Neil Young speaks out against excessive compression

[Febs]

I felt that way pretty recently myself. I'd spent a decade away from music, focused on other things. I didn't own a proper stereo. Not even good headphones. For a long, long time. Then, getting back into music and needing a silent practice setup, I bought some good studio monitor over-the-ear headphones.

Whoa.

But anyway. What troubles me most about this whole discussion is that it isn't really a matter of opinion. Either you can hear the difference or you can't. And that's a question that someone can answer scientifically.

Why hasn't anyone done this?

I've seen studies where pretentious sommaliers can't tell the difference between red and white when blindfolded.

I've seen the Pepsi challenge, for goodness sake.

Why has nobody tested people's ability to discern high bitrate lossy compressed audio from pristine masters?

Or maybe they have and I just don't know where to find it.

Read my earlier post in this thread.

 

[eqvolvorama]

I felt that way pretty recently myself. I'd spent a decade away from music, focused on other things. I didn't own a proper stereo. Not even good headphones. For a long, long time. Then, getting back into music and needing a silent practice setup, I bought some good studio monitor over-the-ear headphones.

Whoa.

But anyway. What troubles me most about this whole discussion is that it isn't really a matter of opinion. Either you can hear the difference or you can't. And that's a question that someone can answer scientifically.

Why hasn't anyone done this?

I've seen studies where pretentious sommaliers can't tell the difference between red and white when blindfolded.

I've seen the Pepsi challenge, for goodness sake.

Why has nobody tested people's ability to discern high bitrate lossy compressed audio from pristine masters?

Or maybe they have and I just don't know where to find it.

There actually ARE blind tests that back up the notion that humans can't discern Redbook CD audio from "hi res" and SACD formats. I will post the link tonight or tomorrow morning.

Then there's the fact that many labels use DIFFERENT MASTERS for their SACD layer, rendering the comparison moot.

 

[scottfeldstein]

Joe, the graph is from the CDC.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

It appears that it is the results of a study involving carpenters. Undoubtedly they spend some time around hammers and power tools. I'm betting rock musicians have worse assaults on their hearing.

 

[Febs]

Here is a link to Hydrogen Audio's Listening Tests forum: Invalid Link Removed

 

[HolmeBass]

Yeah, it's the consumers who drove quality down during the digital download explosion of the 90s. But it wasn't because they just don't care about audio quality. It was because they cared more about something else: being able to use the power of the internet to discover and acquire music. The state of the art at the time in terms of broadband connectivity, computer bus speeds and hard drive cost-per-unit ratios were such that compromises in quality had to be made in order to get what they wanted. So I guess what I'm saying is that it's not just that people "don't care." It's that they were given a choice with tradeoffs. They chose internet convenience over quality. But now those tradeoffs are less inevitable. That's why some of the quality has been brought back. Technology has largely caught up. Today you can have your cake and eat it, too.

At least some of it. 256k ain't bad. And I expect things to get even better as time goes on.

What I find ridiculous is that in Neil-land, we all buy iPods that can hold a whopping 30 albums! And download songs off the internet in a mere 30 minutes!

Never. Happen.

I said most don't care, and I stand by that assertion. I have a co-worker, an avid music fan and listener, always downloading something new. He says he cannot hear the difference between 192 kb/s bit rate and 96, and that even if he could, he doesn't care.

That said, he was also always listening on iPod earbuds. I told him the earbuds are terrible, they lose almost all of the bass. I suggested he push them into his ear, engaging contact with the bone material in his skull, which greatly improves bass response. He said yes, he's noticed that before. Then he started looking at dual-driver earphones, after I sent him a link to an IEM manufacturer. He bought a modest ~$100 pair, and now he can't go back to the iPod earbuds. But this is a guy who listens to way more music than I do! He is a true music lover (but hates live local music - <sigh> - I'm working on him) and he was a hard sell.

The rest of the people I work with *really don't care at all*. None of my friends' kids care about sound quality *at all*, and some of them are singers and musicians (just starting on the quest...).

On the way to our gig last week we stopped in a convenience store, which was blaring bad pop music through a ceiling-mounted announcement PA. It was horribly distorted, all of us cringed as we entered. It made my teeth hurt it was so abrasive an terrible. The guy working there, and all of the other customers did not seem to notice or mind.

At a lunch counter just yesterday the stereo was cutting in and out- we were hearing like one bar out of every 6 or so- and no on cared, or even noticed until I mentioned it to my lunch companions.

