neil young, audiophile

[Jerry_L]

Neil's player is still limited by the quality of the source material. It may be a better standard going forward, but I'm not sure if the difference is noticeable above 96 kHz. There are many factors in the signal path from recording to mastering to playback.

But I might consider a Pono if it is competitively priced with other digital players and will also play MP3.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Jerry_L

[Scott Dolan]

I'm not convinced 96kHz even makes a difference to begin with.

What does it even mean, to begin with?

We can't hear anything at that level...

[Jerry_L]

It is about the sampling rate. Human ears don't hear anything above about 20 kHz sound frequency, but that's not the same thing.

The sampling rate is similar to frames per second in video. A certain number of frames per second brings life to film images, but how many frames per second does it take for the image to be completely indistinguishable from your natural vision of your immediate surroundings? How many samples per second does it take for digital audio to match live sound?

It could approach infinity, theoretically. however, the practical limits of hearing and vision are probably far lower.

[Jerry_L]

The Pono apparently plays FLaC files encoded at 192. You can already do this on your computer, if you have source material that warrants it. CDs that were mastered at a lower rate cannot be upsampled to any benefit.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Jerry_L

[Scott Dolan]

Right. Sorry, lost my bearings for a second there.

Now then...

I've never heard a difference between 48 and 96.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I've ever heard a difference between 44.1 and 48.

But, at my relatively ripe young age of 43, with a pretty moderate case of tinnitus, I'm not sure it even matters...

[JSngry]

I wish I knew for certain that "hearing" only involves the ears...sound is vibration, and most of the body, if not all of it, is sensitive in some for or fashion to vibrations...if your body can feel low frequencies that your ears can't hear, the why not the same with higher frequencies? Not as "sound" per se, but as something that the brain nevertheless processes along with sound.

This is not a practical consideration, I know, and I'm not saying that every claim that comes along is legit. I know there's a lot of hoodoo out there. But I do think that sensory perceptions might better be more understood as a blend of neurological impulses than by compartmentalizing them and thinking that's the end of that.

God knows,I listen to so much crappy digital poor quality and enjoy the hell out of it, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference in the brain processing a serious of samples than in a continuous analog stream, jsut as there is visually.

And synesthesia, definitely an anomaly, but is it a true malfunction, or just an abnormal degree of the brain's "normal" functioning?

Hell, for that matter, blind people are alleged to generally have higher developed senses of hearing than sighted. If there is any truth to that at all, how does that happen? Does they just grow another brain just for hearing, or what?

Not wanting to replace old myths with new ones, I remain,

Lilac Vegital

Counsellor At Love

[Jim Alfredson]

The interesting part about this to me is that he (or rather Pono) has opened it's own music store. How does one get one's music on that store? I have 24bit / 44.1kHz files of organissimo albums ready to go.

[Jim Alfredson]

God knows,I listen to so much crappy digital poor quality and enjoy the hell out of it, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference in the brain processing a serious of samples than in a continuous analog stream, jsut as there is visually.

No, there is not. Once those samples are converted back into the analog domain, there is no difference if the sample rate is high enough. And for 99.9% of music, 44.1kHz is high enough. Just to re-iterate, that's 44,100 samples per second. The human brain is simply not capable of differentiating those individual samples. All higher sample rates do is raise the Nyquist limit to sample higher frequencies above human hearing. Whether this matters or not is subjective.

Keep in mind that if converted to digital specs, the bitrate of analog studio reel-to-reel tape is essentially 13bit (80db). The "sample rate" is effectively 40khz (depending on the tape and of course whether NR was used, most studio machines could go a bit over 20khz but not much).

I think what a lot of people missed in the early days of CD was mainly the nice harmonic distortion that analog circuits with tape and transformers and tubes imparts on the music, but that can be added before the digital converters or in the box or afterwards. With digital, what you put in is what you get out.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

i at least want a full demo. how does it compare w/ sacd. is it going beyond what that format did? is it going to sound better than Victor Feldman- Secret Of The Andes original cd already sounds?

