Neil Young Late To The Goldrush
Rock veteran Neil Young hates the low-quality digital music files that have proliferated in the last decade. He declares it to be Apple and the iPod's fault.
“Apple has taken a detour down the convenience highway,” Young said during an interview with Time editor-in-chief John Huey. “Quality has taken a complete backseat, if it even gets in the car at all.”
The leap from "low quality files" to "Apple's fault" may seem an oddly targeted attack, especially given that Apple sells digital files at the highest quality levels the music companies will allow. Neil Young is about to release his ouvre as a 10-disk series, to be made available on CD, DVD and Blu-Ray audio disk.
"Blu-ray is the future," Young told Billboard in a recent interview. "It sounds the best... If you were to get a Blu-ray of the 'Archive,' you would get the best."
Here was me thinking that lossless digital audio would sound the same no matter what it's pressed on, but hey, if Blu-Ray makes it more danceable, get Blu-ray.
the latest
latest episodes
I recall Neil Young saying much the same thing about CDs when that format was relatively new, referring to the sound as a "simulation" of music. Whatever that means.
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember internet tough guy don't need him around, anyhow!
Blu-ray my ass.
"Music sounds best when written (in ink w/ a quill, preferably while idly pushing balls on a billiards table) on parchment paper."
There's no such thing as "lossless digital audio". All analog signals lose something when digitally encoded.
In the case of CD's, the 44.1/16 bit encoding is bad. I would assume Neil Young means to say that the Blue Ray has a better bit rate and depth, maybe 96/24.
These days, music is recorded in the studio at some high bit rate & depth (96/24 or 128/24), but then mastered to CD down to 44.1/16. This results in sound quality loss that is audible. Hopefully the Blue Ray is closer to the original recording's rate/depth (for digital recordings) or the re-mastered rate/depth for original analog recordings.
adamrice:
By "simulation", Mr. Young mean a digital representation of an analog wave. He is referring to the fact that an old vinyl record has the actual analog wave.
All analog signals lose something when digitally encoded.
...not at a sufficiently high bitrate.
Blu-ray WILL sound closer to the original analog masters, because its best audio formats are:
a) not lossy
b) at a much higher resolution than either CD or DVD
Now, if any of his albums were digitally recorded and mastered, then blu-ray audio will not make it sound magically better than the original sampling rate and resolution, but it will prevent further degradation.
That said, unless you've had a chance in the past to listen to a musical recording on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars worth of audio gear, using original and high-resolution masters, the added definition that blu-ray is likely to provide will be lost on you.
To Neil Young (in case he's reading this!): I have a 10,000$ wooden volume knob to sell you. It'll make your music sound 0.001% better, I promise.
Shutz:
A decent ($100) pair of headphones is all that's needed to tell the difference between versions at 48/24 and "CD quality" at 44.1/16. It's very apparent.
"A decent ($100) pair of headphones is all that's needed to tell the difference between versions at 48/24 and "CD quality" at 44.1/16. It's very apparent."
I wouldn't even say you need to go that far. I have a ~$60ish pair of Sennheiser headphones, and the difference between 192/24bit DVD-Audio and 44/16bit CD-audio is observable.
I'm not sure it's enough to really complain about, but, then, I'm no audiophile. (IE., I don't even hate the radio for it's amazingly low quality). My appreciation for music comes from the composition, idea, and performer's talent. It takes a remarkably low quality encoding for that to be lost - although I can understand the other side, too.
I'm just impressed that he can hear the difference at all, considering his age and profession.
Here's something that goes right over peoples heads. Just like vision, not everyone hears with the some acuity. Some people can't tell the difference mp3s at 256kbps and a CD. Some people can. And just the same as some people have 20/10 vision, some people can hear the faults inherent in the tonal range and bit rate of a Compact Disc. Neil Young is one of those people. Now, are $13,000 speaker cables worth $13,000? Oh, hell no.
#6 mujadaddy,
Actually, the higher the bitrate the lower the loss is, but unless the bitrate is infinitely high (which I suppose would be analogue), there will be some loss of information.
Lossless digital audio doesn't really exist.
coop
#12: Lossless digital audio doesn't really exist.
You're assuming that reality is analog all the way down.
It's not. It's turtles all the way down.
Also, "lossless" doesn't have to be quantum-level lossless, it just has to be "lossless to the limits of human hearing." That's the important part. Going beyond that point is folly. Where that point lies is up to debate, of course.
At what point is a digital simulation of reality (analog) indistinguishable from reality?
I think there's been some sci-fi stories that revolve around this question.
Another questions is "At what point is the digital resolution high enough that people won't bother to upgrade?"
I think that point might be close at hand.
People who claim that digital audio "loses" information need to spend some time reading up on Shannon-Nyquist.
Signals above the Nyquist limit are filtered out beforehand, so in that sense some high frequencies are removed. But they're completely above the range of normal human hearing, so only an incredibly small number of people can tell the difference.
Below the limit, the entire point of the sampling theorem is that the signal, when converted back to audio from discrete samples, will contain 100% of the information contained in the original signal.
I'd suggest that differences between 192/24 and 44.1/16 audio are mostly due to mixing, and perhaps dynamic range, but not at all due to loss of information from digital sampling.
Neil's point is well taken by me and totally on the mark. 48.1 kHZ / 16 bit sounded bad to him especially in the days before the development of oversampling and better/cheaper highpass filters with sharp slopes. CDs in the mid eighties sounded REALLY harsh. Honest. Find a first generation CD player and an old CD from that same period and tell me you can't hear what I'm talking about. And it was in the mid eighties that Neil began his war on the CD.
With the sampling and bitdepth rates of Blu ray, the fidelity of the analog masters can be reproduced accurately enough that it would be really hard for anyone to tell the master tape from the digital recording. So finally Neil has given his blessing.
Why blame Apple? Well, they brought iPods to the masses and got everyone used to the sound of lossy formats. They also have convinced people that maybe fidelity doesn't really matter to them if they can stuff an insane number of tunes on their iPods.
Last spring I did side by sides of some SACD albums and the same CDs with friends . Everyone could tell the difference - though it was a matter of preference which was better. A lot of people actually liked the edge of harsh distortion added by the CDs.
If all people cared about was "resolution", they would still buy vinyl. Oh wait, some still do!
It sounds the best? So your not releasing an LP?
#16 - I should have said lowpass filters
OK, Neil (if that is your real name), I'll be sure to take my Blu-ray player on the road with me. Oh, not possible? You mean I can't listen to bluray at the gym? In my car? Now THAT is some good sound: nothing.
Can he tell the difference between mp3's and CD's in a factory car stereo going 65mph? Doubt it with all the road noise.
If you want an A/B test everyone can agree on, then compare cassette tapes and mp3s at 192K vbr. Uh, yeah, I can tell. Especially after 45 minutes when the tape is FINISHED and I can still listen to my mp3 player for another ten hours....
So did Apple really ruin music by making it easy for people to listen to it?
Neil and the industry have greatly exaggerated the demand for audiophile quality playback of popular music.
The analog versus digital argument is approaching the singularity, or may already have passed it.
There are an awful lot of ponces mucking up the argument by waving old vinyl around. Audiophile vinyl is expensive, maintenance intensive and not archive-ready. For analog reproduction, quarter-inch tape stomps all over vinyl in every possible way. That's why boutique analog recording studios seldom master directly to lathe. Be sensible, people!
#20 BATUB
Did AOL ruin the Internet by making it easy for people to use it?
Yes, Neil is taking an elitist position. Not that anyone here would know about that.
Recently the highest quality digital files can be found via Torrents. Good news Neil, your fans are listening to 320Kbs FLAC...bad news, they didn't pay for them.
I'm sure you're happier the old way?