You're not going to convince me that even 10% of people care in the least about the quality of the sounds they listen to. It's just not even on their radar. They buy the cheapest, most easily found recording on iTunes, plop it on their iPod, and move on. They listen to Pandora and love it. They will never ever consider having fewer, higher quality recordings on their iPods- to them that's just crazy. And all this in a culture of people who can't watch non-hi-def TV anymore. It's just strange to me.

There will be a small proportion of people for whom sound quality counts, and most of them are going to reject any type of data compression at all on their music. Think audiophiles and such. I think it's going to continue to be tough to find decently compressed music for popular consumption.

 

[sdoow]

I find that very few people have had the joy of listening to a reasonably high end, high quality playback system. Without fail, every single person that has listened to my system has preferred vinyl to SACD, CD, and definitely MP3. From my elderly parents and in-laws, to all of my wife's skeptical friends, to my half deaf buddies. People that could care less about music consistently get a big grin and say "wow, that sounds real" when listening to records through my tubes, horns and vinyl.

MP3s through a Wadia dock and PSaudio DAC are listenable only as background music. CDs too, for that matter. SACD can be pretty enjoyable, but in my experience vinyl records in good condition are consistently less compressed, more dynamic, and just plain real sounding.

Regardless of all the techno mumbo jumbo, my real world experience over numerous years and hundreds of demonstrations have proven time and time again that the crap that has been foisted on the unsuspecting public as "technological improvements" are nothing but a more convenient method of handling one's music.

I guess the reality is, that most people listen to music in the background as they go about doing other things. And for that reason, even the lowest resolution formats seem to suit their purposes just fine.

 

[eqvolvorama]

I said most don't care, and I stand by that assertion. I have a co-worker, an avid music fan and listener, always downloading something new. He says he cannot hear the difference between 192 kb/s bit rate and 96, and that even if he could, he doesn't care.

That said, he was also always listening on iPod earbuds. I told him the earbuds are terrible, they lose almost all of the bass. I suggested he push them into his ear, engaging contact with the bone material in his skull, which greatly improves bass response. He said yes, he's noticed that before. Then he started looking at dual-driver earphones, after I sent him a link to an IEM manufacturer. He bought a modest ~$100 pair, and now he can't go back to the iPod earbuds. But this is a guy who listens to way more music than I do! He is a true music lover (but hates live local music - <sigh> - I'm working on him) and he was a hard sell.

The rest of the people I work with *really don't care at all*. None of my friends' kids care about sound quality *at all*, and some of them are singers and musicians (just starting on the quest...).

On the way to our gig last week we stopped in a convenience store, which was blaring bad pop music through a ceiling-mounted announcement PA. It was horribly distorted, all of us cringed as we entered. It made my teeth hurt it was so abrasive an terrible. The guy working there, and all of the other customers did not seem to notice or mind.

At a lunch counter just yesterday the stereo was cutting in and out- we were hearing like one bar out of every 6 or so- and no on cared, or even noticed until I mentioned it to my lunch companions.

You're not going to convince me that even 10% of people care in the least about the quality of the sounds they listen to. It's just not even on their radar. They buy the cheapest, most easily found recording on iTunes, plop it on their iPod, and move on. They listen to Pandora and love it. They will never ever consider having fewer, higher quality recordings on their iPods- to them that's just crazy. And all this in a culture of people who can't watch non-hi-def TV anymore. It's just strange to me.

There will be a small proportion of people for whom sound quality counts, and most of them are going to reject any type of data compression at all on their music. Think audiophiles and such. I think it's going to continue to be tough to find decently compressed music for popular consumption.

The problem I have with this argument (and it's a common one) is that, under the guide of a peace-pipe, it asks us to accept the notion that people who "care" about music can tell the difference between lossy vs. lossless, 44.1 vs. 96, 16 vs 24, whatever, and that the rest of us are just complacent to make do with crap. This is insulting.

If this argument (and I'm not picking on you, just this general trend) was accompanied by any kind of proper testing to show that these "caring" people (or in the case of hi-rez audio, ANYONE ON THE PLANET) could reliably discern the difference beyond a coin-flip's accuracy, then we'd have something to go on, but as is, it's less than appeal to authority - it's appeal to snobbery.

Regarding the double blind tests mentioned above, I give you:

Super Audio CD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eqvolvorama]

I find that very few people have had the joy of listening to a reasonably high end, high quality playback system. Without fail, every single person that has listened to my system has preferred vinyl to SACD, CD, and definitely MP3. From my elderly parents and in-laws, to all of my wife's skeptical friends, to my half deaf buddies. People that could care less about music consistently get a big grin and say "wow, that sounds real" when listening to records through my tubes, horns and vinyl.