Edited March 14, 2014 by chewy

[Scott Dolan]

My money says no.

Like most of the magical and mystical audio "advances" that come out that "blow MP3's away", this is more likely than not a bunch of hooey.

[Jerry_L]

Right. Sorry, lost my bearings for a second there.

Now then...

I've never heard a difference between 48 and 96.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I've ever heard a difference between 44.1 and 48.

But, at my relatively ripe young age of 43, with a pretty moderate case of tinnitus, I'm not sure it even matters...

I have a moderate case of tinnitus, too, from standing next to a powerful drummer for years, attending some loud concerts, and playing my own electric guitar too loud sometimes. I doubt I'm going to hear a difference, either.

Why Neil Young's New Pono Music Player Doesn't Make Any Sense

Edited March 14, 2014 by Jerry_L

[JSngry]

God knows,I listen to so much crappy digital poor quality and enjoy the hell out of it, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference in the brain processing a serious of samples than in a continuous analog stream, jsut as there is visually.

No, there is not. Once those samples are converted back into the analog domain, there is no difference if the sample rate is high enough. And for 99.9% of music, 44.1kHz is high enough. Just to re-iterate, that's 44,100 samples per second. The human brain is simply not capable of differentiating those individual samples. All higher sample rates do is raise the Nyquist limit to sample higher frequencies above human hearing. Whether this matters or not is subjective.

I remain as skeptical of accepting what the brain "can't do" as I am of what the brain "could do". It's like here, I have a brain, this is all I can measure it doing, so that's gotta be all it really is doing. Just as I don't want some trippo telling me my brain can make me grow wings to fly, I don't want no dullo telling me hey, this is all you can hear, so this all we're going to give you.

The expression "people hear with their eyes", that sometimes makes sense to me, not as a cynical note of people's gullibility & manipulabity, but I've recently had experiences watching hip-hop and opera performances with a lot of well-done choreography playing a big part in the role. And I quite unwittingly found myself, not necessarily" "hearing" but definitely engaging in the overall musical moment by focusing on the dancers, their moves, their grooves, their , for lack of a better word, "channeling" of the audible sound into physical movement. The two senses - definitely seemed to be working together to enhance each other, and although, no, of course I could neither "see" the music nor "hear" the dancing, there still was an enhanced effect going on, and I figure it's gotta be a combination of well-crafted stimuli being processed in a manner that, although not looking for it to begin with, definitely recognized the request for input, evaluated the input as pleasurable (however that works) and then opened the door and set a table for the guests. Am I making my brain do something it's not meant to do (huh?) or am I choosing to simply be conscious of what it's always doing? Or is my brain forcing itself on me, overpowering it's programming? Where are the answers to THESE questions, because these are (just some of the) question I'd like answered.

So, can people REALLY "hear with their eyes", well no, of course not, eyes are not ears. But can we then rule out the synergistic effect of eyes and ears working together as simple "projection" or "illusion", at least under certain mutual conditions? That would seem kind of...cheap to me, to do that. Same thing with sound. On the on hand, yes, "hearing" is done through the ear and its components. But is "sound" just about "hearing"? This is where I'm scared to say "yes" because of all the massive chicanery that jumps out with all the HEY you can eat your vegetables by listening to flowers singing their natural songs through speakers implanted in your water well, but I'm just as afraid to say "no", because that's where all the boxer-uppers and neatly packed game-over just sit there and take it starts coming in, we've determined that this is all you need so this is all you will get, it has been determined for you what you can and cannot do, your perceptions are not valid, there is only one true perception...those are both pretty creepy options, if you ask me.

Unless it can be proven that observable brain function is the only brain function (huh? say what?), then I think I'll be quicker to jump for my volume button or slide, than I will any permanent conclusions. You can control people by giving them delusions of false possibilities, and you can control them by giving them the false security of frozen conclusion. The reality, like love, gets slippery when it's wet.

Stay slippery, my friends.

