-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2008/07/23/the-best-fortune-brainstorm-tech-talk-neil-young-challenges-tech-industry/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
One of the best musicians of all time just got a bit better, in my books.
Interesting to see if this is the start of any sort of rally. Who knows, maybe with the supposed Mac updates in the months to come there will be news of a change in audio formats.
I think that Apple could even make money off of a switch to the new audio format. Follow the Google model; develop it, patent it, and license it.
Thanks for the bit of interesting news :)
If you're gonna buy MP3s online, Amazon will give them to you at a 320kbps... but still... MP3s are not as rich as analog. Shoot... CDs aren't even as rich as analog
It would be awesome to see a few key players in the industry develop a higher fidelity digital format, but I can't imagine they would give it away, and I don't want to see another VHS vs. Beta or Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD. Does anyone think this could be a successful open source project?
If you can, does the MP3 quality impede your enjoyment? Seriously.
It's a common tactic used by the RIAA crowd to say why digital music is evil. It's been used since the early days of Napster.
In my opinion that is what we have been seeing for a very long time in the world of hardware and software. Do not take time to work out the bugs; just make it good enough for now. Today’s bugs will be forgotten after the release of tomorrow’s new features.
I don't want 4 times the data of mp3s, I'd need four times the disk space for it.
I'm now really curious to hear what a song with 4x the data of an mp3 would sound like.
I would love higher quality music. My roommate has a vinyl record player, and we love listening to his “hi-fi” stereo system… and I think you’ll find a lot of musicians of Neil Young’s era (especially Bob Dylan, who still releases every album on vinyl) are dissatisfied with the quality of digital music.
If you’re gonna buy MP3s online, Amazon will give them to you at a 256kbps… but still… MP3s are not as rich as analog. Shoot… CDs aren’t even as rich as analog
It would be awesome to see a few key players in the industry develop a higher fidelity digital format, but I can’t imagine they would give it away, and I don’t want to see another VHS vs. Beta or Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD. Does anyone think this could be a successful open source project?
The issue with lossy compression is not just that of being able to hear the difference. Re-encoding files (from mp3 to wma or from one bit rate to another etc) continues to degrade the audio quality. My library is all lossless and I can re-encode to whatever format I chose with relative ease and no worries that I am further degrading the audio quality. This is a much better solution than re-ripping from the CD!
Regarding not hearing a difference between a CD and highly compressed audio, I think people in general tend to listen to the song, not the sound. That's totally fine but the individual instruments and voices all have a story to tell too. It's like reading between the lines. Looking at a picture instead of the words. If you redirect your focus for a moment and really listen to what is (or should be) available, it can get pretty hard to hear the song again. Maybe ignorance really is bliss? Some manufactures sure bet on it!
In a BLIND test none of them correctly identified the mp3.
Audiophiles are idiots - they "claim" they can hear a difference but fail when put to the test.
Why doesn't somebody demand better quality music from Neil Young. A remastered old album in high-quality mp3 sounds a lot better than an original version on CD (or flac).
The only difference I notice is between an MP3 and a lossless encoding (or the original CD source) of classical music, with decent headphones, in a relatively quiet room. The difference is in the dynamic range: MP3 tends to muddle the low end and clip the high end, whereas lossless handles it much better. Then again, a higher-bitrate MP3 might solve the problem, too.
For most popular songs, this might not matter because the range of the original recording (let alone after the sound is compressed) probably doesn't match that of a full orchestra. Combined with tinny earbuds and a noisier environment, it's no wonder it doesn't matter to most people. For me in limited circumstances, especially when listening to classical pieces I've performed, it breaks the experience when I can't hear a part I know is there because it was washed away by the codec or low bitrate.
You know where I stand.
For example, I have a low bitrate recording of the Flaming Lips song "Fight Test" which totally loses the tremolo effect at the beginning. That's a noticeable difference that anyone could pick out if they were familiar with the music.
And while I understand that it's possible to hear a difference between a 192kbps AAC and a lossless file, I do not believe the average human can tell the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit conversion.
I would just like to hear my music at the same quality it was recorded and approved at in the studio, and I don't believe that MP3 offers that at all. Personally, I'm all for FLAC files, but try getting anyone from a major label to release those!
Could Neil Young really be saying that he's frustrated that so many people choose to listen at a superficial level? Could consumers really be saying that on average they aren't looking for a deep musical experience with the artist?
Come to think of it, if the MP3 gives us a deep "emotional" experience with the music, isn't that enough?
Anyone who pays attention can tell the difference when you play the music through a decent car stereo or even low end home systems. Cymbals, the bass, that driving beat, the guitar solos ... On any decent system, an MP3 sounds like the music is flatter, deader. Get a CD, then burn the MP3 to another CD and compare for yourself.
I'm with Neil, the industry could do a lot better (and charge more) with a higher quality option. Why does everybody rip someone for asking for more options?
Does it matter? 90% of the time, convenience wins out, but it's still nice to be able to back to the CD whenever I'm in a 'bottle of wine, headphones and some good music' mood. For that reason, I'll be sticking to CD or lossless downloads written to CD.
Ben
AAC (which iTunes uses) is vastly superior; at 128K (iTunes DRM tracks), it's a little flat but works for almost any kind of music. At 256K (iTunes Plus tracks), it is essentially lossless.
If the studios will stop demanding DRM on the iTunes store, Neil Young can get his wish. None of his tracks on iTunes are iTunes Plus, but that's the fault of his greedy record label, not Apple.
DRC is a much, much bigger threat to music quality than data compression (e.g. MP3).
