neil young, audiophile

[alocispepraluger102]

NEIL YOUNG HAS INVENTED A NEW, BETTER SOUNDING KIND OF MP3, AND HOPES TO BRING IT TO MARKET.

LINK

Edited October 8, 2012 by alocispepraluger102

[Dave James]

The NYT Sunday Magazine had an article about Young a couple of weeks ago that included a discussion of his audio development work. What you have to worry about is that he's sinking a lot of time and money into a medium that's probably not going to have much broad based appeal. There can't be more than a handful of younger people out there who give a rat's ass about sound other than that they have access to it. iPods, for all their convenience, have pretty much put quality reproduction on the back burner. Kudos to Young for fighting the good fight and caring enough to do it. I just hope he's not flogging a dead horse.

[alocispepraluger102]

The NYT Sunday Magazine had an article about Young a couple of weeks ago that included a discussion of his audio development work. What you have to worry about is that he's sinking a lot of time and money into a medium that's probably not going to have much broad based appeal. There can't be more than a handful of younger people out there who give a rat's ass about sound other than that they have access to it. iPods, for all their convenience, have pretty much put quality reproduction on the back burner. Kudos to Young for fighting the good fight and caring enough to do it. I just hope he's not flogging a dead horse.

you are right. a young nurse, running on the treadmill beside me today, seeing my inexpensive but decent sounding koss portapros, mentioned how much she hated earbuds, how they hurt her ears, how they were always falling out, and how crappy they sounded, but she said they were 'the fashion.'

[paul secor]

The NYT Sunday Magazine had an article about Young a couple of weeks ago that included a discussion of his audio development work. What you have to worry about is that he's sinking a lot of time and money into a medium that's probably not going to have much broad based appeal. There can't be more than a handful of younger people out there who give a rat's ass about sound other than that they have access to it. iPods, for all their convenience, have pretty much put quality reproduction on the back burner. Kudos to Young for fighting the good fight and caring enough to do it. I just hope he's not flogging a dead horse.

you are right. a young nurse, running on the treadmill beside me today, seeing my inexpensive but decent sounding koss portapros, mentioned how much she hated earbuds, how they hurt her ears, how they were always falling out, and how crappy they sounded, but she said they were 'the fashion.'

Sad commentary on the state of music/sound quality in our society.

[Daniel A]

I hope Young has co-workers in this project, because his statements on MP3:s (see earlier thread here) reveals a lack of understanding of the technology behind compressed audio.

For a majority of people MP3:s above a certain bitrate cannot be distinguished from the uncompressed original. Those interested can visit hydrogenaudio.org and read up on listening tests. I consider myself concerned with audio quality and I've done blind tests (there's software that enables you to do so called "ABX" tests on your own) that have revealed the bitrate where I can't tell the difference anymore.

I enjoy my LP collection, I still listen to CD:s when I'm in my living room, but MP3:s are a very convenient way of bringing the music with me in the car, on my mobile phone, when on vacation etc. Surely they sound better than the majority of compact cassetes everybody were happy with for a couple of decades.

That said, I'll welcome the possibility of downloading high-resolution digital files, but it is an incorrect assumption that those listening to MP3s do not care about sound quality at all. Many do, and many MP3:s do sound quite OK.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Daniel A

[RDK]

Shhh.... don't anyone tell him about FLAC. This should be fun.

[Daniel A]

Shhh.... don't anyone tell him about FLAC. This should be fun.

[A Lark Ascending]

I hope Young has co-workers in this project, because his statements on MP3:s (see earlier thread here) reveals a lack of understanding of the technology behind compressed audio.

For a majority of people MP3:s above a certain bitrate cannot be distinguished from the uncompressed original. Those interested can visit hydrogenaudio.org and read up on listening tests. I consider myself concerned with audio quality and I've done blind tests (there's software that enables you to do so called "ABX" tests on your own) that have revealed the bitrate where I can't tell the difference anymore.

I enjoy my LP collection, I still listen to CD:s when I'm in my living room, but MP3:s are a very convenient way of bringing the music with me in the car, on my mobile phone, when on vacation etc. Surely they sound better than the majority of compact cassetes everybody were happy with for a couple of decades.

That said, I'll welcome the possibility of downloading high-resolution digital files, but it is an incorrect assumption that those listening to MP3s do not care about sound quality at all. Many do, and many MP3:s do sound quite OK.

Absolutely.

The error behind Young's thinking is believing that most people want the best possible sound. There's only a minority who want that. Most people want good quality sound (which you can get from MP3) and that will do. For a new technology to take off it has to do something substantially different from existing technology (as LP did over 78 or CD over LP).

The story of SACD illustrates that point perfectly. Loved by a minority, ignored by everyone else.

It strikes me that developments in streaming audio are where the next big thing will happen. Though it may not affect those of us used to something more permanent quite as much.

Edited October 10, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[fasstrack]

. What you have to worry about is that he's sinking a lot of time and money into a medium that's probably not going to have much broad based appeal. There can't be more than a handful of younger people out there who give a rat's ass about sound other than that they have access to it. iPods, for all their convenience, have pretty much put quality reproduction on the back burner. Kudos to Young for fighting the good fight and caring enough to do it. I just hope he's not flogging a dead horse.

Whatever became of mini discs-speaking of doomed technologies? I bit when they first came out. The sound was flat as hell, but you could store a lot of music in a small space. If you set it on mono you got 2x the time-good for interviews or recording one's gigs. I recorded countless hours of music-then lost the whole collection. Then the machine itself broke-past warranty, of course-and c'est le fin. I thought they were pretty cool though.

[JSngry]

It strikes me that developments in streaming audio are where the next big thing will happen.

It's the logical next step after FM radio.

[JohnJ]

. What you have to worry about is that he's sinking a lot of time and money into a medium that's probably not going to have much broad based appeal. There can't be more than a handful of younger people out there who give a rat's ass about sound other than that they have access to it. iPods, for all their convenience, have pretty much put quality reproduction on the back burner. Kudos to Young for fighting the good fight and caring enough to do it. I just hope he's not flogging a dead horse.

Whatever became of mini discs-speaking of doomed technologies? I bit when they first came out. The sound was flat as hell, but you could store a lot of music in a small space. If you set it on mono you got 2x the time-good for interviews or recording one's gigs. I recorded countless hours of music-then lost the whole collection. Then the machine itself broke-past warranty, of course-and c'est le fin. I thought they were pretty cool though.

Just read this the other day.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2012/sep/24/sony-minidisc-20-years?INTCMP=SRCH

[rostasi]

It's kind of like engineering a better broccoli...for those of us who like broccoli.

I still have minidiscs (and players - portable and stand-alone units) literally all

around me at the moment, but they're being used for transferring away from

them to the new tech that's available. The minidisc player was the best portable

way for me to use binaural mics for recording. A problem: you needed to keep

the player as steady as possible, so that there wouldn't be that annoying whirring

sound that happened when it became unbalanced - pretty much ruining your recording.

You do the best that you can with what you can afford at the time, I suppose.

The next jump was to the iAudio...and then to the Edirol for capturing.

Edited October 10, 2012 by rostasi

[mjazzg]

I just hope he's not flogging a dead horse.

Crazy

[JSngry]

Edirol

That's the ADD medicine, right?

[rostasi]

sorry, what were you saying?

[JSngry]

That was no lady, that was my wife.

[Daniel A]

Shhh.... don't anyone tell him about FLAC. This should be fun.

In just a few days, Neil has managed to raise two and a half million dollars on Kickstarter.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music

The good news: it's actually just a FLAC player! But then, what's really the point?

[Jerry_L]

Live music is still better.

[Scott Dolan]

For a majority of people MP3:s above a certain bitrate cannot be distinguished from the uncompressed original. Those interested can visit hydrogenaudio.org and read up on listening tests. I consider myself concerned with audio quality and I've done blind tests (there's software that enables you to do so called "ABX" tests on your own) that have revealed the bitrate where I can't tell the difference anymore.

What was your cutoff point, Daniel? Mine is somewhere around 256kbps. At least when it comes to VBR AAC files. Once I get there, I hear zero difference between the file and the original cd. And I've tried like hell to convince myself that I do!

[Jerry_L]

I usually rip at 192, but I've not yet done a listening comparison.

[Ted O'Reilly]

Looks like a Toblerone candy bar. Not exactly pocketable, is it?

[Daniel A]

What was your cutoff point, Daniel? Mine is somewhere around 256kbps. At least when it comes to VBR AAC files. Once I get there, I hear zero difference between the file and the original cd. And I've tried like hell to convince myself that I do!

For MP3:s made with the LAME encoder, it was at a VBR setting resulting in an average of around 256 kbps. Of course, there may theoretically still be problem samples where I would have been able to tell the difference, but for the purpose of MP3:s, it's really good enough. Edited March 13, 2014 by Daniel A

[Scott Dolan]

I usually rip at 192, but I've not yet done a listening comparison.

You should, and post your results. I can tell a difference at 160kbps, but haven't tried 192 yet. Who knows, that may be my threshold.

Daniel, did you hear a difference at 192?

Oh, and to be clear, I'm using AAC and not MP3. Though, I do still have some MP3 files I've purchased from Emusic, and recently downloaded a 256 AAC copy to compare. I heard no difference between the two formats at comparable bit rates.

[Daniel A]

I usually rip at 192, but I've not yet done a listening comparison.

You should, and post your results. I can tell a difference at 160kbps, but haven't tried 192 yet. Who knows, that may be my threshold.

Daniel, did you hear a difference at 192? It was a few years back, so I actually can't remember. I really should do it again, because the compression algorithms have been fine-tuned since then. Since becoming a father (for the second time last year) I've hardly had time to make any MP3s. Spotify has also replaced much of my to-go listening.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Daniel A

[Scott Dolan]

Yeah, the technology has really matured exponentially just in the last few years. I find it rather amazing these days.