Music Is Neil Young just a grumpy old musician?

[member 656954]

Neil Young is a famous musician, no doubt, but I had no idea he's also a firebrand against what he views technology has done to sound quality in the music industry. In a recent Vergecast interview, he holds nothing back - including profanity, in case you're not keen to hear such - as he dumps on Apple, MP3, and pretty much anything digital.

He sounds like a grumpy old man to me, railing against progress, believing he can hear depth in analogue that digital cannot capture and that 'the youth of today' have nothing to compare against so don't know their being conned by the studios.

"OK boomer" came to mind a few times as I listened, but I am not discounting that his complaint has validity. Still, is he merely the equivalent of a quality coach maker bemoaning Henry Ford's volume built Model T, or does he have a legitimate complaint?

 

[jedishrfu]

In every technological advance pushed to consumers, features are gained and features are lost.

There was an early story about the Suzanne Vega song that stumped the mp3 algorithm prompting a redesign of it. Basically while it could capture other songs passably, it failed to capture her song and illustrated a weakness in its design.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/19/8068923/mp3-compression-ghost-suzanne-vega-toms-diner

and more on MP3 here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

where it mention its lossy formatting.

So no he's not a grumpy old man, he's one musician of many decrying the watering down destruction of their musical works by technological advances.

Data compression in other areas has affected quality of photos taken, and movies ... how we store images for future reference...

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Well there are other formats, like the old .wav , .flac and .ape extensions for those who prefer quality music.

 

[hmmm27]

Well, he's certainly old and grumpy ; I think the only question is the word "just".

From a quick read of the interview summary, it seems he's railing against digital compression techniques.

Fair enough : which do you like watching better : 720p or 4k ? If you were put on the spot to say why you (presumably) liked the 4k program better, would you be able to articulate "because it has a higher pixel resolution and surround sound" ? Would everybody ?

 

[pbuk]

"OK boomer" came to mind a few times as I listened.

well you may as well stop listening to half the people here then - how old do you think we are? Neil Young is (just) too old to be a boomer anyway.

And yes, mp3 (and whatever proprietory system Apple uses these days) is a lossy format and it is an objective fact that the more compression you have the less quality you have. How much compression is needed before that reduction in quality is perceptible is subjective, so in the absence of evidence regarding any particular individual's perception of quality you should (with an equal amount of respect as you are showing) shut up.

 

[member 656954]

So no he's not a grumpy old man, he's one musician of many decrying the watering down destruction of their musical works by technological advances.

I have to say, he's the first I've heard decrying this with such vehemence, he basically dissed the sound quality of any musician creative using a PC, it was savage.

Well there are other formats, like the old .wav , .flac and .ape extensions for those who prefer quality music.

Yes, and Young discussed this but his argument seemed to be that unless you captured the source in an analog format, such formats merely perpetuate the view that digital conveys the sound the artist makes. It was not clear to me how that gells with a lossless digital recording setup end-to-end, but he was very into his DACs and they definitely make a different to audio quality.

Fair enough : which do you like watching better : 720p or 4k ? If you were put on the spot to say why you (presumably) liked the 4k program better, would you be able to articulate "because it has a higher pixel resolution and surround sound" ? Would everybody ?

Actually, this comparison was his reference to how much audio quality is lost, but we don't have the experience of the Netflix show going 'blurry' as obvious evidence between high fidelity and lower fidelity in the audio world. And you are right, @hmmm27, even Neil Young, who has been around professional music longer than I've been alive, struggled to articulate the difference. Which was a core argument - essentially, we're being hoodwinked into accepting crap without being aware of it (he was scathing of Steve Jobs, singled him out especially as causing this).

well you may as well stop listening to half the people here then - how old do you think we are? Neil Young is (just) too old to be a boomer anyway.

LOL, I've no idea how old everyone is - though with some posts I'd hazard a guess +-3 years - and my "OK boomer" was not meant to be literal, just in the sense of someone aggressively harking back to 'the good old days'. I used to have a high-end analog sound system, Bose speakers, NAD amp, that type of thing, and I was more excited by my first CD (Dire Straights' Brothers in Arms, awesome) than any of my vinyl because there was no needle hiss, the surface was more resistant to damage, and they took up less room. Didn't cost any less though, that was a bummer.

