 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ | Radiohead, bitrate? I'm intrigued by the Radiohead download option, but I cannot find any information about what bitrate the files will be encoded at. Has anyone seen this info elsewhere?
--
Dogma is the problem. |
|
| I think 256k. Radiohead wouldn't skimp on quality. |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | reply to sporkme
Download it; if the quality sucks, pay them little. If the quality is awesome, pay them a lot. |
|
sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
| said by PolarBear03:Download it; if the quality sucks, pay them little. If the quality is awesome, pay them a lot. I think you pay and then download. It's not released yet. Just curious if anyone saw any info in an interview, etc. where they noted what the bitrate on the downloaded version is. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to PolarBear03
said by PolarBear03:Download it; if the quality sucks, pay them little. If the quality is awesome, pay them a lot. Considering how mnay peole already thnks it's ok to steal music I doubt that many "fans" will give them ANYTHING. That's just how cheap people are. People think that everything should be free and these Radiohead is about to find out how true that is. |
|
| I disagree. While there are people who are insanely cheap and think that all music should just be free for the taking, most people are willing to pay a reasonable price for their music. Of course, the definition of "reasonable" varies from $0.10 per song to $0.99 per song to even $1.30 per song (ITunes DRM-Free download).
Radiohead is sure to get people who enter "$0" in the payment box, but they're also likely to get people entering a buck per song or perhaps even more. And since people know that all of this money goes to the artist (unlike CDs where the artist is lucky to make a dollar off of every CD sold), people will likely be more generous. |
|
| If they get 5 million downloads world wide with about a million or so paying a dollar for the album, thats at least 5 million dollars of direct money right to their pockets. Of course they'll probably get many more hits with varying degrees of payments. Bottom line, its pure profit that bypasses the middle men. It's a new era for rock and folk groups. Even minor but "good" artists may find a rather decent living doing it this way! |
|
| reply to tmoore44
My confirmation email from this morning states that they will be 160kbps DRM-free MP3s. Which makes them, what, V3 VBR? I'm throwing a couple bucks in for this, and plan to buy the hard copy when it comes out early next year. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Shaw
 ·TELUS
| reply to mdmathis6
Probably works better for established artists. I'm thinking this approach isn't bad, but It probably works better for established bands that already have a following. The RIAA/Labels to bribe modern radio to play songs  People have the hear about it before they'll download it.
Then again sometimes when something catches on the internet it spreads like wildfire, but I would think they be the exception opposed to the norm.
I think Riaa/labels gouge to much from their bands and charge the fans too much. Stand price is what 12.99-14.99 for a cd? Band gets a buck, maybe a dollar for the supplies to make it, and a dollar for distrubtion. Surely they could know the price down below ten dollars and kicking a high percentage to the artists.
14.99 for a cd or 20 for a 100 million dollar hollywood produced movie (Even cheaper if you wait a year). I think cd's are over price, and I think they miss the board with digital downloads. They charge just as much as a cd (or more) and you get a DRM'd POS and nothing to show for it but some files. I buy the odd cd, but paying the same price for something digital and DRM'd doesn't sit well with me. |
|
