Neil Young speaks out against excessive compression

[eqvolvorama]

Indeed, I've several Yes albums on CD, and lately I bought some of these albums in iTunes, remastered edition with additional songs. The Apple AAC sound even better the the CD version.

Btw, I use iPad and DACport class A headphone amp which is also a very good DAC. It uses the docking port out and drives my AKG 701 headphones.

Agree completely. Quality of mastering trumps file format.

I have two different CD copies of the original "Jesus Christ Superstar" album. I also have a 192kbps MP3 needledrop I made of a very old, and very worn vinyl copy of the same album. I made this needledrop in 2003, when I barely knew what I was doing and made TONS of mistakes I would not repeat today. I recorded with the input levels too low, for one, and could have chosen a far better encoder than iTunes 4 at 192kbps forced stereo.

I still like the needledrop the best. This has nothing to do with the medium, but rather the master used for the vinyl recording - well that or whatever subjective enjoyment I get from listening to old scratches, pops, and rumbles. I will play the needledrop over and over in my car and haven't touched the CDs in years.

For me to decide from the above that CD is an inferior format to vinyl would be insanity, As would be deciding that 192kbps MP3 sounds BETTER than CD because of this one example. My brain is not an oscilloscope, and is informed by a subjective lens of experience and taste I cannot transfer nor magically use to override the technical limitations or properties of all three media.

 

[sevdog]

Your problem here is that those other subjects probably involve differences people can actually, provably hear. Our example here does not. It involves differences that people cannot hear.

Yeah see picking and choosing is where you really start to lose me. This just sounds like you can't hear a difference so you're stating that there isn't one.

I agree with you on the sommelier thing. I'm the first to scoff at a lot of the boutique products out there, whether it's a stereo, bass gear, a car, or clothing.

That said, I don't know how to prove it to you that I own recordings that I can tell the difference between mp3's that I've downloaded from itunes and a cd that I've bought in a store. Apparently, you have never come across this so you assume that it doesn't happen. I'm fully aware that I'm not going to convince you that the world is round so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

...But if you say anything else bad about Neil Young, well them's fighting words.

 

[scottfeldstein]

Well, it's really not just a matter of opinion. Whether people can reliably distinguish one music file from another is a question that really can be answered definitively using science. (I know other folks here have posted links to just such studies, but I admit that after 30 minutes of poking around at them I wasn't able to find exactly what I was looking for. Maybe someone could help sift through it and find where it's proved that people can't tell an iTunes file from a master.)

As far as Neil Young's concerned, god love him. Respect.

 

[eqvolvorama]

Yeah see picking and choosing is where you really start to lose me. This just sounds like you can't hear a difference so you're stating that there isn't one.

I agree with you on the sommelier thing. I'm the first to scoff at a lot of the boutique products out there, whether it's a stereo, bass gear, a car, or clothing.

That said, I don't know how to prove it to you that I own recordings that I can tell the difference between mp3's that I've downloaded from itunes and a cd that I've bought in a store. Apparently, you have never come across this so you assume that it doesn't happen. I'm fully aware that I'm not going to convince you that the world is round so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

...But if you say anything else bad about Neil Young, well them's fighting words.

There's no picking and choosing here. It's REALLY REALLY easy to test if one can discern the differences between lossless and lossy, Redbook and hi-rez, MP3 and AAC, whatever. There's a free application called Foobar that helps you do just this.

Simply saying "I know I can" isn't proof or even evidence. And the whole thing with "if you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you" is just another example of appeal to snobbery.

 

[sevdog]

There's no picking and choosing here. It's REALLY REALLY easy to test if one can discern the differences between lossless and lossy, Redbook and hi-rez, MP3 and AAC, whatever. There's a free application called Foobar that helps you do just this.

Simply saying "I know I can" isn't proof or even evidence. And the whole thing with "if you can't tell the difference, I don't know what to tell you" is just another example of appeal to snobbery.

So, what? You and I have to meet and sit down and you have to conduct a test on me or I need to post a video on Youtube or something...whatever this is stupid I'm leaving.