"I'd suggest that differences between 192/24 and 44.1/16 audio are mostly due to mixing, and perhaps dynamic range, but not at all due to loss of information from digital sampling."
Are you sure? Remember that Nyquist says you need to sample at 2x the maximum frequency of the analog, so 44.1/16 requires a hard cutoff at 22 khz, which (given the imperfections of filtering) means you have to start rolling off around 20 khz. There are probably people who can detect this.
(I can't detect anywhere near that, which is why I can keep my MP3s down under a megabyte per minute.)
"means you have to start rolling off around 20 khz. There are probably people who can detect this."
Small children with small earholes. The time you are a teen and can appreciate this? You'll be lucky if you can hear 18khz. It drops off after this...beyond that, the edges of your hearing perception isn't really all that reliable from a biomechanical or a psychoacoustic point of view.
Then again, the biggest problem with 44khz CDs is that there is a brickwall filter that means a curve is thrown out in the real world -- in theory, 22khz is where the distortion ends, but real world -- you can have mismatched consumer level components that drop down to 16khz and this is audible.
96khz takes the idea that shitty components are there and will allow much more distortion in the brickwall that is the nyquist and puts it FAR outside of the range of human hearing.
Past that, I have a lot of high end equipment...my DAW and synths have fully matching components throughout (helps to have the creator do a custom mod for ya) and folks regularly ask me if my 12 year old sampler is 96khz. It is very clean. 44khz 16 bit can be nice.
Personally, I would be happy with 44khz even with crappy components if we increased the dynamic range to 24bits. Dynamic range is MUCH more important than frequency range. Unfortunately, unless you are listening to symphonic works, you will rarely hear anything that is mixed for it...
um. citation please?
Can anybody point to a double blind test?
...And remember kids, loss-less is not loss-FREE.
On a personal note, loss-less is good enough for me!
We should start some facts/sayings like Chuck Norris-ism about Neil Young
Neil Young's audiophile weakness is the DingDingDing of the common slot machine, and can't decide on the old warm sound of the AK47 or the brightly amplified Uzi for his vegas rampage.
Neil Young is such an audiophile that the simple telephone is too beneath him -- he flies in his helicopter straight to someone to say hello in person. It becomes awkward when they refuse to pick up.
Neil Young is such an audiophile he knows when you're jerking to a blond or a redhead. That and he's watching you masturbate.
#16 Nyquist only involves the frequency domain. Once those low-pass filters have selected the desired signal, resolution determines fidelity to the original. Any A-D conversion introduces quantizing noise by definition, so all digital reproductions of analog signals are of lesser quality by definition.
Personally, I think it's hilarious when audiophiles hold up vinyl as some sort of paragon of fidelity, when the truth is a lot more prosaic: it's a distorted sound you grew up listening to, and you can't stand anything that doesn't have that warm, fuzzy, scratchy glow. I like that sound too, but I'm not going to go around claiming that it's more accurate.
Of course poorly mastered reproductions exist in every format, CD among them. However, you can tell exactly how much better SACD is than CD by comparing the relative market penetration.
Heh. Headline: "Popular musician coerced by industry to push new expensive format in nationally-recognized periodical."
I would tend to agree with #11, #16, and #23... although, philipb, 320kbps FLAC must be some very quiet music... most of my CD collection is 600-1000kbps compressed, and up to 3462kbps (one of NIN's latest tracks @ 96/24, obviously not CD.)
I invite anyone interested in the facts and theories of audio technology to read the HydrogenAudio forums. I've found that if you have an audio question it has most likely already been answered in their many years of discussion. Sorry for the plug, I'm just trying to dispel audiophile idiocy and guide technology-minded folks like yourselves to only the best resources.
Old Man take a look at my files...they're a lot like yours.
...and when we got on ship
he brought out something for the trip
he said, "it's old but it's good"
like any other primitive would...
Everybody's right - but in defense of Neil, he has extraordinary hearing and can easily detect the "stepped" sound of the digital formats in contrast to the smoother, more natural analog sound waves.
This guy can hear and identify the frequency of electrical currents running through sound cables and wall sockets fer chrissakes.
Blaming Apple is a stretch, of course, but they are certainly part of a larger industry habit to sell crap when they can get away with it - and it's not just the music industry guilty of this - and in the process lowering the "standards" which, arguably, should govern our choices over what we hear (or see).
Neil's not some old kooky geezer - well, okay, he is, but - he's got the ability to discern what most of us miss.
We should listen.
Cheers.
Like many about have said, differences in hearing are very subjective.
For example, it is my personal opinion that no amount of Blu-Ray will ever make Neil Young's nasal whinging sound good.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Myths
You're all right. And wrong.
I think of vinyl in the audiophile world as I do fixies in the bicycling world. They both represent a quaint and obsolete technology that's fun to indulge in, but not actually superior.
Does anyone else recognize this as yet another ridiculous attempt by Neil Young, to play dumb about technology, in order to hide the fact that he's a robot? Go listen to his album Trans! I'm telling you, he's a robot.
People! People!:
"It's only Rock-'n'-Roll,
--- But I like it!"
The war is over. Digital is the Future, and the Future is now.
"Analog is wave", "digital is quanta", and it's all metaphysical. The workers of the world have mp3 on the hip/arm/chest-pocket. "Loss-less is false", but the mp3 players have been ordered/shipped/received/loaded/sync'ed/etc.
And Neil Young is "classic rock".
Neil and the engineers he works with have a lot of experience in working with recorded music using digital formats and emrging technology. He was one of the first muscians and studios to employ digital mixing exploring its pros and cons.
I have a bias as I know some of his production people and seen the work going on in his studio.
What #17 and $25 said above is accurate though.
One of the big problem with the music availiable on CD and other now common digital formats is not just in the format itself but that the quality is further degraded in mastering by engineering choices that further degrade the sound, such as increasing compression/limiting along with squashing dynamic range.
A format that inherently has more depth and bitrates can allow for production choices that revolves around a higher quality.
But only if the marketplace knows the difference and demands it.
Ipod formatted music is great for our lifestyles and sales, but we are fast approaching the technical point where even ipods can offer better quality affordably.
I am a huge Neil Young fan, but this is just crazy. Neil Young's recordings are famous for sounding like they were made in someones garage using a tin can and string for a mike. His later albums are more HiFi, but many of his older records are pretty crunchy.
My favorite vinyl vs mp3 argument was somebody telling me about the terrible flanging sound they heard on an mp3 of Oscar Peterson's Night Train..
..except that I own the LP, and it has that exact same "low bitrate mp3" flanging problem, and it's not caused by anything digital at all.
I listened to music on tacky little AM transistor radios for a couple of decades while I was growing up. Was I not supposed to enjoy that? My iPod is much better quality, and Neil Young says I shouldn't enjoy that either?
I think you're all missing the point.
How much is Sony paying him to say this? ;)
The audio output of a microphone is an electrical "simulation" (representation) of a sound wave. A vinyl recording is a pretty good representation of an audio signal. Digital sampling at 44.1k/16 bits is even better sounding to most people. I feel sorry for those who prefer the increased distortion of obsolete technology.
Is Neil talking about audio encoded for Blu-ray playback, or files carried on Blu-Ray discs.
The latter would make the statement "Here was me thinking that lossless digital audio would sound the same no matter what it's pressed on, spot on.
But I figure it'll be sampled at a higher rate, as per the restrictions of each medium.
As for hearing the differences - back when I used my DCC (Digital Compact casette - remember thems?) and MiniDisc formats alot you could hear the higher quality in the DCC... even when recording from the same source.
I could hear the difference on some pretty cheap headphones and through my shelf-system, which was consumer level all the way. Totally inconsequential differences, mind you.