How much compression is needed before that reduction in quality is perceptible is subjective, so in the absence of evidence regarding any particular individual's perception of quality you should (with an equal amount of respect as you are showing) shut up.

Absolutely. This was the theme floating around my mind as I listened to the tirade interview. Young, who is no longer young, is very unlikely to have the dynamic hearing range of my 21yo daughter. So while I 100% agree that lossy compression removes audio detail, his descriptions of what was 'missing' could possibly be influenced by what he can hear...or not hear, I guess.

All in all, it was an interesting perspective from someone with sufficient passion that he crowdfunded the high-resolution Pono audio player. It failed to excite, but I have to respect someone who puts that much effort into addressing a problem that they find so irritating.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Yes, and Young discussed this but his argument seemed to be that unless you captured the source in an analog format, such formats merely perpetuate the view that digital conveys the sound the artist makes. It was not clear to me how that gells with a lossless digital recording setup end-to-end, but he was very into his DACs and they definitely make a different to audio quality.

Well, everything is a commercial nowadays...

So Neil Young tries to sell you his stuff... what a surprise.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, just because he's old and grumpy doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

There was a movement towards better and better musical fidelity that peaked with the CD in 1982. That technology enabled some incredible sounding recordings. Then MP3 was invented to solve a temporary problem, and the philosophy "as close to the original as we can" was replaced by the philosophy "close enough is good enough". That is likely what Young and others find so grating.

I described the problem as temporary above because the problem then was that recordings of CD quality are big. Around 100 MB per song. Today the storage on disc for that is less than half a cent, and even over cell phones the song can be downloaded in less time than it takes to play, or alternatively, streamed. The technology that led to this philosophical shift solves what is now a non-problem.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Oh, and the music kids listen to today is crap. Not like the old days. And...hey, you...get off my grass!

 

[256bits]

Oh where oh where did the boom box go.
Every kid on the block ( and subway, bus ) should have one of those instead of that crappy little MP3 player so they can listen to and enjoy, along with everyone else, 'real' music, just how it should be.

Neil has a valid point, and then again he doesn't.

 

[Klystron]

Good to hear old Neil Young remains relevant. Back in the day [sound of shoe dropping] Young caused controversy releasing songs such as "Alabama" and "Southern Man". "Canadian declares culture war against the South!", shouted rag sheets. Some great Southern rock songs were written to refute Young's lyrics.

PF is a technical forum but some of Young's disdain for Steve Jobs is surely political. Apple cloaked itself as a socio-political entity meant to uplift common people and enable access to free information; the un-IBM. [But] Many working people could afford to buy Henry Ford's Model-T and Model-A's. He did not paint them white, leave off a spare tire and double the price while pretending to quote Marx and Engels.

On the technical side music reproduction was greatly limited by microphone and recording technology then poor amplifier/loudspeaker reproduction even before selective digital sampling and data compression inhibited even more of the source sound. Young may be railing against unknowing 'censorship'of his sound.

 

[hmmm27]

Actually, this comparison was his reference to how much audio quality is lost, but we don't have the experience of the Netflix show going 'blurry' as obvious evidence between high fidelity and lower fidelity in the audio world

I find it a bit scary that there's a question in your mind.

Try this : take a lossless, high quality, live acoustic recording : listen to it a few times, with decent headphones or really decent speakers until you get the hang of it, then listen to mp3 conversions in various qualities.

I'm a little curious as to what's gotten up your nose about the interview ; sounded pretty tame to me : I mean it's sortof a given that a $5M recording studio is going to produce better results than a $10k bedroom setup. Doesn't mean the musicians are any better, of course.

 

[BillTre]

I read an inter view somewhere about a guy who went to visit Neil young at a place of his on an isolated lake somewhere.
Young had a GIANT sound system where different small building were made into speakers. The sound was controlled remotely and listened to from a boat on the lake.
The guy is a crazed audio-guy.

He also has strong opinions on a lot of other things, especially environmental issues.

 

[Bystander]

"After the Gold Rush" Neil Young? Other than being unable to carry a tune in a bucket,...?

 

[BillTre]

He writes great tunes:

 

[Dr Transport]

Only guy I can sing to in the presence of my family and not sound out of tune. He has been railing aginst commercialization for years, he had a tour with t-shirts that said "sponsored by nobody".

 

[member 656954]

I'm a little curious as to what's gotten up your nose about the interview

Not up my nose, I was really wondering, technically, whether his point has as much validity as he claims - which is, digital has ruined the music industry - or whether he's suffering hearing loss and that's a more likely cause of "all the music now sounds like s**t".

I know MP3 or any other lossy algo drops quality. But Jean Michel Jarre makes beautiful, all digital music with as much dynamic range as you'd ever want, so it's not ipso facto that digital is worse. Compression has drawbacks, of course it does, but by his argument, AM radio is bad and cheats the audience of pleasure because of its meager dynamic range.

And I appreciate the observations from @Dr Transport, @BillTre, @Klystron, etc. regarding his activism. He's not a guy I have ever listened to much, so have no idea of his backstory in that regard. It does add context to his comments in the interview.

 

[BillTre]

To me, there is a story of how people have thought about these issues and how technical advances and economic opportunities have changed things over time.

(Audio-History as I think it might have happened):
In the 1950's, 60's and 70's there was an interest in increasingly sophisticated HiFi and stereo gear.
This was large immobile stuff where to main drives for new designs were analog sound quality.

Portables developed (transister radios) along with other ways to store tunes (various tape formats, disks). Most did not have good quality, but had portability and accessibility.
Different kinds of products for different markets, but using the same analog sound files (recordings) as their ultimate info source.

With the iPod (and Steve Jobs) and the use of the internet to distribute music, smaller size files (like mp3's) are prioritized in the culture.
This has resulted in a decline in (commercially easily accessible) quality recordings, as the mp3's (with their lesser audio quality, as described above) have dominated the market.

I think Neil Young is of the old school of liked super good quality sound equipment (he's rich) and is grumpy about this. Fine with me.
There are good quality digital formats (used for recording music) that preserve a lot of the sound's details, but they are not mp3's.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Only guy I can sing to in the presence of my family and not sound out of tune. He has been railing aginst commercialization for years, he had a tour with t-shirts that said "sponsored by nobody".

How much did those shirts cost?
:-)

 

[Dr Transport]

How much did those shirts cost?
:-)

I don't recall, that was when I could afford to go to the concerts but had to choose between a t-shirt or beer.

 

[member 656954]

I think Neil Young is of the old school of liked super good quality sound equipment (he's rich) and is grumpy about this. Fine with me.

He certainly is old school, but listening to the interview again, I realized that the basis for his argument is flawed and that this is what provoked my "OK boomer" response.

Young (strongly) believes that before digital, everyone had access to the same high-quality sound. He makes a comment about an artist and how listening to it over the radio he heard the same richness as he did from the vinyl. Essentially, we all heard quality, he says, it was baked into the system.

But it is just untrue. Young even passes comment that cassette tapes were poorer quality without any sense of irony or awareness that there is always a hierarchy of quality, and quality requires more investment so it has more value. @BillTre, you have nailed it with your little history in post #18. Young wants a perfect configuration of highest quality, most convenience, and lowest cost, and while that's a lofty goal, I am not aware that it ever achieved in any category.

(As an aside, how do you hyperlink to a post number within a thread? I've seen it done, but can't figure out the mechanism, so if anyone knows, I'd appreciate knowing too.)

 

[BillTre]

(As an aside, how do you hyperlink to a post number within a thread? I've seen it done, but can't figure out the mechanism, so if anyone knows, I'd appreciate knowing too.)

I am guessing, by doing this:

Here is a test.

 

[member 656954]

Thanks, but I don't have that option in my UI, @BillTre

It may be something that I've not yet crossed the threshold for, if it's a triggered feature of some kind.

 

[Klystron]

Thanks, but I don't have that option in my UI, @BillTre

It may be something that I've not yet crossed the threshold for, if it's a triggered feature of some kind.

Look at the tool bar above your reply. The 'chain link' symbol allows you ro insert a URL then alias the hyper-link with text. Here is a link to an HTTP article and the identical URL pasted below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

 

[member 656954]

Here is my toolbar as per @BillTre's post #22 , I do not have the control referred to:

I do have the URL insert, but can't see how to associate that with a post number, as I cannot determine the specific URL of the post. Is there a way to readily construct this from the overall PF URL?