 

[eqvolvorama]

So, what? You and I have to meet and sit down and you have to conduct a test on me or I need to post a video on Youtube or something...whatever this is stupid I'm leaving.

Well you could just google "foobar" and then have a free tool that would help you perform the test, print the results, and then share them with the group, but I see you've already pulled the "This is stupid - I'm leaving!" card, so I'm not sure if you'll see this.

 

[eqvolvorama]

Wow I am amazed about the amount of sound ignorance on this forum. Digital listening will never be the same as vinyl, not unless you run a DAC. And most of you aren't doing that.

It's called analog people, you hear in analog because you are not a digital being. Vinyl is analog and CD is digital, there is a certain warmth that digital cannot get.

The average person will never know the difference and this CD is better because it is more clear, that is incorrect. Ask a real audiophile, go into an eletronics store that sells 20k stereo speakers and tell them you prefer CD's, then ask they're real opinion not they're saleman opinion. He'll tell you your a fool.

*** people....

Sorry if this came up I skimmed a couple pages in between.

Points in order:

1. Do you know what a DAC is? How would one listen to digital music without one, exactly?
2. The digital = cold and analog = warmth thing - what does that mean? How does this warmth or coldness translate to the audio signal coming into a speaker or set of headphones? Explain.
3. So you're telling me that someone incentivized to sell me high-priced audio equipment should be considered an authority on the subject?
4. What is a "real" audiophile?

 

[onosson]

Not sure what you're getting at here. I have the service. I even pay extra for the iTunes Match service. Maybe you're referring to my ability to "launder" my low bitrate files into 256k AAC through the matching service? That is pretty handy.

Exactly, and there's no reason that they can't swap 256k AAC for any other format they like in the future. What I was trying to say is that huge file size and lengthy download time isn't a problem, if you can access a smaller, faster version first, and have it replaced at some later time with a better version. It can all happen in the background so you don't even notice. Apple seems to really want you to not even have offline storage, just stream everything. Not realistic right now for many people, but things change quickly...

Perhaps it could. But how high a quality should it ever deliver? My contention is that it should be the highest quality that human ears can reliably appreciate--and no higher. And further, we're already at (or very close to) that limit with what Apple sells today.

I agree - but maybe they'll make wav files available at a premium just because people with the money might want them?

 

[BassGen]

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.

I guess maybe it is you that has the hearing problem then. A man who's been in the industry for years says "hey, we can and need to make things better than they are" and all you hear is a cranky old man?

 

[onosson]

It's called analog people, you hear in analog

I even hear digital music in analog ~ it's amazing!

because you are not a digital being.

I do have digits, though.

Vinyl is analog and CD is digital, there is a certain warmth that digital cannot get.

Sorry - this, I don't understand. You'll have to explain what "warmth" means, and how in the world a speaker that is being pushed by electricity moving in accordance with signals from a digital computer can work differently than a speaker that is being pushed by electricity moving in accordance with vibrations from a stylus moving over an irregularly grooved surface, when it comes to producing this "warmth".

 

[projectMalamute]

Points in order:

1. Do you know what a DAC is? How would one listen to digital music without one, exactly?
2. The digital = cold and analog = warmth thing - what does that mean? How does this warmth or coldness translate to the audio signal coming into a speaker or set of headphones? Explain.
3. So you're telling me that someone incentivized to sell me high-priced audio equipment should be considered an authority on the subject?
4. What is a "real" audiophile?

He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

On the other hand we have heard about '48kHz 1/2" tape' from the other side of this debate, so it's not like there isn't plenty of people who don't know what they are talking about to go around.

 

[seamonkey]

I can't believe it, this story is hitting the general media
Fallacy of authority
It needs to die, it is not worthy of coverage.

And now for an old quote from Dave Pensado 2006:
“These old farts that are spending their time trying to sound good have all become irrelevant. The only time we ever see them is when the Grammys give them some BS award for something that doesn't matter anymore. Instead, spend your time trying to sound new, because that is what pop music is about.”
...
“Show me a guy who doesn't like a particular format, and I'll show you a guy who doesn't know how to use it.”

