klootfanAdvanced Member Posts:851
10/10/2007 5:44 AM |
|
Havent bought it yet, but im probably going to get around to it today. Im not yet sure how much ill pay for it Anyone made the jump already ? If so, how low/high did you go ? How did you come to the price you decided to offer ?
|
|
|
|
UnaRocksBasic Member Posts:274
10/10/2007 5:55 AM |
|
I paid 0. I'll buy the CD next year.
|
|
|
|
eoghanBasic Member Posts:331
10/10/2007 6:09 AM |
|
I paid GBP 3.45, which I now regret as MP3s are only are only 160kbs.
|
|
|
|
PeejayBasic Member Posts:340
10/10/2007 6:18 AM |
|
Posted By eoghan on 10 Oct 2007 6:09 AM I paid GBP 3.45. Very exact. Any particular reason?
|
|
|
|
10/10/2007 6:23 AM |
|
i bought the discbox otherwise i would have paid a tenner i'd say
|
|
|
|
starbelgradeAdvanced Member Posts:715
10/10/2007 6:26 AM |
|
£1.. I know someone who paid 0p & just paid the credit card charge!
|
|
|
|
eoghanBasic Member Posts:331
10/10/2007 7:02 AM |
|
Posted By Peejay on 10 Oct 2007 6:18 AM Posted By eoghan on 10 Oct 2007 6:09 AM I paid GBP 3.45. Very exact. Any particular reason? I put in GBP 3 (i.e approx 5 euros) and then they added a 45p charge for the credit card transaction.
|
|
|
|
Idiot KidBasic Member Posts:217
10/10/2007 8:54 AM |
|
I've pre-ordered the box set. Call me a luddite (though I've nothing against textile machines per se) but I'm not all that enthused by this whole "pay what you like for a poorer quality download" mularky. I like cds for the album sleeves and artwork just as much as I like them for the superior quality sound. I'm a bit "meh" about the whole thing really.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2007 9:44 AM |
|
i dunno by doing it this way they've catered for the die-hards, the mainstream and the largely disinterested. all of this talk of below par quality in the download insinuates that there's a massive difference in quality but personally i don't think it's all that noticeable. could just be moving towards deafness mind
|
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
10/11/2007 2:15 AM |
|
Posted By jan on 10 Oct 2007 9:44 AM i dunno by doing it this way they've catered for the die-hards, the mainstream and the largely disinterested. all of this talk of below par quality in the download insinuates that there's a massive difference in quality but personally i don't think it's all that noticeable. could just be moving towards deafness mind It was suggested on another board that the 160 kbps version might have been mastered especially for that format so sounds better than a version that was mastered for a CD and then ripped at 160. I think it sounds great but I'll have to wait forthe discbox and compare it to the vinyl.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2007 2:56 AM |
|
exactly if there is any difference it'll only be evident when the discbox arrives - for now it sounds perfectly alright for me jonny greenwood was asked about the bitrate in an interview yesterday: How would you respond to complaints about the sound quality – that 160 isn’t a high enough bitrate? I don’t know, we talked about it and we just wanted to make it a bit better than iTunes, which it is, so that’s kind of good enough, really. It’s never going to be CD quality, because that’s what CD does.
|
|
|
|
floodzerBasic Member Posts:181
10/11/2007 3:08 AM |
|
Thats fair enough. Theyve given everyone a choice and the cheapest choice is still better quality than iTunes. I went for the discbox myself, Im starting to get pissed off with burning discs for my car and not having the sleeves...
|
|
|
|
adminBasic Member Posts:399
10/11/2007 1:21 PM |
|
Posted By jan on 11 Oct 2007 2:56 AM exactly if there is any difference it'll only be evident when the discbox arrives - for now it sounds perfectly alright for me jonny greenwood was asked about the bitrate in an interview yesterday: How would you respond to complaints about the sound quality – that 160 isn’t a high enough bitrate? I don’t know, we talked about it and we just wanted to make it a bit better than iTunes, which it is, so that’s kind of good enough, really. It’s never going to be CD quality, because that’s what CD does. What Jonny Greenwood says is crap. iTunes do not use MP3, they use its (more efficient) successor MP4 and then apple wraps its proprietary copy protection stuff around the file. He's comparing apples with oranges (no pun intended). It is not a given that a 160kbs MP3 file is better than a 128kbs MP4 file.
|
|
|
|
BinokularVeteran Member Posts:1665
10/12/2007 12:19 AM |
|
Sound quality is acceptable, but then I've not been listening to it on a high end hi-fi, just little PC speakers in work. I reckon, if has been said, the album was mastered with this format in mind, it's not going to sound too bad.
|
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
10/12/2007 4:29 AM |
|
"Sources close to the band" say there's been 1.2 million downloads this week. Record of the day surveyed 3,000 people apparently and the average price paid was £4, roughly seven times more than what the band would have made by selling it on iTunes.
|
|
|
|
QuintBasic Member Posts:209
10/15/2007 8:00 AM |
|
I paid £22.99 sterling for the download-absolute f**king rip-off! Oh, hold on....
|
|
|
|
starbelgradeAdvanced Member Posts:715
11/8/2007 3:38 AM |
|
I heard on the radio, that 40% of people who "bought" the album from the site paid absolutely nothing for it (excluding the credit card handling charge, that is).... doesn't really surprise me, that!
|
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
11/8/2007 5:07 AM |
|
If they paid nothing for it they didn't get charged credit card fees.
|
|
|
|
starbelgradeAdvanced Member Posts:715
11/8/2007 5:39 AM |
|
Never thought of that!! I must've been thinking of Ryanair!
|
|
|
|
11/10/2007 5:37 AM |
|
I paid zero, wouldn't have downloaded it except for a recommendation from a friend. For the trouble of downloading it, I could have mixed a previous Radiohead album with a shoddy drum beat and saved myself ten minutes. Although I haven't listened to it much yet and reserve the right to say it's a classic soon - I won't. One song sounded okay. JSm
|
|
|
|
MullyAdvanced Member Posts:849
11/11/2007 3:12 PM |
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2206551,00.html Research revealed yesterday that a mere 38% of people downloading the album were willing to part with anything at all. Two thirds paid only the 45p charge for handling, according to ComScore, a digital measurement group. The company said the average amount that less frugal fans were willing to pay was still a paltry $6 (£2.90) - far below the price of a CD or the amount a digital album would cost to download from the Apple iTunes store. During the first 29 days of October, 1.2 million people worldwide visited the In Rainbows site, with a significant percentage of visitors ultimately downloading the album. The study showed that 38% of global downloaders of the album willingly paid to do so, with the remaining 62% choosing to pay nothing. The percentage downloading for free in the US (60%) is only marginally lower than in the rest of the world (64 %).
|
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
11/12/2007 2:40 AM |
|
I'm 90% certain that that's bulls**t. Posted By Mully on 11 Nov 2007 3:12 PM http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2206551,00.html Two thirds paid only the 45p charge for handling, If you elected to pay nothing you didn't pay the credit card fee.
|
|
|
|