 

[OCR]

(As an aside, how do you hyperlink to a post number within a thread? I've seen it done, but can't figure out the mechanism, so if anyone knows, I'd appreciate knowing too.)

Like this. . . #21 ?

Or this. . . #18 ?

.

 

[Rive]

Neil has a valid point, and then again he doesn't.

I think he stuck in the past, kind of. The compression loss no longer a serious problem: storage capacity is cheap, bandwidth is cheap, small DACs has quite good quality these days - the issue just 'addressed itself' with time.
However, what's still around: plenty of popular music is mixed/edited with careful engineering to match the usual environment of the population.
Nature did more or less the same, so no wonder.
This kind of mixing/editing will survive the compression problem since it belongs to the portable devices in general: and also, it will (does) change our perception of music even in silent environment.

 

[member 656954]

So, I caught the Vergecast podcast, which is the sister podcast to the interview one that Young was on, and host Nilay Patel, who interviewed Young, made the point that he felt that Young was flat out wrong in his views about audio quality. He said that he could not say that during the interview, because his job is to elicit the views of the guests, not fight with them, but he seemed very put out that people might think he agreed with Young's views (Patel is quite knowledgeable about the topic).

It was interesting to hear, and reminded me that just because someone is not rebutting someone else, it does not mean they necessarily agree with them. That's probably a more valuable lesson, for me at least, than anything else I've taken away from this interlude.

 

[Klystron]

Here is my toolbar as per @BillTre's post #22 , I do not have the control referred to:

View attachment 256514

I do have the URL insert, but can't see how to associate that with a post number, as I cannot determine the specific URL of the post. Is there a way to readily construct this from the overall PF URL?

View attachment 256516

Apologies if I misread your request. May have missed that you requested hyper-link to internal posts.

However, the link method seems to work for any URL including internal. Part of the fun of navigating and writing in PF includes the many ways to post.

BTW, I agree with this post from the Elron thread with the addition that I admire your writing style.

 

[member 656954]

Apologies if I misread your request. May have missed that you requested hyper-link to internal posts.

No worries, @Klystron. Sometimes I know I can't see the obvious, esp. with user interfaces! I'll take another look at the link, no doubt it's PEBKAC

Spoiler: PEBKAC

I once worked for what would be commonly be called a "hard man". He was a COO who did not suffer fools - and he was bright and very quick with it, so he could spot them - and when it came to situations like my not finding the link button, he would spit out "PEBKAC", and most times be correct, even if he was a terrible bully with it: Problem exists between keyboard and chair! I learned a lot from him, but boy, did my stress levels drop when I left.

 

[Klystron]

No worries, @Klystron. Sometimes I know I can't see the obvious, esp. with user interfaces! I'll take another look at the link, no doubt it's PEBKAC

Spoiler: PEBKAC

I once worked for what would be commonly be called a "hard man". He was a COO who did not suffer fools - and he was bright and very quick with it, so he could spot them - and when it came to situations like my not finding the link button, he would spit out "PEBKAC", and most times be correct, even if he was a terrible bully with it: Problem exists between keyboard and chair! I learned a lot from him, but boy, did my stress levels drop when I left.

I prefer KISS acronym from (software) engineering: Keep It Simple, Simpleton!

IOW if one can link to posts in a thread, posts in other threads, plus content outside PF using the hyper-link symbol, then why not prefer it? Since other pointer methods exist, I imagine they provide advantages such as faster links or less storage. Good to have options.

 

[member 656954]

IOW if one can link to posts in a thread, posts in other threads, plus content outside PF using the hyper-link symbol, then why not prefer it?

I've dragged this thread off topic with my question, sorry, but the issue is that I can't see how to form the URL for the post number to enter into the hyperlink control. Hovering over the post number does not provide it, as the content is not active and I don't have the network icon that @BillTre referred to in post #22. It's not a big deal and does not degrade my PF experience, I just thought there might be a trick to it as I couldn't immediately see the method in the user interface.

 

[Mary Conrads Sanburn]

XXX000 Ahhhh

 

[Mary Conrads Sanburn]

❤❤

 

[pinball1970]

Neil Young is a famous musician, no doubt, but I had no idea he's also a firebrand against what he views technology has done to sound quality in the music industry. In a recent Vergecast interview, he holds nothing back - including profanity, in case you're not keen to hear such - as he dumps on Apple, MP3, and pretty much anything digital.