EQEM -- Mixing Down and Speaking Up

From the start of the gramophone musicians and producers and squeezed the most they possibly can out of the format. It's not about the format, it's about the music.

 

[spigmu]

I guess maybe it is you that has the hearing problem then. A man who's been in the industry for years says "hey, we can and need to make things better than they are" and all you hear is a cranky old man?

Also, Young was one of the first, and likely THE first mainstream major label rock artist who remastered his work for CD with attention to the highest quality possible (at the time) path to digital and to 16/44.1 master when most everyone else was just running the stuff through whatever their contracted mastering house had to get it out by the holiday rush, and MANY were taking safety masters (originals couldn't be attained, but no big deal, eh? Still music on the thing) and EVEN VINYL (the great Rod Stewart CD box set story) because it's good enough. But they were NOT good enough, and the Harvest CD from that issue still sounds great.

Young, for all the holes in his reasoning when he expounds on technical matters, has long been someone who sets his own bar high and especially refuses to insult those who buy his music, and for 40 plus years has put his money (literally) where his mouth is. (Well not literally in there, but literally spent big $$$ for what he saw as higher quality)

Not a fan of his music or his playing/singing/writing myself, but anyone who is not familiar with his history (not the music) should look into it.

Grouchy old man? Sure. But he's a doer, not some random lazy old deaf ****.

 

[Febs]

Well you could just google "foobar" and then have a free tool that would help you perform the test, print the results, and then share them with the group, but I see you've already pulled the "This is stupid - I'm leaving!" card, so I'm not sure if you'll see this.

To save sevdog the trouble of having to Google it, here is a link to the Foobar site:

foobar2000

Make sure you install the "ABX Comparator" component (you can find it under the "Components" tab).

I would recommend that you take one of your favorite CDs and rip the MP3 (or AAC or whatever format) yourself, to make sure that you are comparing the compressed file with the original source. If you compare a version you download from iTunes with one from a CD, there is no guaranty that the file you are comparing is from the same original.

Edit: If you don't want to use Foobar, the is a free iPhone/iPad app called "ABXtester" which appears to allow you to conduct a 5-trial ABX test between two samples. I think that five trials is not enough to eliminate the possibility of getting the correct answers by chance with a high degree of confidence, but the app looks decent otherwise.

 

[swspiers]

Well, it's really not just a matter of opinion. Whether people can reliably distinguish one music file from another is a question that really can be answered definitively using science. (I know other folks here have posted links to just such studies, but I admit that after 30 minutes of poking around at them I wasn't able to find exactly what I was looking for. Maybe someone could help sift through it and find where it's proved that people can't tell an iTunes file from a master.)

As far as Neil Young's concerned, god love him. Respect.

Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Some New Evidence That Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction

 

[smcgov]

Agree completely. Quality of mastering trumps file format.

I have two different CD copies of the original "Jesus Christ Superstar" album. I also have a 192kbps MP3 needledrop I made of a very old, and very worn vinyl copy of the same album. I made this needledrop in 2003, when I barely knew what I was doing and made TONS of mistakes I would not repeat today. I recorded with the input levels too low, for one, and could have chosen a far better encoder than iTunes 4 at 192kbps forced stereo.

I still like the needledrop the best. This has nothing to do with the medium, but rather the master used for the vinyl recording - well that or whatever subjective enjoyment I get from listening to old scratches, pops, and rumbles. I will play the needledrop over and over in my car and haven't touched the CDs in years.

For me to decide from the above that CD is an inferior format to vinyl would be insanity, As would be deciding that 192kbps MP3 sounds BETTER than CD because of this one example. My brain is not an oscilloscope, and is informed by a subjective lens of experience and taste I cannot transfer nor magically use to override the technical limitations or properties of all three media.

I have some vinly that's superior to the CD and vice versa...