Problem with this kind of testing:

1. It's sighted.
2. Your beliefs will influence what your friends and family members will hear. They will tend to agree with what YOU think sounds better simply because you represent an authority on the subject. I'm less likely to prefer "Wine B" in a taste test if the wine aficionado at the next table thinks it's junk.
3. Vinyl is almost always sourced from different masters than SACD and CD. Vinyl, ESPECIALLY older vinyl, is usually mastered with far less dynamic range compression than CD or even SACD, as it's being prepared for big speakers in quieter home listening environments. This mastering approach may be more pleasing to the ear in certain circumstances, but has nothing to do with the final audio format. It's not a fair comparison.

 

[GoesThump]

You do realize that a 48 kHz sample rate can only resolve audio frequencies up to 24 kHz, right? So nowhere near bias frequency. Google "Nyquist frequency".

I think you missed the point of my original question to the OP. It wasn't clear if he was referring to a digital recording @ 48K (which gives you 24K as per Nyquist, as you correctly point out.) or an analog 1/2" recorder with some far out playback frequency response up to 48K. (About as common as unicorns.) Hence my comment about bias.

GT

 

[GoesThump]

It appears that it is the results of a study involving carpenters. Undoubtedly they spend some time around hammers and power tools. I'm betting rock musicians have worse assaults on their hearing.

I'm glad you brought this up & will check out that link. Knowing about SPL levels & hearing damage is important, and all too often neglected. I sometimes send my students around with an SPL meter & get them to compare the levels they hear w/the recommended amounts before hearing damage occurs.

It's usually a pretty somber class when they report back...

Hearing loss is a huge problem, and not taken nearly as seriously as it should be.

GT

 

[GoesThump]

At a lunch counter just yesterday the stereo was cutting in and out- we were hearing like one bar out of every 6 or so- and no on cared, or even noticed until I mentioned it to my lunch companions.

Hey, I think I ate there too. I had a similar experience at a restaurant just this Tuesday. And some of them were trained musicians, which is even more strange.

I think you're right - most people (not all, but a sizable majority) simply don't care about audio quality. Convenience generally trumps all other considerations for the average consumer.

GT

 

[sevdog]

How many of you will leave this thread to go to another to argue how much better GK sounds than Genz or that your jazz bass just doesn't sound exactly right so you always go for the Pbass?

MP3's are compressed. In SOME recordings there is an audible difference. Neil Young wants to get higher quality formats out there. So what's wrong with that?

I'm writing down all of your names and if I catch you pining on the virtues of using one type of speaker cabinet over another then I will have to call you out...not really this post is probably good enough.

 

[Sinomis666]

It's obvious that most people hear music differently & that's why there are very few amazing sound engineers it is the true dark art of music! I think it will end up like the whole tube amp versus SS amp thing some people like the sound of warm fat tube sounds others like more clean fast reproductions of their sound,& judging by the amount of Lp sales which still sell a fair percentage versus mp3.but I tell you put a Lp version of your favorite song then compare it to the mp3 version there is so much more richness in sound particularly with 12in 45s!

 

[spigmu]

I'm writing down all of your names and if I catch you pining on the virtues of using one type of speaker cabinet over another then I will have to call you out.

Cabinets all sound the same, just like all amps, and all basses sound exactly the same as well. I know this for a fact because whenever I use different gear I ask some random person if they could hear the difference and they always don't say yes, and if I ask if they they care they also say they weren't really paying much attention, so that's proof that it's exactly the same and that no one cares.

 

[BogeyBass]

its no different than goobers that would buy cassette tapes because it was cheaper and portable, and claim CD's are a waste. Because at the time portable CD players were expensive battery hogs, and cassette tapes and walkmans were a lossy format that everyone loved because it was portable and cheaper.

nevermind the fact it was just as easy to hit record and steal all the music you wanted with a cassette recorder.

Likewise if Neils high resolution format was real, a bunch of goobers are going to say its a waste of time because its non portable and too expensive.

But yet back then I was smart enough to buy the better sounding CD and buy a bunch of tapes and make my own portable versions.

and again if a higher resolution format was available, I would buy it and transfer it to my cheaper more portable MP3 player.
just like i do now with cd's, otherwise if you buy MP3 well good for you, you can get em for free on the internet.
slightly but really no different than making a free copy on a cassette.

wow what a concept.

Being that Neil Young has stepped into many recording studios and has heard what the master sounded like, and then heard what the CD sounded like. I'm sure he and anyone else that has spent thousands of dollars to record a album, gets rather upset to hear losses in the lower formats it gets distributed in.
And just like Neil or any one else that cares about quality wishes there was a way for people to hear and own the music at the quality the master has.