He sounds like a grumpy old man to me, railing against progress, believing he can hear depth in analogue that digital cannot capture and that 'the youth of today' have nothing to compare against so don't know their being conned by the studios.

"OK boomer" came to mind a few times as I listened, but I am not discounting that his complaint has validity. Still, is he merely the equivalent of a quality coach maker bemoaning Henry Ford's volume built Model T, or does he have a legitimate complaint?

I was never keen on his voice although I liked some of his songs, After the Gold rush is a beautiful song but I always preferred the Prelude version.I like him more now, perhaps I am getting grumpy with him.From vinyl to CD lost something for me, I don’t think I bought any CDs from when they came out in the 80s till the late 90s.

 

[essenmein]

I'm just going to roundly disagree with Mr Young there.

Yes MP3 can be atrocious or actually pretty decent depending on how the compression is set up.

Use to be a little bit of a HiFi nut, so we did some experiments. A friend of mine had a really nice recording on CD that we used as reference, then we ripped it, and compressed it in various compression rates and did A-B blind comparison.
128k was pretty terrible
196k was noticeably better, on some poorer speakers 196k was almost indistinguishable from the original (due to lack of fidelity in the mid/highs), but on good speakers still sounded bad when you heard the A-B.
256k better again
320k was still perceptibly different if you knew what to listen for (weird HF scrambling)
320k VBR you'd really have to listen hard (make it up?) to tell the difference. We decided that 320k VBR was "acceptable".

What makes or breaks a recording though is the final studio down mix, and what its targeted for, most "pop" (aka garbage) is (or at least used to be) down mixed to sound good on crappy stereos, usually a bit of boost in the lows and some in the highs, and fairly compressed (ie dynamic range, not data) to overcome the short comings of the average radio. Put such a recording on a good system and it just sounds bad, quite tiring to listen to, wallowy bass and over done highs with no dynamics.

 

[essenmein]

I like a wide rang of music, incl electronic music, what funny with good hi fi systems is you can hear the poor sampling in the samples they used to make the music. And some of the electronic music sound good on a poor quality stereo (some tracks that I really enjoyed) but were practically embarrassing once on a clear system. Here you could really tell which electronic music artists understood what they were doing creating the music, some of the recordings are fantastic, a well recorded analog synth is awesome.

 

[gmax137]

Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with his point of view on sound quality, I nearly choked when Neil Young said (paraphrasing): "I'm 75 years old, you should listen to what I'm saying..."

 

[Mary Conrads Sanburn]

Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

NEIL YOUNG

Year: 1995

Inducted by: EDDIE VEDDER (PEARL JAM)

Category: PERFORMERS

https://www.rockhall.com/inductees/neil-young
Neil Young, Broken Arrow Ranch, Half Moon Bay, California 1971

https://www.morrisonhotelgallery.com/photographs/mDrAPY/Neil-Young-Broken-Arrow-Ranch-Half-Moon-Bay-California--1971

I’m always heading to Half Moon Bay! I love it.

It was Neil that inspired me to play with my three harmonicas. I can really WAIL! Seriously I mean it!

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Remember the phone service commercial that advertised "You can hear a pin drop"?

I hear it when playing the video on my computer, but I don't think the experiment would work on any modern cell phone I've listened to.

 

[Dr Transport]

I’m always heading to Half Moon Bay!

Every time I used to travel to the Bay area for work, a bunch of us would go up to Half moon Bay to the Moss bay Distillery and sit for an evening. I never did see the ghost.

 

[Mary Conrads Sanburn]

I hope to never see a ghost

Historical Landmark, Home to "The Blue Lady" Ghost
A designated California Point of Historical Interest, the restaurant's history includes a popular speakeasy and famous ghost.

During Prohibition, the San Mateo Coast was an ideal spot for rum running, bootleggers and “speakeasies,” establishments which sold illegal booze to thirsty clients.

One of the most successful speakeasies of the era was Frank’s Place on the cliffs at Moss Beach. Built by Frank Torres in 1927, Frank’s became a popular nightspot for silent film stars and politicians from the City. Mystery writer Dashiell Hammett frequented the place and used it as a setting for one of his detective stories.