[7/4]

I have a couple of music only DVDs that sound incredible. They're recorded and played back at a higher sampling rate, right?

[Jerry_L]

My money says no.

Like most of the magical and mystical audio "advances" that come out that "blow MP3's away", this is more likely than not a bunch of hooey.

CDs at a mere 44 kHz/16 bit already blow MP3s away.

But my entire music collection of about 10,000 Cds in MP3 format is sitting here on the hard drive of my office computer with room to spare.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Jerry_L

[Scott Dolan]

CDs at a mere 44 kHz/16 bit already blow MP3s away.

Yeah, but Jerry that simply isn't true. Older MP3's ripped on software a decade ago, or longer, at a smaller sample rate, sure.

But nowadays? Absolutely not. The new codecs and formats are simply too advanced. Rip something at 256 VBR in the format of your choice and A/B it with the original CD recording. I'd be willing to guarantee you won't hear the difference. I did it, and actively TRIED to convince myself there was a difference. And out of sheer frustration I threw in the towel. The differences simply didn't exist. Or if they do, I cannot hear them. And while I have a decent case of tinnitus, my hearing is still excellent otherwise.

[medjuck]

But I think Neil Young's system is supposed to be a lot better than cds as well as mp3s. Not that I'd necessarily be able to hear the difference.

[A Lark Ascending]

I know you'll never stop this eternal search for 'the best possible sound'...we're wired as humans to improve things...but at times I'm reminded of that Buddhist thing of eternal rebirth. You never get out of the circle of wanting the next best thing.

I'm content with 'very good' sound (I can't tolerate distortion, flutter and wow, muddy remastering but after that...) and I get that off contemporary mp3s.

So I wish Neil would just reissue 'Time Fades Away' on mp3; then he can spend the next 20 years perfecting it for those for whom it matters.

[Jim Alfredson]

God knows,I listen to so much crappy digital poor quality and enjoy the hell out of it, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference in the brain processing a serious of samples than in a continuous analog stream, jsut as there is visually.

No, there is not. Once those samples are converted back into the analog domain, there is no difference if the sample rate is high enough. And for 99.9% of music, 44.1kHz is high enough. Just to re-iterate, that's 44,100 samples per second. The human brain is simply not capable of differentiating those individual samples. All higher sample rates do is raise the Nyquist limit to sample higher frequencies above human hearing. Whether this matters or not is subjective.

I remain as skeptical of accepting what the brain "can't do" as I am of what the brain "could do". It's like here, I have a brain, this is all I can measure it doing, so that's gotta be all it really is doing. Just as I don't want some trippo telling me my brain can make me grow wings to fly, I don't want no dullo telling me hey, this is all you can hear, so this all we're going to give you.

There's a really simple way to solve the issue of what you personally can or cannot hear. You can do an ABX test. There is software available that allows you to do it yourself. You can load a hi-res mp3 version of a piece of music and a 24/96kHz wav file of that same music and see if you can reliably hear the difference while not knowing which is which. If you get better than 50%, then congratulations!

http://theproaudiofiles.com/audio-perception-and-abx-testing/

Otherwise, without testing, you don't know.

I do love the sound of tape for most things. But these days you can get that slurred transient, harmonic distortion, high-noise floor, magnetically compressed sound if you want with the simple addition of a plug-in. It really is incredible.

And BTW, the engineers behind analog gear are guilty of the same imposition on the frequency range of their devices. So they are, essentially, telling you what you can hear as well. Just look at the RIAA curve on vinyl to see how engineers decided what constituted a nice compromise between fidelity and the amount of music you can fit on one side of a vinyl record.

[Jerry_L]

CDs at a mere 44 kHz/16 bit already blow MP3s away.

Yeah, but Jerry that simply isn't true. Older MP3's ripped on software a decade ago, or longer, at a smaller sample rate, sure.

