jaredfogle wrote:Lartrak wrote:jaredfogle wrote:BoneyCork wrote:Zealous zerotype wrote:Good game Radiohead, release an album with an old encoder and in a shit bitrate. You guys TOTALLY *got* it
signed
zerotype
Xylene
Thomas
and not idiots
lol audiophiles. You're the musical equivalent of those hippies who moan about non-organic produce.
MP3 sounds like shit. Some people can hear it, some can't. Some people use earbuds, some people use well-driven Bose floorstanding speakers.
STFU.
When you get to 256 or higher in double blind tests, very few people can tell the difference, and even then not even close to 100% of the time. At that level I wouldn't say they sound bad, properly encoded. I think a lot of the time, the placebo effect makes the real difference.
Though in principle, I don't like paying for something I can't get an uncompressed copy of.
There are really too many factors involved to make such a blanket statement.
Are we listening to Miles Davis or Against Me!?
Are we listening to headphones or a good stereo in a warm room that holds sound?
I think my ears are unusually sensitive--I've trained them to be. But trust me, compression matters. I know the ins and outs of Miles Davis's Kind of Blue. If someone put on the album in MP3, I would probably notice. Even if it was 256 LAME.
But then, I'm also the type who has three different masterings of most of my Beatles and Dylan albums... and can spot the differences...
I think compression especially matters with dirtier, older, analog recordings.
I notice the difference, and it's unfortunate that the album is encoded is at such a low bitrate. 128 sounds kind of muddy in general, but above that, the main difference is a loss of precision in the high-frequency range. Subtle details that you lose the ability to hear as you grow older. (I'm a trained musician, though, so I'm more used to listening for those subtle details than a lot of people). This is the main reason I don't buy my music online, even with DRM-free options starting to become more abundant.
However, I do think this is a definite step in the right direction (though it's unfortunate that they're still going to release through a major label). I'd love to see the industry turn into something more akin to the webcomic industry, where the "main" product is given away free, and the money is all from merchandise and special editions, put out directly by the creator. The artists make more money, it fosters a closer relationship and brand-loyalty with fans, and you don't end up with all this ridiculous litigation.
As far as the album itself:
My reaction was quite similar to that of most Moby albums. There are a few tracks I liked, but somewhere between half and two-thirds of it was a little too dull and repetitive for me. I didn't really like enough of it to warrant a purchase of the album, but I do really appreciate the band providing me the opportunity to LISTEN to it before having to put down any money. Bands should be applauded for this. TMBG, for example, lets you listen to their more classic songs on their website. The Flaming Lips' site is set up to stream (but not download) their most recent album in its entirety, as well as highlights from their last several releases. Smaller bands like Estradasphere and The Red Elvises actively encourage their fans to record and upload their live performances; the former actually hosts a FLAC archive of all their shows.
I'm the kind of person who really did use KaZaA and eMule and such in college just to try before buying; about 80% of what I "obtained" in college, I ended up buying on CD...the rest I deleted, because it didn't turn out to be as good as I'd hoped.