The restaurant, located on the cliff, above a secluded beach was a perfect location to benefit from the clandestine activities of Canadian rum-runners. Under cover of darkness and fog, illegal whiskey was landed on the beach, dragged up a steep cliff and loaded into waiting vehicles for transport to San Francisco. Some of the booze always found its way into the garage beneath Frank’s Place. Frank Torres used his excellent political and social connections to operate a highly successful, if illegal, business. Unlike many of the other speakeasies along the coast, Frank’s Place was never raided.

[. . . ]

The Distillery also retains one of Frank’s former customers, as well. Its resident ghost, "The Blue Lady”, still haunts the premises, trying to recapture the romance and excitement of Frank’s speakeasy years. The story of The Blue Lady was documented by the TV program "Unsolved Mysteries", and has been seen by millions of people around the world. Perhaps you will see her when you visit!
###
https://mossbeachdistillery.com/history-ghost/

 

[Mondayman]

Only guy I can sing to in the presence of my family and not sound out of tune.

I found that the key to singing Neil Young is to plug one nostril.

 

[pbuk]

I found that the key to singing Neil Young is to plug one nostril.

And the key to listening is to plug both ears (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[OCR]

Sorry, couldn't resist. . .

And the key to listening is to plug both ears. . .

.

 

[Mary Conrads Sanburn]

Rolling Stone
APRIL 6, 2020 10:46AM ET

Neil Young Drops Vintage Crazy Horse Concert

Previously unseen 1991 gig shot at Buffalo, New York’s War Memorial captures Young at the height of his “Godfather of Grunge” period

By

ANDY GREENE

Neil Young has dug into his archives and unearthed video of a complete concert he played with Crazy Horse at Buffalo’s War Memorial on February 16th, 1991 on the Smell the Horse tour. He posted it for free on his
Neil Young Archives website. (Update: Young has since taken down the show.)

“This is raw,” Young wrote. “Untouched sound…we normally would have fixed some things and we will get to it, but we are sharing this with all of you just as it is ‘in all its Ragged Glory’ as [my late producer David] Briggs would have said. We are not waiting.”

The show mixes Crazy Horse standards like “Cortez the Killer,” “Like a Hurricane” and “Welfare Mothers” with songs he’d recently released on Ragged Glory like “Love to Burn” and “****in’ Up.” The tour launched just as the Gulf War began and every show featured a special rendition of Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” in response. The setlist didn’t change much throughout the course of the tour, but this Buffalo gig is one of just two nights where he broke out the 1976 obscurity “Campaigner.”

The live album Weld was cut on this tour, but only “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “Like a Hurricane” were recorded at this Buffalo gig. The complete show has never been seen anywhere. “We can’t get into the archive vault to retrieve the master for a remix,” Young wrote, “but it’s debatable whether one is needed at this moment.”

Young was planning on touring America with Crazy Horse this year, but the Coronavirus forced him to postpone it. In the past couple of weeks, he’s posted two homemade Fireside Sessions concerts that he filmed at the Telluride, Colorado, house he shares with his wife, actress Daryl Hannah. They are packed with rarities and fan favorites like “On the Beach,” “Little Wing,” “Homefires” and “Words.”

A third edition is coming soon. “There was a brief delay, as my lovely wife was ill for several days and had to isolate herself, even during our isolation,” Young recently wrote. “It proved particularly challenging on the food front, however, she recovered, all is well and now we’re back on track.”

They initially tried to livestream the show, but their internet connection was too slow to make it work. Hannah now shoots the show on her iPad, edits it and then leaves the device on their doorstep for a friend to bring into town, where it is uploaded to the web.

As we await the new Fireside Session, check out the 1991 Crazy Horse gig. It’s Young at his Godfather of Grunge prime and a great gift for fans stuck in their homes.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/neil-young-drops-vintage-crazy-horse-concert-978877/

Love you Neil and Daryl Hannah Thanks Rollingstone!

 

[sysprog]

Before CDs, some audiophiles would play a vinly record once on a Linn turntable with a very expensive cartridge connected to a pristine diamond needle and record the playback on a high-end reel-to-reel tape deck. Then they'd put the vinyl away, and they could play the tape hundreds of times before the the chromium dioxide started to wear away.

