Neil Young speaks out against excessive compression

[scottfeldstein]

I think there is a problem with your source that is merely being exposed by the AAC compression, rather than a problem with AAC compression itself.

 

[projectMalamute]

I think there is a problem with your source that is merely being exposed by the AAC compression, rather than a problem with AAC compression itself.

Perhaps he should be recording to 1/2" tape at 48kHz.

I hear that's real warm and punchy.

 

[eqvolvorama]

Perhaps he should be recording to 1/2" tape at 48kHz.

I hear that's real warm and punchy.

Will you test yourself in foobar? That would be quick, easy, and would shut the rest of us up.

 

[seamonkey]

Some fun information on a lot of myths by audiophiles

Invalid Link Removed

For a quick review, Jump to
45:50

There's a listening test on bit reduction.

Compression/decompression is going to reduce bits, but smartly, so compress/decompress will do better than just bit reduction. You get the idea.

Don't just listen on youtube, because youtube has compressed audio.
Better to pick up the Decimate VST plugin and try it yourself on your own tracks.

Better to just compress a bunch of your own tracks using the different formats and see what really matters.

The worst kind of compression is taking multitracks and mixing them down to stereo.

 

[onosson]

for those who remember, iTunes stared off selling m4p files at 128kps when the store opened in 2003. The move to m4a 256kps files happened in 2007 with the brand name of iTunes Plus. Previous purchasers could upgrade their purchased files for a small fee. Who knows, maybe the same will happen in a few years. But with the amount of songs sold off of iTunes growing so fast, a future upgrade of heavier files would be a massive amount of traffic for the iTunes servers.

After introducing iTunes Match and iCloud, iTunes Plus is obsolete:

all the music iTunes matches plays back from iCloud at 256-Kbps AAC DRM-free quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality

Apple - iTunes - Match

And there's no reason to think they couldn't move up to another format or bitrate if they thought it made a difference, or have a premium higher-quality format for more $$.

 

[projectMalamute]

No, it wouldn't shut you up. Just like the link to a forum chock full of people doing that exact test didn't shut you up.

It's not even really the issue. For most people, in most environments, with most source material it probably sounds fine.

If you are aiming to create a disposable product that is just good enough for most people most of the time knock yourself out.

If you are aiming to create a permanent record of something you care about maybe aim a little higher.

Back in the 50's some of the best sounding recordings of classical music ever made were recorded. High precision transducers, high quality mic preamps, direct to a large format stereo tape machine. Cost no object tools that no one could afford to put that kind of money in to today. If you hear some of these recordings in a proper room with proper monitors the effect is striking, you can close your eyes and it sounds like you are in the concert hall.

Because people cared, and took their jobs seriously, I can hear Fritz Reiner in amazing fidelity. If those people aimed for the lowest fidelity they could get away with on commonly available play back equipment ca. 1955 I wouldn't be able to do that.

Music matters to me. I believe in doing the best possible work with the tools I have available at all times.

 

[eqvolvorama]

No, it wouldn't shut you up. Just like the link to a forum chock full of people doing that exact test didn't shut you up.

It's not even really the issue. For most people, in most environments, with most source material it probably sounds fine.

If you are aiming to create a disposable product that is just good enough for most people most of the time knock yourself out.

If you are aiming to create a permanent record of something you care about maybe aim a little higher.

Back in the 50's some of the best sounding recordings of classical music ever made were recorded. High precision transducers, high quality mic preamps, direct to a large format stereo tape machine. Cost no object tools that no one could afford to put that kind of money in to today. If you hear some of these recordings in a proper room with proper monitors the effect is striking, you can close your eyes and it sounds like you are in the concert hall.

Because people cared, and took their jobs seriously, I can hear Fritz Reiner in amazing fidelity. If those people aimed for the lowest fidelity they could get away with on commonly available play back equipment ca. 1955 I wouldn't be able to do that.

Music matters to me. I believe in doing the best possible work with the tools I have available at all times.

Did you even look at the hydrogenaudio forum link? Do you know why I think you didn't?

