Radiohead file type info.

2007-10-09 by steveosk8s | 33 Comments
radiohead has email the info about the audio quality and file type that in rainbows will be to those who pre ordered:



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.


so there you have it, 48.4mb zip file, 160kbps, drm, mp3s.

and the good news? comes out early AM uk time. so us yanks out there will get it late evening.

Tagged: Radiohead

Comments:Add a Comment 
steveosk8s
October 9th 2007
135 Comments


i know most folks dont have FLAC reading capabilities, but they could have at least made it 320kbps :/

UncalledFor
October 9th 2007
100 Comments


They still have the cd to sell, remember.

McP3000
October 9th 2007
4121 Comments


Erm, how will i import it to iTunes?

steveosk8s
October 9th 2007
135 Comments


i know, thats why i view this as a "tide us over until the hard copy comes out in 2008" situation. its basically a leak.

duckies
October 9th 2007
143 Comments


I think 160kbps is fine, there's really not much difference between that and 320kbps - for me anyway.

steveosk8s
October 9th 2007
135 Comments


"
Erm, how will i import it to iTunes?"

you use qinzip to unzip then just click on the files with itunes open. its in mp3 already.

SubtleDagger
October 9th 2007
737 Comments


lol 160 kbps
I guess you get what you pay for

Tyler
Emeritus
October 9th 2007
7927 Comments


Duckies there is a huge difference, but 320KBPS is a waste of space. VBR is the way to go.
Man that's stupid though. So far below CD quality. This Message Edited On 10.09.07

steveosk8s
October 9th 2007
135 Comments


yea having it in vbr would have been nice. and i paid nothing for the album, so im getting a free leak, not that big of a difference. This Message Edited On 10.09.07

P13
October 9th 2007
1327 Comments


Noice, sweet post 200!

duckies
October 9th 2007
143 Comments


I didn't realise it was that bad - CD quality is 192kbps, right?

edit: 224-320! Wooh, I don't have a clue =/This Message Edited On 10.09.07

steveosk8s
October 9th 2007
135 Comments


usually cd quality is closer to 320kbps if im not mistaken.

duckies
October 9th 2007
143 Comments


Yeah, I think you're right.
Damn most of my music is between 128/192kbps

Otherside
October 9th 2007
62 Comments


Wonder when this will be up tonight :

steveosk8s
October 9th 2007
135 Comments


supposedly at 12-3 uk time, so late this evening if you're in the us

Tsuruka
October 9th 2007
55 Comments


FYI, for comparison:

iTunes downloads at 128 kb/s
Radiohead is at 160
iTune Plus downloads at 256 kb/s
DJ-Quality MP3s download (usually) at 320 kb/s
CD Quality is 1,411 kb/s

There is an audible difference between all of them (especially with MP3 formatting, which muddies the mids), but most people are like yar i dont care kthx.

McP3000
October 9th 2007
4121 Comments


Miranda That Ghost... (From my CD) and Cassandra Gemini (iTunes version) sounds the same :/

I guess it takes a fine ear.

Zmev
October 9th 2007
983 Comments


Am I the only one who thinks that the type of file Radiohead are sending their album out on being considered news is ridiculous?

Next up: Fall Out Boy: Paper or Plastic?

Dis_Con_Nec_Ted
October 9th 2007
5098 Comments


[Quote=]Duckies there is a huge difference, but 320KBPS is a waste of space.[/Quote]

OK... what is the huge difference between 160 kbps and 320 kbps as far as sound quality goes? O_o

I never got that...

Doppelganger
October 9th 2007
3124 Comments


Am I the only one who thinks that the type of file Radiohead are sending their album out on being considered news is ridiculous?

I thought the same exact thing.

P13
October 9th 2007
1327 Comments


sweet, so between 8 and 11!

Jimmy
October 10th 2007
737 Comments


160 is horrible quality. Makes me happy I'm getting it on cd and vinyl. I can't stand crappy mp3's.

Spiritofmosa
October 10th 2007
56 Comments


i dont care if its cd quality, i'm happy that i got the damn album free already

tribestros
October 10th 2007
918 Comments


You DID?

br3ad_man
October 10th 2007
2126 Comments


The fact that people are seriously complaining about the quality is only a little less ridiculous than the fact that someone considered this piece of information newsworthy.

DaveBum69
October 10th 2007
699 Comments


OMG I just relized this is today

NortherlyNanook
October 10th 2007
1286 Comments


[quote="br3ad_man"]The fact that people are seriously complaining about the quality is only a little less ridiculous than the fact that someone considered this piece of information newsworthy.[/quote]

Exactly. I see it as just a bad excuse for someone to "contribute" to Radiohead news. Also, won't those who get the download know about this? Is this insider info?

Geedrummer
October 10th 2007
607 Comments


im listening to this now and it really isnt that goodThis Message Edited On 10.10.07

Intransit
October 10th 2007
2797 Comments


Why aren't there 15 reviews for this yet?

gimo80
October 10th 2007
274 Comments


Well I think the album is terrific so far, and this is only my first listen! YAY.

Justanothernimrod
October 10th 2007
478 Comments


The pitchfork article on this is hillarious, they're so horrified.

its like GET OVER YOURSELVES GEEZ :D

Dis_Con_Nec_Ted
October 10th 2007
5098 Comments


pitchfork can go suck a fat one.








This Message Edited On 10.10.07

jollyforreal
October 12th 2007
1 Comments


Sure, the file type might be the least important aspect of Radiohead's destroying the record companies, for most people, but if I'm going to purchase some music, I don't want my only copy to be an mp3. Yes, the difference is quite audible for many listeners. I'd at least want a flac and make my own mp3s if I really wanted more space on my ipod. As I'd actually like to financially support the artists I respect, I don't want to pay for an mp3. Which kinda means take the download for more or less free and wait to get my hands on the album.

There's nothing ridiculous about caring what kind of file type you get.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





MOST VIEWED NEWS

Jesse Lacey Allegations
Jayyvon Opens Up About Abuse
The Fall of Troy bassist melts do..
The Story So Far's vocalist dropk..
Deftones stream new single
R.I.P. Lemmy
Killswitch Engage debut new single
Scott Weiland dead at 48
Nothing But Thieves accusations
Lil Peep Dead At 21



OTHER RECENT NEWS

A Wilhelm Scream's Cheap Heat
Phasma post new stuff
Thy Worshiper go west to Eden
Forever Autumn stream new LP
Incandescence tease new album
Babymetal celebrate 15th year
RIP ThyCrossAwaits
Kannatama releases demo track
Chrocktikal announces debut
Ichika Nito’s Grand Reveal LP
Silje Wergeland leaves The Gather..
Silver Dolls stream namesake EP
R.I.P. Perry Bamonte
VOLA gear destroyed in fire
R.I.P. Chris Rea

» see all news

RELATED REVIEWS
Radiohead
Hail to the Thief (Live Recordings 2003-2009)
Radiohead
KID A MNESIA
Radiohead
MINIDISCS [HACKED]
Radiohead
OKNOTOK 1997-2017
Radiohead
A Moon Shaped Pool
STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy