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

[nebun]

now who is neil young?....never heard of him

 

[bigcatface]

@nebum: who is neil young?! only one of rock and roll's greatest performers, you fucking penis.

 

[__-_-_-__]

[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]
that is meaningless. most people can't tell the difference between a good wine and a bad wine. that doesn't mean nothing regarding to quality. That's why there are some people who are willing to pay several thousands of dollars for high quality speakers in order to get better audio quality.

 

[mathew7]

The format uses 1-bit sampling at 2.8224 MHz, which is 64 times higher than the 44.1 KHz used by CDs.

At least compare bit*sample with bit*sample. So it would be 1x2822.4 with 16x44.1=705.6. So not 64-time higher, but only 4 times. A better comparison would be 16-bit 176KHz or 32-bit 88KHz (I know, not a very good equivalence). And there could be a 16-bit 44KHz DAC with better quality than a 24-bit 176KHz one.

 

[bustapr]

you really cant tell a huge difference between high quality audio and wav except for maybe less bass. human ears have limitations.

 

[dietcreamsoda]

I'm all for newer and better. I too have always thought that 320k mp3 was as good (or close enough) to the CD wav. But....at the same time, I remember many years ago when I first starting listening to music with a subwoofer (after growing up to music without really hearing bass frequencies). Up until that point, I never thought I was missing anything. And then I realized "wow" I was missing a lot. I remember the first time I saw something in HD after thinking that a high-end SD TV looked great. All through life (not just in the tech sphere) we think we're not missing out on something until we experience something new and then realize what we were missing.

But now to the logistics of it all. Like the article points out, the file sizes would likely be comparatively huge to current formats. Even with "fast" cable connections, the U.S. has slow broadband speeds (compared to many other countries), and have service providers that are preoccupied with bandwidth consumption. So that's obviously a problem. The other problem is that music labels wouldn't necessarily "remaster" their entire catalogs in this new format. My guess is that the only titles that would be remastered are those that spent a lot of time in the top 40. Anything else would be considered not worth the time/money to the labels. So even if we solved the bandwidth issues, we wouldn't necessarily get our entire music collections in this new, dreamy format.

But everything has to start with an idea I suppose...

 

[AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls]

Personally, I think we're just fine as it is. 128kbps MP3 means very small file size, but if you compare to higher bitrates you definitely notice a difference in quality. The best compromise right now is 256kbps, and that's what the vast majority of online music stores use and sell you. If you actually think that even 1% of people can notice the difference between 256kbps MP3 and FLAC/lossless or even DSD you're a fool. The difference between 128kbps and 256 kbps MP3 is vastly bigger than the one from 256kbps to DSD. The vast majority of people probably couldn't even tell the difference between the two with professional audio equipment.

So please, spare me the BS.

 

[Guest]

@Traciatim, @mathew7

Clearly the article means that 64 x 44.1 kHz = 2822.4 kHz, which is of course a rather useless piece of information given the different number of bits to which it is quantized.

To address your main point though, you can't just multiply the ratio of number of bits by the ratio of sampling rates to get an equivalence. A decrease of one-bit is not equivalent to a doubling of sampling rate, and also using the DSD system makes the calculation a bit more complicated to explain since there is noise shaping and components at far higher frequencies which affect characteristics. It is fair to say though that the math in the article is at best extremely misleading.

Very good point about lossless compression though; there's no point comparing file sizes based completely uncompressed raw data since there would be little reason not to use such lossless compression.

 

[torque79]

One thing I think is often missed in these discussions is that not all music benefits from lossless playback equally. Many songs just have most of their audio frequencies floating around the middle, in which case cutting off top and bottom frequencies results in little difference.

I feel the big difference in lossless music and HD audio on blu-rays is in low frequency sound, when I can not only hear low frequency sound but FEEL it. I'm not talking about giant subs hitting you with hard beats, I'm referring to low frequency reverberation from some instruments such as a cello. I only notice this sometimes, because not a lot of sound goes to such low frequencies but it DOES make a big difference in physical feeling from that low carrying sound.

 

[jacobdrj]

I agree 100 percent!!!

MP3 is just not high enough quality... CDs, and all other optical media are very prone to damage, and are too big to easily fit in one's pocket... They need to reintroduce DVD music (perhaps BluRay music) in a smaller form factor, or ditch the optical media alltogether and have flash memory with surround sound lossless format of some kind...

I hate CDs... And I always will... I can never forgive them... For the death of my boy... - Captain James Tiberius Kirk, in reference to optical media (or Klingons, I forget).

 

[in_the_loop]

A lot of audiophiles in here.
I think the difference between a CD and a higher end medium (like SACD) would be impossible for most people to spot in a blind test.
First, even for CD, most people don't have the systems needed to accurately play it back at the best possible quality. The speakers are usually the weak link, but another thing to consider is the acoustics involving how the room looks, the furniture (damping), speaker placement and last, but not least, the background noise. All these factors makes even a CD far beyond the needs for 99.9% of people.
Sure, with a really high end system, possibly with great headphones in the above $300-range to shut the background noise out, then you maybe could see some very minor differences to some parts in some cases.
But I doubt it.
I have a quite high end system where I have done A/B-listening with a pair of Senheisser HD-600 headphones comparing a mix in cubase with 96 Khz vs 44.1 Khz (with 24 bit), but I couldn't spot any difference. Even when really forcing different types of sound.
Same thing in Audiophiles forums where they miss blind tests between 44.1 and 96 kHz.

Here is a "Audio Myths Workshop" video on Youtube that I encourage every self-proclaimed audiophile to watch:
http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
Notice that they link to separate downloadable files to make your own comparisons.

After all is said and done, I think it is just another market ploy to sell new things...

 

[wild9]

The worst sound is money falling into the distributor's pocket instead of the artist.

 

[Antimatter79]

I'm all for the availability of higher quality audio files, but the bigger issue is the loudness war, which will negate any attempts to provide higher resolution music for today's most popular music genres. If the music is horribly compressed and (over processed) to begin with, then FLAC, SACD, DVD-Audio and even higher quality formats will only reveal how bad the recordings are anyways. Even if you're not a fan, just out of morbid curiosity, go online and have a listen to the song "Voices" on Madonna's Hard Candy album. It's beyond unlistenable. 24/96 or 24/192 files can't fix that, so unless you're into jazz or classical, you won't get any more enjoyment out of higher resolution, uncompressed music anyways. A sign of the times, I suppose.

 

[tmax]

I am tired of CD's. They are great for my car but not good for home listening. I never liked MP3's. I only play vinyl at home. The difference between the three formats can easily be heard with a modest $1500 sound system. I have never heard a SACD system. SACD players are very expensive. SACD titles are hard to find and expensive. SACD may be better but it isn’t worth it to me when vinyl is much cheaper and easier to find.

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]shoelessinsight[/nom]...Of course, the dynamic range advantage is moot so long as recording studios keep mashing their songs up with dynamic range compression in an attempt to make them sound LOUD. Dynamic range compression is great on your portable music player or car stereo for when you're in noisy environments, but it's not cool to ruin the source recording with it so that nobody can enjoy the full-quality music in quiet environments.[/citation]
THIS is the real problem. All format discussion is secondary

 

[in_the_loop]

[citation][nom]Antimatter79[/nom]I'm all for the availability of higher quality audio files, but the bigger issue is the loudness war, which will negate any attempts to provide higher resolution music for today's most popular music genres. If the music is horribly compressed and (over processed) to begin with, then FLAC, SACD, DVD-Audio and even higher quality formats will only reveal how bad the recordings are anyways. Even if you're not a fan, just out of morbid curiosity, go online and have a listen to the song "Voices" on Madonna's Hard Candy album. It's beyond unlistenable. 24/96 or 24/192 files can't fix that, so unless you're into jazz or classical, you won't get any more enjoyment out of higher resolution, uncompressed music anyways. A sign of the times, I suppose.[/citation]

Not only that. Even if you had an uncompressed recording at 24-bits you would still have problems to take advantage of the higher dynamic range in the normal house where there probalby is a background noise going on between 30-40 dB during daytime, lessening the dynaic range.
So I think CD is more than enough in these cases anyway.
But for recording audio in a DAW, 24 bit gives a lot of headroom when adding up lots of channels.

 

[wild9]

Nothing I have heard on the digital side comes close to vinyl, even if the PC is running a 24-bit card and it's connected to an amplifier consisting of valves, dual transformers yada yada.

Plug in a half-decent turn-table with a good needle..hmm what to suggest; try this track from Genesis: 'Tonight, Tonight, Tonight'. The analogue sound screams warmth, and atmosphere. It's a completely different sound stage. Thoroughly engrossing.

Now try the same track on an expensive CD player. The vocals sound more compressed, centralized and well, altogether a lot more forgetful than they were on vinyl. So try a 24-bit recording.. hmm, even with proper speakers it still seems rather..flat. So you try it through an expensive valve pre and power-amplifier. Plug in an expensive mains filter. Well, it sounds good but it still sounds 'digital'. Maybe it's the mastering. So you stick another CD in the draw. Well this still sounds a bit bland.

Some CD's seem to have much better mastering than others, mainly the one's from the 80's and early 90's. I find albums by the artist Enya to be very good, and modern stuff by the electronic artists Ulrich Schnauss. I'd still like to get the vinyl if possible. I've also tried listening to Jean Michel Jarre on CD, and most of the time I can't stand it; give me vinyl any day. Some of the artists also prefer analogue equipment, too - Jarre insists on it, and I've been to some of his concerts. All I can say is, just go and listen to this gear. Some of it is digital but as much as possible is retained from analogue instruments and amplification. From the bass all the way to the bells and whistles, his music sounds like the way he intended it to be, like it has a life of it's own. I have hardly ever heard that kind of atmosphere replicated on a disk (16, 24 or 32-bit), and after a while I find digital simply fatiguing.

I use a lot of modern gadgets and I love the convenience it offers in terms of sharing, and developing new ideas. But in terms of actual quality, if you put a record player behind one screen and a high-end cd player behind the other I'd take the 'retro' any day irrespective of it's own limitations. If it sounds better to your ears, that's all that matters.

 

[coreym72]

I'll take more bits anytime to sound like the original master and artist’s intention. The more bits the less digital mastering is required. If I could create “digital analog” using a quantum computer then you'd never need anything more.

 

[JoeMomma]

I can tell the difference between my tapes and CD's, but my vinyl sounds the best. Even recording vinyl to a MP3 is superior. I can hear a big difference between a track recorded at 160 kbps and 320. I think the real issue Mr. Young is referring to is the crappy Digital to Analog Converter in most MP3 players. Beats Audio is a step in the right direction. I can not listen to music through my Android, the quality from my iPod sounds much better when using good headphones.

However digital music allows me to do something Neil Young would scalp me for.

When I was in college we used to request that the DJ's at our station play Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black) at 45 rpm. It changes an excellent Rock anthem into one of the best Punk Rock songs ever. Tee Hee.

 

[d_kuhn]

I was around for the record era, the tape era, the cd era... and the fad around record player sound quality is just that... a fad. People assume that since records are analog, they must automatically have better dynamic range and frequency response than digital formats... wich is absurd. Records have more limited frequency response (the mechanical bandwidth of the system is limiting) as well as issues with dynamic range (soft vs. loud), channel separation and playback device inherent noise injection (you're mechanically scraping a needle along inside a channel). Even back when records were king, everyone knew there were better ways to record and playback audio. Reel to reel was the audiophile device of choice. These days because records are getting rare, people are ascribing some super-physical properties to what is essentially an archaic audio storage medium... don't believe them. With a minimum of cost you can have a modern playback system that will objectively outperform records... and as far as subjective - since it's generally easy to detect the artifacts introduced by the 'record' media, it's virtually impossible to carry out a truely blind study since people sucked into the record fad will detect the audio defects and skew the results.

You could potentially improve the playback performance of records by using a noncontact measurement (laser displacement most likely), but even then you'll have replication errors and be limited by the fact that the media was designed to be mechanically read back (limitations at higher frequencies).

A high end digital system with lossless recording (FLAC) will far more accurately reproduce the original content... you may prefer how media encoding like making a record CHANGES that content (to make it more pleasing to your ear)... but I'd prefer to have the artists intent on file and then tweak using an effects rig (either digital on analog) to get the pleasing sound. (jmo)