 

[projectMalamute]

I glanced at it. The only thing that looked like an actual report of an ABX test was some dude going 15 for 15. I really don't know or care who those people are.

But like I said, hardly the point. Make recordings as shoddily as you think you can get away with. You are probably clever enough that most people won't notice, especially given the audience for music made by people with that kind of contempt for the listener. Way to go.

 

[eqvolvorama]

I glanced at it. The only thing that looked like an actual report of an ABX test was some dude going 15 for 15. I really don't know or care who those people are.

But like I said, hardly the point. Make recordings as shoddily as you think you can get away with. You are probably clever enough that most people won't notice, especially given the audience for music made by people with that kind of contempt for the listener. Way to go.

So you're combining refusal to examine supporting data with a strawman argument AND an ad hominem attack. Way to go.

 

[Tupac]

Don't be difficult. You know precisely what I mean. You can't tell the difference. Neither can I.

Untrue? Well, maybe someone can prove it then.

...I take it you're not much of an audiophile? It's so easy to tell the difference between even a 350kbps file and a FLAC file. Not only can every audio enthusiast do that in their sleep, but any old joe with a pair of $50 cans could probably tell the difference. It's not a very daunting task for anyone.

 

[eqvolvorama]

...I take it you're not much of an audiophile? It's so easy to tell the difference between even a 350kbps file and a FLAC file. Not only can every audio enthusiast do that in their sleep, but any old joe with a pair of $50 cans could probably tell the difference. It's not a very daunting task for anyone.

Prove it then. The tools to do so are in your hands. Make us all look like idiots.

 

[onosson]

This thread was going along real nicely for a while...

 

[Febs]

I glanced at it. The only thing that looked like an actual report of an ABX test was some dude going 15 for 15. I really don't know or care who those people are.

But like I said, hardly the point. Make recordings as shoddily as you think you can get away with. You are probably clever enough that most people won't notice, especially given the audience for music made by people with that kind of contempt for the listener. Way to go.

You should really take a closer look: Invalid Link Removed

And please, relax a bit. This has nothing to do with making shoddy recordings.

 

[swspiers]

You should really take a closer look: Invalid Link Removed

And please, relax a bit. This has nothing to do with making shoddy recordings.

THAT is an awesome link. There may be a bit to criticize, but overall it's good info!

 

[IndustrialArts]

May we all be as passionate and prolific.....

 

[superbassman2000]

Yes, actually. In every possible regard.

Right-and it's interesting that people believe that vinyl is better because from a technical standpoint its not, but a lot of people still have a preference to it. To me, that proves that recording quality doesn't necessarily reflect how "good" a song sounds. It's like hearing your grandma say she loves you through a cell phone vs hearing it in person. The fidelity doesn't always change the appreciation of the actual message.

As far as Neil Young saying he wants his music distributed at a higher quality, I'll pass. Keep on rocking in the free world will sound just as distorted and sloppy as ever.

 

[Lo-E]

Not that I think there's any hope of getting this thread back in perspective, but here are a couple of thoughts on Neil Young that might help to do just that:

Neil Young the old crank, has been a crank since he was a young crank (a Young crank?). It's nothing new. He has always had a reputation for being a prickly guy when he feels like it and, in general, a cermudgeon.

Unlike a lot of other 'dinosaur' artists, he is still actively writing and recording music. He still spends more time in recording studios than most of us ever will, and he has worked in some of the best studios in the world with very high-caliber producers and engineers. He also has a reputation for being a persnickety perfectionist. In light of these facts (and they are facts), it might be unwise to try and second-guess what he can or cannot hear.

He has never shied away from technology. Since the beginning of his career, he has taken full advantage of the latest recording tech and could usually expound on it in detail - accurate detail. I think it's unlikely that he's as clueless as he's being accused of here. It's crazy, but he might just know a thing or two.

Lastly and, perhaps, most importantly, Neil Young has a long standing reputation for trying to get a rise out of people. If this thread is any indication, mission accomplished!

I'm not saying I agree with him about this particular topic, I'm just saying: consider the source.

 

[DuraMorte]

Right-and it's interesting that people believe that vinyl is better because from a technical standpoint its not, but a lot of people still have a preference to it. To me, that proves that recording quality doesn't necessarily reflect how "good" a song sounds. It's like hearing your grandma say she loves you through a cell phone vs hearing it in person. The fidelity doesn't always change the appreciation of the actual message.

The thing people don't understand is, when you listen to an LP, then put on the corresponding CD, you are NOT hearing exactly the same version. The original source track used for duplication is completely different.
That is not a result of the medium itself, but the limitations vinyl has, which forces mastering engineers to use best practices, whereas CD/digital doesn't have those limitations, and therefore allows mastering engineers to brickwall limit them to death, killing any semblance of natural sound the music once had.

 

[Alkali Ike]

I occasionally drop in at another forum devoted to vinyl records, Invalid Link Removed. One of the active participants there is Phil Brown. Phil was the mastering engineer for many of Neil Young's earlier albums like Harvest. He contributes many gems of information. Example:

Well, I'm very glad you like Time Fades Away. IT WILL NEVER BE RELEASED ON CD. And I'm glad you like Harvest too. I was during this period-from Time Fades Away to Comes a Time-the guy who mastered them.
Time Fades Away was mastered in a unique way that can't be duplicated. It was cut from the 16 track master through a computer fader system from Quad Eight called Compumix. The system no longer existed-even Neil doesn't have his any more-and Neil doesn't like the copies, which were only intended for cassette production.
These records were cut on a wonderful cutter head we had at CBS in San Francisco that was a unique prototype. It had excellent HF response and made great sounding records. So sibilance problems on these records are not from the masters but later in the process.
Phil Brown

Mr. Brown has mentioned that Neil Young was EXTREMELY picky about the audio quality of Harvest and personally rejected some of the first mastering attempts and test pressings. Unfortunately I can't find that thread right now but will continue to look...

EDIT: Here's a little tidbit about Bob Dylan:

As I've said many times, original pressings from the first run of lacquers offer the best sound. For Dylan-and all CBS product in the 60s and 70s-matrix numbers ending in A through F are the originals.
I mastered Blood On The Tracks-all versions, Pat Garrett And Billy The Kid, The Basement Tapes and Slow Train Coming.
Phil Brown

ANOTHER EDIT: I found an entire thread devoted to Phil Brown. Invalid Link Removed Here's one of his posts about mastering records in general:

I would just like to add that the emphasis in program material in this forum is understandable but that the mechanical part of record making is perhaps more important. Understanding how records work mechanically is vital and poorly understood by the record buying public, even one as clued in as this one.
It takes years and thousands of records to begin to understand how records work. This is one reason why my friends and I worry that the craft of disc cutting will be lost. There is no longer the opportunity for someone to cut day after day for the time required to gain a full understanding of just how it works.
Along with that it takes a capacity for taking pains, a detail mindedness hard to describe and the ethics of a saint. You must be willing to throw out the last lacquer of a very long night with the air freight driver standing there tapping his foot if there's a flaw, even if no one but yourself will ever find it. Try that in our "It's OK, no one will ever know" society today.
Could you do that? If you can you may become a mastering engineer. If you can't you will fail, no matter how good you hear the program material. Many have. It's not a job for everybody.
Phil Brown

 

[chuck3]

I occasionally drop in at another forum devoted to vinyl records, Invalid Link Removed. One of the active participants there is Phil Brown. Phil was the mastering engineer for many of Neil Young's earlier albums like Harvest. He contributes many gems of information. Example:



Mr. Brown has mentioned that Neil Young was EXTREMELY picky about the audio quality of Harvest and personally rejected some of the first mastering attempts and test pressings. Unfortunately I can't find that thread right now but will continue to look...

EDIT: Here's a little tidbit about Bob Dylan:



ANOTHER EDIT: I found an entire thread devoted to Phil Brown. Invalid Link Removed Here's one of his posts about mastering records in general:

hi all - the OP here - glad this thread lead to some good debate. I don't have anywhere near the technical knowledge most of you do, but I find everyone's comments very interesting. Making me re-think my own preconceptions a little. Chuck