When the CD arrived, we were all insulted. We preferred noise and hiss to this condescending doing of integrals. They called 40 kilocycles "oversampling" based on the notion that human hearing can't detect more than 20 kilocycles. But 2 samples per hearable cycle doesn't come close to the real sound.

I don't disagree with Mr. Young for wanting back the fullness of analog sound.

 

[cjl]

Before CDs, some audiophiles would play a vinly record once on a Linn turntable with a very expensive cartridge connected to a pristine diamond needle and record the playback on a high-end reel-to-reel tape deck. Then they'd put the vinyl away, and they could play the tape hundreds of times before the the chromium dioxide started to wear away.

When the CD arrived, we were all insulted. We preferred noise and hiss to this condescending doing of integrals. They called 40 kilocycles "oversampling" based on the notion that human hearing can't detect more than 20 kilocycles. But 2 samples per hearable cycle doesn't come close to the real sound.

I don't disagree with Mr. Young for wanting back the fullness of analog sound.

See, a lot of audiophiles go based on what you're claiming here, that "2 samples per hearable cycle doesn't come close to the real sound". However, mathematics doesn't always follow intuition. You can perfectly recreate a signal as long as you have at least 2 samples per cycle of the highest desired frequency. It's not an approximation. It's a perfect reproduction. In actuality, the waveform recreated by a CD at 44.1kHz or a DVD at 48kHz will be a *better* reproduction than what a record can achieve, because the analog errors in the record will be far larger than errors introduced by the digitization process.

There's a slight argument to using 24 bit rather than 16 bit. 16 bit is adequate for audibly perfect reproduction, but you have to be a bit careful with your levels or you can end up with either clipping or audible background noise. 24 bit solves this issue. That having been said, I've seen lots of blind tests, and I've never seen evidence that anyone can detect a properly configured and high quality 16 bit/44.1kHz A-->D-->A loop inserted in their analog system of choice. Digital is audibly perfect, no matter what grumpy old audiophiles like to claim.

(It's worth noting that MP3s can absolutely audibly degrade the sound, though even then, that issue is largely solved with modern encoders at 256 or 320k bitrate)

 

[sysprog]

See, a lot of audiophiles go based on what you're claiming here, that "2 samples per hearable cycle doesn't come close to the real sound". However, mathematics doesn't always follow intuition. You can perfectly recreate a signal as long as you have at least 2 samples per cycle of the highest desired frequency. It's not an approximation. It's a perfect reproduction. In actuality, the waveform recreated by a CD at 44.1kHz or a DVD at 48kHz will be a *better* reproduction than what a record can achieve, because the analog errors in the record will be far larger than errors introduced by the digitization process.

There's a slight argument to using 24 bit rather than 16 bit. 16 bit is adequate for audibly perfect reproduction, but you have to be a bit careful with your levels or you can end up with either clipping or audible background noise. 24 bit solves this issue. That having been said, I've seen lots of blind tests, and I've never seen evidence that anyone can detect a properly configured and high quality 16 bit/44.1kHz A-->D-->A loop inserted in their analog system of choice. Digital is audibly perfect, no matter what grumpy old audiophiles like to claim.

(It's worth noting that MP3s can absolutely audibly degrade the sound, though even then, that issue is largely solved with modern encoders at 256 or 320k bitrate)

The music waveform set isn't all perfect sine waves; not every instrument is a gold flute (closest instrument to a perfect sine wave), so, no, 2 samples per cycle doesn't capture all the information, and the audiophile can reliably detect that there is a difference.

 

[cjl]

No, it's not a perfect sine wave, but every waveform can be represented as a sum of perfect sines, and capturing all of those sines up to 20kHz is sufficient to create an audibly perfect reproduction of any sound waveform. As I said above, there have been studies done about whether people can hear the difference, and the evidence counteracts your claim that audiophiles can hear a difference.

A 16 bit, 44.1kHz digitally sampled reproduction is audibly perfect, if done right. It is completely impossible to hear the difference between a signal that has been digitized in this way and the analog original.

(I would even argue that 256 and 320kbps MP3s are audibly perfect for nearly every person and nearly every audio sample. There are a few weird corner cases that keep it from being perfect though).