IMO the real issue is that hi-fi has died...people are throwing their money at hi-def TV's because the ipod is "good enough". Kids will plug the ipod into an ihome...I got my stepdaughter some vintage Advent Heritage speakers for free off craigslist, refoamed the woofers, and got her an old yamaha receiver that works fine, plugged her ipod in and she said she couldn't BELIEVE that she thought the ihome was good. Her system smokes. I myself listen to my ipod at night through a 1965 Fisher 500C, when i plug the headphones straight into the ipod versus the Fisher..the difference is staggering. And with a better device like the Fisher, yeah I can hear the diff between a 128mp3 that most of the world is listening to and a mobile Fidelity CD burned to apple lossless.

I guess what's sad is that we have an entire generation that doesn't care how good it sounds, not to mention the fact their music is marketed to them like a bunch of sheep. I'm so glad I'm a child of the 60/70s.

 

[sevdog]

Audio Musings by Sean Olive: Some New Evidence That Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction

Any of you no-discernible-difference-absolutists read this study? I say eat your words, suckas!

Ok now I'm just a troll and need to get a life...maybe I'll go pop in a cd or throw a record on the turntable!

..no hard feelings, seriously.

 

[DWBass]

I'm not. I think it got pretty weird there for a while when everyone was downloading crappy home mp3 encodings off Napster. Even when we did the job ourselves off of our own CDs we somehow thought that 128k mp3 was pretty good. Weird.

But I have to say that I think the quality is pretty darned good now. And, not to belabor the point, I think most people can no longer distinguish between a 256k AAC and the master files from whence it came. Certainly not using the playback equipment they actually own.

i'm all for getting those last few wrinkles out to make the audiophiles grin. Don't get me wrong. But the genie is out of the bottle, folks. Digital downloads are here and they are not only here to stay, they're here to sit on your couch, eat your food, leer at your girlfriend and hog your remote control.

And I'm glad about it. Audio quality aside for a moment, isn't everyone? It's happening slowly, but internet distribution is beginning to lower the barriers to entry for musicians. Being published on vinyl by a record company used to mean having to fit through a pretty narrow bottleneck, get by a lot of gatekeepers. There's only so much vinyl, only so much distribution, only so much promotion, only so much store shelf space, etc. Not so anymore.

One of the most obvious vestiges of the Old Way is "regions." Why is it that I can't buy a recording but someone in Finland can? Does it cost more for Apple (or anyone) to let me buy it? Of course not. Who gains by restricting it? Not sure. Lawyers? Distributors? Shifty middle men of some sort? The musicians surely don't. And neither do I. That's just one example of what I hope digital downloads are going to soon destroy.

+1 The encoders used today as opposed to 10 years ago or even 5 years ago are so far advanced, I find it hard to believe an 'audiophile' could tell the difference. I've even proved it several times using a cd and an mp3 encoded at 320kbps both CBR and VBR! Even the 128kbps files sound good! Having said that, portable units have so much capacity these days that if you wanted to load up with wav, flac or aiff files, you can still fit a ton of albums on it! On another note, seriously.....who will ever listen to their complete collection of music! I have so much music stored on 5 different portable HD's! I'll never listen to it all. There is no portable unit that would allow to put everything I own on it!

I have a 16gb Creative Zen with about 30 cd's of music as well as all the individual tunes my band plays which is added to all the time and I still have 10gb of free space. Yeah, I could fill it up but I'll never listen to it all.

 

[HolmeBass]

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

Well, I agree with you, I think. I certainly won't cop to being able to tell difference between SACD and normal CD, or even vinyl and CD. I'm no audiophile, I'm a rock 'n roller and have the hearing loss to prove it.

What I am saying is that I can tell the difference between a 96 kb/s MP3 and CD audio, and I really detest MP3's and other highly data-compressed media with clearly audible sonic artifacts, especially in the high frequencies (that annoying cymbal shimmer...). So it would be nice if *every* download on iTunes told you the bit rate- but they don't. It would be great if I could find a 192 kb/s or higher bit rate MP3 of any song I wanted to download, but I can't. So I'm not making any sort of audiophile complaint here, I'm just asking for music media/deliver that doesn't outright suck.

 

[HolmeBass]

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

Ah, I stand corrected.