But nowadays? Absolutely not. The new codecs and formats are simply too advanced. Rip something at 256 VBR in the format of your choice and A/B it with the original CD recording. I'd be willing to guarantee you won't hear the difference. I did it, and actively TRIED to convince myself there was a difference. And out of sheer frustration I threw in the towel. The differences simply didn't exist. Or if they do, I cannot hear them. And while I have a decent case of tinnitus, my hearing is still excellent otherwise.

It is true objectively. CDs are wav files, a lossless format. If the bandwith from 20 to 20 khz is saturated with signal, even 256 VBR will miss something.

Subjectively, I won't argue with you. My point is simply that we already had a digital format that was lossless before MP3 came along. Pono should be evaluated in comparison to the CD standard. MP3 is known to be something of a compromise already. If I had unlimited disk space, I would rip my CDs to .wav or FLAC.

Pono is offering nothing new, except a distribution channel for Super High Res audio. But it has to be created that way at the source, and not many will bother.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Jerry_L

[mjzee]

I know you'll never stop this eternal search for 'the best possible sound'...we're wired as humans to improve things...but at times I'm reminded of that Buddhist thing of eternal rebirth. You never get out of the circle of wanting the next best thing.

I'm content with 'very good' sound (I can't tolerate distortion, flutter and wow, muddy remastering but after that...) and I get that off contemporary mp3s.

So I wish Neil would just reissue 'Time Fades Away' on mp3; then he can spend the next 20 years perfecting it for those for whom it matters.

FYI, Neil's releasing Time Fades Away on vinyl for Record Store Day - only available as a 4-LP set with On The Beach, Tonight's The Night, and Zuma. Not sure if this is available where you are.

http://pitchfork.com/news/54191-neil-young-reissuing-time-fades-away-for-the-first-time-on-record-store-day/

[JSngry]

God knows,I listen to so much crappy digital poor quality and enjoy the hell out of it, but I still believe that there is a fundamental difference in the brain processing a serious of samples than in a continuous analog stream, jsut as there is visually.

No, there is not. Once those samples are converted back into the analog domain, there is no difference if the sample rate is high enough. And for 99.9% of music, 44.1kHz is high enough. Just to re-iterate, that's 44,100 samples per second. The human brain is simply not capable of differentiating those individual samples. All higher sample rates do is raise the Nyquist limit to sample higher frequencies above human hearing. Whether this matters or not is subjective.

I remain as skeptical of accepting what the brain "can't do" as I am of what the brain "could do". It's like here, I have a brain, this is all I can measure it doing, so that's gotta be all it really is doing. Just as I don't want some trippo telling me my brain can make me grow wings to fly, I don't want no dullo telling me hey, this is all you can hear, so this all we're going to give you.

There's a really simple way to solve the issue of what you personally can or cannot hear. You can do an ABX test. There is software available that allows you to do it yourself. You can load a hi-res mp3 version of a piece of music and a 24/96kHz wav file of that same music and see if you can reliably hear the difference while not knowing which is which. If you get better than 50%, then congratulations!

http://theproaudiofiles.com/audio-perception-and-abx-testing/

Otherwise, without testing, you don't know.

Yeah, that's good for what it is, but, really, am I supposed to believe that there's no cumulative brain conditioning going on here as well, that just because for one - or several, or many tests, that I can't "tell the difference" for the duration, that I should then go through life letting myself think that "oh well, I can't hear any difference, must not be any"? Over years, doesn't that add up to something akin to sitting inside a really good planetarium or some such where they go through the day into the night etc etc etc for a couple of years, and then I walk outside, the real outside, and there's all this shit there and not there and I don't even bother to think that it might exist because I've taught myself to not even consider it, never mind look for it. Whether it actually exists or not is one issue, but whether or not you even want to consider that it - or something else - might be there outside of your grasp, or totally imaginary, whatever, that's another.

These progressions, there's always progressions...the one from "I can hear better than a dog" to "No you can't, it's impossible" to "here's your proof that you can't" to "why bother, nobody can hear the difference, and if they can it's just subjective" to "fuck them, they'll take what we give them" to "tahnk you master" to "fuck you slave, get back on it", hey, I've played those changes, those are the changes of Just The Way It Is, and I don't like them, no sir, I don't like them.