CDs are merely lossless after digital conversion. That conversion loses data (sampling period, quantization, and range). There was a "super CD" format which had better conversion and the difference was A/B discernable given mindbogglingly expensive equipment in a tuned room when at the correct location.
Will I see you give more than I can take?
Will I only harvest some?
As the days fly past will we lose our grasp
Or fuse it in the sun?
Audiophiles are idiots. If you read and believe the moronic reviews in magazines like Stereophile, you're an idiot too. High-end audio is a mythology, a religion, not science. Analog audio fundamentalists = idiots. People who believe they can hear the differences between two low-distortion (< 1%), flat, level-matched amplifiers or formats like CD and SACD (Stupid Audio CD) = deluded (excluding multi-channel formts, that comes down to subjective preference mainly).
The fact is that no one has ever been able to show that they can perceive (with human ears) these alleged differences in scientifically sound, double blind tests. This is iron-clad fact no matter how much you want to believe otherwise and no matter how many thousands you spent on your 15-watt tube amp. Yes, you can measure differences with electronic equipment. The differences are too small to be perceived and have been for some time. Go pound sand.
It has been well-understood for decades how to construct a decent D/A converter. People think they can hear vast differences in various audio components, but they rarely can. You will not be able to tell the difference between audio components with low distortion (< 1%) and a linear frequency response - which is nearly everything on the market today.
Yes, speakers and headphones do matter, and this is where distortion comes in. You will rarely see any distortion measurement on speakers or headphone drivers, and the reason is because they are all well above the threshold of audible distortion - 1%. It's absolutely ludicrous that you can find people willing to buy into "higher resolution" formats and claiming to hear some magical difference on their crappy home-theater-in-a-box speaker rig. What a joke.
MP3s. An MP3 at a bitrate of 128K/sec does sound like ass. Well, that's subjective, but at least you can easily prove an audible difference between the file and the source. Use the LAME encoder with the "alt-preset normal" switch, however, and it suddenly becomes close to impossible to differentiate the file from the original source on even very high-end gear. Again, this has been proven. Google it.
If you want outstanding audio quality, you need two things that are becoming rare today: sane mixing and mastering engineers who will take advantage of the excellent dynamic range offered by the CD format and really good, accurate set of speakers.
Notes:
Andy Freeman: To the guy claiming that SACD and CD are A/B discernable - this is not the whole story. SACD releases are specifically mastered for the format. This is the difference being heard. Indeed, the mastering job on an SACD is typically superior to the CD release, but this has nothing to do with the increased resolution of the format. It's just a better master. BTW, SACD is "lossy" too in that is also a sampled format, just like CD. It's just a higher sampling frequency.
Mark Mitchell: You are right - my points are (mostly) not targeted at the recording realm.
Ben: The iPod itself has a high-pass filter (cuts out very low bass). It is virtually not possible to distinguish between a 320kbit MP3 file and the source despite what many people claim.
Required reading: http://www.zaphaudio.com/evaluation.html
The iTunes store sells music using the AAC encoder, not the MP3 encoder. AAC and MP3 are both 'perceptual audio codecs', and AAC has a much better perceptual model than that of MP3. Much better. Apple gives you two bit rate options for AAC, the higher one being of insane high quality.
However, an even bigger point - NONE OF THIS MATTERS!
Looking at music history:
- First recordings meant for consumers: really shitty
- 8 Track: shitty
- Vinyl: shitty but in a way people love ('warmth' from analog distortions, etc)
- Cassette Tape: shitty *but* recordable!
- CD: pretty decent actually *and* recordable!
- MP3: on par CD quality, recordable, and easily transferable
- AAC: *hella* good quality, recordable, and easily transferable.
So okay - things are getting better!
But not really .. music really doesn't sound as good .. and it's for reasons which have been brought up here: dynamic range.
this is not an issue of technology, it's an issue of the application of technology. it's an issue of society saying "louder = better", or more correctly ... those in the music industry realizing "louder = paying more attention".
(this also happens to be why commercials are so loud)
much love to neil, but he's confused on where the problem really lies.
HE's always been about recording quickly, with a lo fi ethos.
In fact a big portion of his work is deliberately distorted, mushy, loud, etc.
That is why MP3 sounds o.k. on simple pop - but awful with jazz, classical
The basic CD format (44khz/16bit) is good enough for distribution (not one of the controlled research experiments have shown that humans can hear above 20khz) but vinyl will sound sp much better. For recording you need 24-bit as every DSP-operation you do on the saound cause digital distortion.Personally I still always mix to a big Studer mastering analog tape machine - I have found that the tape noise masks the digital distrion residues from 24-bit digital audio manipulaton.
This of course doesnt matter to those who use music just to fill a void, make a statement and so on. But it makes a difference if we think about old fashioned musicality - the reason why people got hooked on music from the start.
and of course the net-nerds (mostly from the small club of white males in the western world) who needs free content or their so-called "business models" (both personal and corporate) wont fly and they cannot use all their shiny new toys.
He uses speakers as monitors for 100 Euros together, that he bought at a local supermarket. These speakers are not "high end", but when he masters his CDs on this speakers, everyone who hears the CD on only "normal" Speakers said "awesome sound", how did you make it.
To my opinion its a mixture of getting the best in the process of mastering and converting the audio files. I think the industry should go over to give the users the best quality that comes near to the original, and that is MP3 with 256KB and FLAC ( flawless audiocodec -> if you don#t know it, search wikipedia, but it is mainly like winzip for WAV-Files ... ) and on the other hand let the user choose which quality he wants.
Best, Jens