Neil Young Has Trademark for High-Res Audio Technology

[Guest]

Neil Young is making progress in getting his high-resolution audio format and player technology into development.

Neil Young Has Trademark for High-Res Audio Technology : Read more

 

[computernerdforlife]

100 SQS song = 30Gigs

My 500Gig HDD just got that much smaller.

 

[glenricky]

Welcome audio DVD, or even audio Blu-Ray?

 

[Unolocogringo]

Never understood the MP3 craze. And will go for ths when available.

 

[saturnus]

It's intended for music streaming, not physical sale or download. Meaning you purchase the right to stream a particular song or album to any device you are currently logged on to.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the required bandwidth for 1-bit 2.8MHz streaming would be a very reasonable 2.8Mbs by todays, and particularly coming years, networks.

 

[builder4]

Another change of format, another excuse for record companies to make you pay for your entire music collection all over again.

Personally, I have a hard time telling the difference between 128kbps mp3 and CD audio on good quality equipment, so I definitely won't be buying into this.

 

[redeye]

[citation][nom]builder4[/nom]Another change of format, another excuse for record companies to make you pay for your entire music collection all over again.Personally, I have a hard time telling the difference between 128kbps mp3 and CD audio on good quality equipment, so I definitely won't be buying into this.[/citation]

well, you are deaf... anyone who's listening closely can hear the difference between 128 MP3 and CD audio. even on the standard iPod headphones. it gets a lot harder when you compare 256 AAC to lossless.

 

[wavetrex]

128kbps mutes much of the high-spectrum frequencies, and definitely hurts the quality, however 256kbps and up, + VBR High are practically indistinguishable from CD original.

But he's talking about STUDIO quality, not CD quality. That's a different story...

 

[nukemaster]

[citation][nom]builder4[/nom]Another change of format, another excuse for record companies to make you pay for your entire music collection all over again.Personally, I have a hard time telling the difference between 128kbps mp3 and CD audio on good quality equipment, so I definitely won't be buying into this.[/citation]
Put on some good headphones, I bet you will notice it much more.

It seems that headphones tend to show ALL the bad things in music.

You will notice the treble suffers and many songs have sort of a swishing sound(don't know how else to describe it) among the music. The bass much less effected, so depending on what you listen to, maybe it will be less noticeable.

I am not saying all users will hear the difference but even good equipment does not "fix" a lossy format.

Is like the old saying for video editing. Crappy in = Crappy out(referring to keeping the highest quality throughout the editing process)

Or maybe some Portal?
Speedy thing(lossy) goes in speedy thing comes out(of the speakers).

 

[Guest]

@builder4
That happens when you burn your cd's with crappy mp3 files downloaded from p2p networks.
.....heck even tapes(original),sound better when played on a hi-q device.

 

[alidan]

it depends on the song... for instance, metallicas cd... what was it... Death Magnetic (had to google it) the cd version of the songs is probably better heard on mp3, at least that way you can delude yourself saying its bad because of the mp3, not because of how it was mixed.

no quality of headphones is going to fix that.

but than you have things like classical music, which will benefit immensely from higher quality recordings.

point being, not all music will suddenly be better because alot of whats out now is made for the crap headphones, and the crap players, so they dont take the extra time that they would have years ago to master it perfect.

 

[Dark Comet]

When Itunes or an equivalent offers lossless audio I'll stop buying CDs. I'd never pay full price for something thats 256Kb/s when I can get a 700Kb/s+ CD delivered to my house for almost the same price

 

[jryan388]

High res is nice, like maybe 500-1000 kbps, but that is excessive.

 

[mightymaxio]

So what about those WAV studio master quality tracks that are about 3.2gb per 4 minute song? Those also have 5.1 or 10.2 surround on them as well as a bit rate of 392khz at 24bit.

 

[billybobser]

Human hearing limite 20khz, need to sample double the highest frequency to be able to fully recreate the signal, 40khz.

Adding in lots of extra frequency to account for missing harmonics. 80khz.

Here's an outlandish idea, how about create hardware that can actually reproduce quality sound, instead of taking a brute force approach where even a potatoe can play back the sound.

I see no reason why I should fork out for 100x more memory, when these super advanced computers in my mp3 player/phone cannot even attempt some digital signal processing.

While we're on the subject of sound quality, why has no phone operator/phone make attempt to make a new standard for sampling/reproducing voice calls. They still sound as rubbish as the 70's.

 

[Dark Comet]

[citation][nom]billybobser[/nom]Human hearing limite 20khz, need to sample double the highest frequency to be able to fully recreate the signal, 40khz.Adding in lots of extra frequency to account for missing harmonics. 80khz. Here's an outlandish idea, how about create hardware that can actually reproduce quality sound, instead of taking a brute force approach where even a potatoe can play back the sound.I see no reason why I should fork out for 100x more memory, when these super advanced computers in my mp3 player/phone cannot even attempt some digital signal processing.While we're on the subject of sound quality, why has no phone operator/phone make attempt to make a new standard for sampling/reproducing voice calls. They still sound as rubbish as the 70's.[/citation]

Yeah but when the hardware does come out its best to have the high quality files for it already. When the cost of 256Kb/s is the same as CD's it's stupid not to want it IMO.

 

[john_4]

Just what we need, another propriety audio format. I say go with Ogg but free just doesn't sit well with the RIAA and such.
this is from Wiki, Ogg is a free, open container format maintained by the Xiph.Org Foundation. The creators of the Ogg format state that it is unrestricted by software patents[4] and is designed to provide for efficient streaming and manipulation of high quality digital multimedia.

 

[TunaSoda]

Someday we will actually use wav files...

 

[amigafan]

[citation][nom]builder4[/nom]Personally, I have a hard time telling the difference between 128kbps mp3 and CD audio on good quality equipment[/citation]
only if your definition of "good quality equipment" includes tweeter from electronic postcard xD

 

[getochkn]

iPod babies of today generation have no idea what good music is even supposed to sound like. I hear kids listening to mp3's that make my ears hurt and they think it's great. I listened to a pair of Beat's by Dre. Worst overhyped piece of crap headphones I ever heard in my life. My $40 Sony's blast them out of the water, but to them, it great.