What is not being addressed here is that sound itself can be measured (and obviously has been), but "hearing" is just one part of "sound", just as "sound" is one part of "vibration". All the senses operate off of vibration, and as much as we can measure subjective reaction to isolated inputs, where are the people looking at collective cumulative processing of collective cumulative inputs? No, that's not a "practical" concern, and yes, it is likely to end up with a lot of "subjectivity" involved, but subjectivity is sometimes an awesomely beautiful thing (and sometimes is not).

So ok, where's the answer to this question - this test here, where's the people who have taken it over and over for, like 6-8 hours a day, every day for, like 5 years? Who has measure their results? Do they get better at discernment as time goes by and familiarity ensues? Or do they just bland out and put it all int he background, hey, mellow dawg, saul goode, or what, exactly? And what would that prove, the results of that test?

And not only that, but this- who would be cruel enough to administer it like that, and who would be crazy enough to take it?

Just remember - objectivity is part of a well-balanced hi-fi breakfast, it ain't the whole thing.

Kinda rushed for time right now, or I could make this even more blatherous. But my point remains - call me a coal porter, and don't fence me in.

[Daniel A]

CDs at a mere 44 kHz/16 bit already blow MP3s away.

It is true objectively. CDs are wav files, a lossless format. If the bandwith from 20 to 20 khz is saturated with signal, even 256 VBR will miss something.

Try an ABX test and tell us if you still think CD:s blow MP3:s away.

It's easy to compare any and every format with CD:s since they've been around for so long. But a recording may be technically inferior to a 16/44 wav and still be indistinguishable from that, depending on the material, compression rate, listener, listening conditions etc.

[paul secor]

I don't know about the technology involved, but I wonder how much of Neil's hearing is left after 45 years or so of playing concerts, etc.

[Scott Dolan]

CDs at a mere 44 kHz/16 bit already blow MP3s away.

It is true objectively. CDs are wav files, a lossless format. If the bandwith from 20 to 20 khz is saturated with signal, even 256 VBR will miss something.

Try an ABX test and tell us if you still think CD:s blow MP3:s away.

It's easy to compare any and every format with CD:s since they've been around for so long. But a recording may be technically inferior to a 16/44 wav and still be indistinguishable from that, depending on the material, compression rate, listener, listening conditions etc.

Amen, and pass the potatoes.

And as I said before, you don't even have to ABX. Just do a simple A/B test. IMO, a double blind isn't even necessary. I wanted to hear a difference, yet still didn't.

Compressed digital files, sampled at a higher rate, using a modern codec, will be indistinguishable from a CD. Period.

[A Lark Ascending]

I know you'll never stop this eternal search for 'the best possible sound'...we're wired as humans to improve things...but at times I'm reminded of that Buddhist thing of eternal rebirth. You never get out of the circle of wanting the next best thing.

I'm content with 'very good' sound (I can't tolerate distortion, flutter and wow, muddy remastering but after that...) and I get that off contemporary mp3s.

So I wish Neil would just reissue 'Time Fades Away' on mp3; then he can spend the next 20 years perfecting it for those for whom it matters.

FYI, Neil's releasing Time Fades Away on vinyl for Record Store Day - only available as a 4-LP set with On The Beach, Tonight's The Night, and Zuma. Not sure if this is available where you are.

http://pitchfork.com/news/54191-neil-young-reissuing-time-fades-away-for-the-first-time-on-record-store-day/

Thanks. But I get even more impatient with 'vinyl only' nonsense. Music turned into some sort of fetish for people who want to feel exclusive. I bought something on vinyl a few weeks back for the first time in 25 years. Glad to have the music but the format has no interest for me. Pain in the neck transferring into usable mp3s.

No issue with things coming out on vinyl - there's a demand for it and the market responds. But given that most people buy on CD or download (or stream), I can't see the point of locking it away in some elite cubbyhole. Grrr!