 

[sdoow]

Problem with this kind of testing:

1. It's sighted.
2. Your beliefs will influence what your friends and family members will hear. They will tend to agree with what YOU think sounds better simply because you represent an authority on the subject. I'm less likely to prefer "Wine B" in a taste test if the wine aficionado at the next table thinks it's junk.
3. Vinyl is almost always sourced from different masters than SACD and CD. Vinyl, ESPECIALLY older vinyl, is usually mastered with far less dynamic range compression than CD or even SACD, as it's being prepared for big speakers in quieter home listening environments. This mastering approach may be more pleasing to the ear in certain circumstances, but has nothing to do with the final audio format. It's not a fair comparison.

I hear what you are saying, and by no means have I attempted to compare my experience to anything like a controlled lab experiment. By and large most everyone wonders why I'm putting that big archaic piece of vinyl on the table when I have an obviously superior CD player sitting there. Generally speaking they have a lower expectation of the vinyl record. They assume it'll sound scratchy and muffled just like that old Soundesign AM/FM, 8 track, record player combo they had back in high school.

I have numerous copies of the same recordings on both CD and LP, and a few on SACD, and yes I know they were most likely mastered differently, but LPs consistently beat out the digital formats as being most enjoyable to listen to. I have cued up both copies and switched back and forth repeatedly while my guest is not looking and they always pick vinyl. I have even done it without their knowing, they always ask what I did to make the sound change. CDs sound perfectly fine through my system, and one wonders how it could sound better, until I switch the turntable on.

The dynamic range of ones playback system certainly has a lot to do with the ability to enjoy those LPs with the big dynamics. I have several LPs that will show a 40db swing on the needles, while most are in the 20-30db range. Meanwhile only a few of my CDs and most of my SACDs match the 20-30db dynamic range of my LPs. Most modern CDs will swing the needles less than 10db!

Now if I were to listen to it through a pair of cheap earbuds I'm sure the differences would be moot. I'm perfectly content listening to my iPod through earbuds while working out or reading, but when I want to sit down, turn out the lights, relax and really listen to "Kind of Blue", I will always put on the LP over the SACD. And I bet most people would too.

 

[bongomania]

And just like Neil or any one else that cares about quality wishes there was a way for people to hear and own the music at the quality the master has.

All he or anyone else would have to do is release the audio as a downloadable file (which is what Neil was talking about) in one of the many higher-resolution formats that already exist, along with a link to the appropriate player codec that is free to download TODAY.

Completely irrespective of whether anyone can or should hear a difference, there is NOTHING holding Neil back from making his dream come true--except his mind?

 

[Queg]

All he or anyone else would have to do is release the audio as a downloadable file (which is what Neil was talking about) in one of the many higher-resolution formats that already exist, along with a link to the appropriate player codec that is free to download TODAY.

Completely irrespective of whether anyone can or should hear a difference, there is NOTHING holding Neil back from making his dream come true--except his mind?

HD Tracks is already doing this. As you mentioned before, the problem isn't in availability of formats or technology, it's lack of consumer demand.

Re: hearing loss: Over the years my ears have deteriorated and I suffer from tinnitus. But for whatever reason I've become more and more sensitive to what I assume is low rez digital "hash", it simply hurts my ears after prolonged listening. So in recent years I've gone back to vinyl and hi rez digital. I'm referring more to acoustic music (classical, jazz, folk). I can't really hear much difference with rock and pop cuz, well, the instruments are often already distorted or heavily manipulated in production, and I don't "actively" listen to rock very often.

If anyone takes the time to actually listen to the difference between a well-recorded orchestral string section on mp3 compared to HD digital or vinyl on a decent stereo or headphones, I believe they'll be more sympathetic to Mr. Young's rant.

 

[Febs]

If anyone takes the time to actually listen to the difference between a well-recorded orchestral string section on mp3 compared to HD digital or vinyl on a decent stereo or headphones, I believe they'll be more sympathetic to Mr. Young's rant.

And then ask them to do it again in a blind test using well encoded mp3s and they won't be able to tell the difference.

 

[EddieT]

I don't understand his complaint. He sounds like an old crank to me. Does anyone actually think that Neil could tell the difference between a lossless digital recording and a 256k AAC file? Please. Even if he had the most sophisticated playback equipment on the planet he wouldn't be able to tell the difference. And neither could I. Only the most golden-eared audiophiles could even hope to do so. Old Neil probably has enough hearing loss to preclude him ever successfully distinguishing the two.

Basically all I heard when I read his remarks was "get off my lawn!"

And the bit about downloading an uncompressed song in 30 minutes? He's on drugs if he thinks that's the kind of "innovation" anyone wants.

Agree!