Neil Young Says MP3 Isn't Good Enough; Neither Are CDs

Status
Not open for further replies.

cchambers

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
6
0
18,510
0
I think most people today value convenience over quality. Therefore, I don't see a big enough demand for this higher quality music in my lifetime. Personally, I'd love it.
 

Thunderfox

Distinguished
Sep 3, 2006
177
0
18,630
0
How can someone as old as Niel Young have the hearing capacity to distinguish between an MP3 and anything else?

Is there a difference between MP3 and CD? Yes, but that is the price of convenience, and it's not like there aren't already better formats than MP3 anyway. Mp3 is desirable because everything can play it and it has no DRM.

Is there a difference between a CD and DSD or SACD or whatever newfangled formats may arise? A bit perhaps, but most people would be hard pressed to notice it. And besides, how much music over the last few decades was mastered digitally? Was their equipment comperable to the quality of DSD? If not, get ready to buy all your music in new remastered DSD editions again.
 

ickarumba1

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2011
13
0
18,560
0
We already have 320kbps MP3 and FLAC. That's good enough. I seriously doubt many people, if any, can really distinguish between the current high-end formats and this new DSD format.
 
G

Guest

Guest
the german magazin CT has made a test wiht so called "gold ears" a few years ago.
experts when it comes to audio, people with the absolut hearing.

they should decide if it was played from CD or MP3 (a good hardware MP3 player was used).... THEY FAILED MISERABLY. it was 50% right 50% wrong... just as if you had guessed or thrown dices to decide what is MP3 and what is CD.
.


 
G

Guest

Guest
of course high rate MP3 are used for this test (not 128 kbits).... forgot to mention that.
 

billybobser

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2011
107
0
18,630
0
According to my Digital Signal Processing course, you only need to sample at 2x the max frequency to have enough data to fully reproduce the signal. Which is roughly 44khz (2x the top end of human hearing and a bit more).

What they may lack however is quality sound reproduction hardware (digital signal processors are expensive and a bit too big to fit into an mp3 players) so the lame and brute force method of solving this issue would be to sample it so much that you wouldn't need to hardware to reproduce it, which to me is retarded and would essentially take us back to analogue.

That's my understanding of my course however, may be wrong!
 
G

Guest

Guest
I don't know 'bout others but I want a new high quality format.
 

southernshark

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2009
310
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]Thunderfox[/nom]Mp3 is desirable because everything can play it and it has no DRM.Is there a difference between a CD and DSD or SACD or whatever newfangled formats may arise? .[/citation]


That's one thing I don't understand about this "tech" website. It seems to be full of people who ravenously stick to old technologies and old ways of doing things. It reminds me of the big box PC arguments where people bash smaller/lighter technologies.

In any event, unlike the other "tech" people on here, I actually do like new tech and new ways of doing things. The current MP3 quality is very poor and we would certainly be better off and be capable of enjoying our music much more if we had higher quality formats.

As such I hope that Neil is right and that new formats are presented to the public within a reasonable time frame. I see a lot of people investing in higher quality speakers, but the reality is that those speakers don't do you much good if you are listening to an MP3, or even a CD.
 
G

Guest

Guest
DSD is the format of SACD and it has been around for many years. It is definately sounds much better than even the best sounding CD (if the source material is worth it). I have many SACD and hope the format survives.
 

RogueKitsune

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2009
27
0
18,580
0
I personally can't tell the quality difference of a MP3 at 256kbps and one at 320kbps. So High quality mp3's are good enough for me. I see no point in wasting HDD space for quality that i can not perceive
 

ivaroeines

Distinguished
Feb 29, 2008
11
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]peter111@aolcom[/nom]the german magazin CT has made a test wiht so called "gold ears" a few years ago.experts when it comes to audio, people with the absolut hearing.they should decide if it was played from CD or MP3 (a good hardware MP3 player was used).... THEY FAILED MISERABLY. it was 50% right 50% wrong... just as if you had guessed or thrown dices to decide what is MP3 and what is CD..[/citation]
There is a problem with most blind tests is that most of them ( if not all ) are conducted on a system that are set up by the ones that make the test, the participants will then be unfamiliar with the sound of the test system. The human brain have a marvellous ability to "correct"/ mask faults in any given input, either it being visual or audible. Think about this, the last time you bought a tv, pc-monitor or sound system, what was your first impression, was the picture/ sound better or worse than your old one, my guess is that the first impression was that the picture/ sound was worse or that it wasnt any better. For it to be a blind test that shows a real picture the test need to be made on systems the testers are familiar with ( basically their own system ). I do believe that blind tests are important, but they need to be conducted in the right way, the audiovisual field is full of placebo effects, if you truly believe a component or format is better than another then the impression will be that is better even if it produces the same or poorer results. There are even some people that think that blue ray are better than VHS, that just shows how easily fooled people can be.
 

Filiprino

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2008
40
0
18,580
0
I prefer VORBIS, it's better than MP3, with less bitrate you get the same quality, or better quality with the same bitrate.
 

ProDigit10

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2010
202
0
18,830
0
it would be a lot better to just start recording music at 24 bit 48kHz.
As for MP3, it is an outdated technology, much like a Pentium single core processor.
Developed in the early 1990's, it's been superseded by OGG, which at this moment still rains as king.
After OGG is AAC, which is extremely good for ultra low bitrate recordings (like speech and teachings for mobile media or web media).

MP3 shines in no area.
The only issue with 24 bit music, is that it is yet not compatible with OGG or AAC encoders.

24 bit music has a dynamic range higher than the ear can hear (more than 144dB, which is also more than vinyls), and at 48kHz recordings (in reality are 24kHz recordings as they are 2x24kHz audio signals), with interpolation, is going beyond the range of the ear. The ear can only hear somewhere between 20Hz and 20kHz, most of them only 30Hz to 16kHz.

So in essence, there is no reason why to go as far as developing a new medium. Just develop new hardware that is capable of encoding/decoding 24bit 48kHz audio into an OGG container, and you'll end up with an indistinguishable audio from the original, minus the cracks and pops and wear that vinyls have!

Why waste infinite amounts of raw data that one can't hear anyways?

It's like saying "Let's create a tv that records X and Gamma rays too!", that way our recordings of 1 minute video can increase in size drastically, but people won't notice a thing anyways, because their eyes are still limited to the visible frequencies!
 

nevertell

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2009
93
0
18,580
0
ITT- people with onboard audio controllers and 50 $ gaming headphones.

Have you never used amped headphones ?
Maybe you can't tell between an mp3 and a .wav file with "modern" pop, but you sure as hell can tell between a lossy mp3 and a flac if the song has 3-5 REAL instruments, not a synthesizer and a pc. You aren't blown away by the difference, but in the parts of the song, where all of the instruments are playing, the mp3s sound crushed. It's like youtube video vs blu-ray- you can tell the difference, but if you're sitting 10 feet away from a 22" screen, you wouldn't give a damn about the quality. But if you can, you will notice it.

Damn my iphone with it's 8 gigs of memory and apples alac format....
 

ivyanev

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2011
26
0
18,580
0
Technology is ever evolving , but i don't expect to see some player for thousands of dollars that doesn't play mp3.New format is OK but have to be industry standard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY