to me I don't see how it doesn't mean that:

digital sales of In Rainbows > all money received for sales of their back catalogue

He didn't out-and-out put it in the language I am, but I think it's a pretty clear implication.

I don't agree:

"Yorke: In terms of digital income, we’ve made more money out of this record than out of all the other Radiohead albums put together, forever — in terms of anything on the Net. And that’s nuts. It’s partly due to the fact that EMI wasn’t giving us any money for digital sales. All the contracts signed in a certain era have none of that stuff."

I don't think he was referring in any way to money made from physical CDs. The entire discussion is about revenue from digital sales.

[cthomer5000]

Still, even by his quote... 1 cent of income would have been more money than they had made in digital sales previously.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by miked

Got tickets to see them play here in the A. Haven't seen them for 4-5 years, the last time they were on tour I saw them in NH (Tweeter Center). I hate Lakewood, but at least it's Radiohead.

Glad I read this post, I didn't know they were coming through the Southeast in a few months. Lakewood isn't that great a place to see a show you're right, I gotta decide if I'd rather drive there or to Charlotte which I think is a similar distance away. The Braves being in town at that time has me leaning toward Atlanta though.

[Phototropic]

Just like to say that I love CD2. Last Flowers, Down is the New Up, and Go Slowly are all great.

[cthomer5000]

back to the actual financial performance of their self-release... i think the most conservative of estimates had them making 2.6 million and the most optimistic having them make 10... and those were estimates for the first week or so.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

back to the actual financial performance of their self-release... i think the most conservative of estimates had them making 2.6 million and the most optimistic having them make 10... and those were estimates for the first week or so.

Good lord, that's absurd. Way more than I would have expected.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Vince

Good lord, that's absurd. Way more than I would have expected.

I also know two different band members said 60,000 and 80,000 of the physical "discbox" packages they were selling had been ordered. So that's at least 60K sold at a huge price tag of about $80. I dont know what those cost them to produce, but you still have to imagine the profit margin was huge.

And then after all that they hit #1 in the USA with the physical release of the CD for mainstream audiences.

I imagine even they would have to admit some surprise at the overall success of this thing.

[Groundhog]

It amuses me when I wonder how the big wigs at the various record companies feel when they read that.

[miked]

Didn't want to start a new thread, but saw Radiohead last night at Lakewood. Venue sucks, but the show was great. It's the 3rd time I've seen them and they never put on a bad show. They played mostly stuff from Kid A and In Rainbows, with a little Amnesiac mixed in. They didn't play a single song from the Bends (not that I remember) and played Paranoid Android for their encore. Got some almost covered seats which kept us clear from the passing rain.

Radiohead r0x0rs!

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by miked

Didn't want to start a new thread, but saw Radiohead last night at Lakewood. Venue sucks, but the show was great. It's the 3rd time I've seen them and they never put on a bad show. They played mostly stuff from Kid A and In Rainbows, with a little Amnesiac mixed in. They didn't play a single song from the Bends (not that I remember) and played Paranoid Android for their encore. Got some almost covered seats which kept us clear from the passing rain.

Radiohead r0x0rs!

I saw them last year in Budapest at a summer festival and they played almost every hit I could name except for High and Dry (apparently they hate this song, or at least Yorke does). Incredible show. My favorite track was There there.

[Maple Leafs]

Interesting followup... even though the album was free, millions of users still grabbed it off bittorrent instead of the Radiohead site.

Free Just Wasn’t Cheap Enough for Radiohead Fans

The obvious answer is the one that the report gives - venue familiarity. The theory goes that folks are far more familiar with downloading files through these networks than they are with going to Radiohead’s website, and so it was far simpler just to click around till they found it there rather than go to the site.

It certainly has a ring of truth to it, but PaidContent’s Robert Andrews isn’t convinced:

But that’s wishful thinking. In Rainbows torrent downloads peaked on the first day data was collected, October 27, at 400,000 - what Page and Garland call “a bloody big number”. How big? More than double the top torrent through March and May (Panic At The Disco’s Pretty Odd) got in a whole week (ie. 10 times Panic’s daily average).

Counterpoint - Nine Inch Nails’ free The Slip album was downloaded more from NIN.com than torrents. And In Rainbows reached number one on both sides of the Atlantic on proper sales.

[QuikSand]

So... pricing scheme and bitrate controversy aside, this album has come up twice for me in album shuffle mode recently, and a single popped up this morning on the radio. I am probably inching this album upward on my personal rankings of their material... I might have it slotted third behind the gold standard OK Computer and the poppy but pleasing The Bends. It is a much more "mature" sound than any of the intervening albums, I'd say, and I like the place where they landed with it, a good deal.

[PilotMan]

<<<<<------- Radiohead fanboy.