neil young, audiophile

[Daniel A]

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

This is not the case, since there are people that really can hear the difference, even at 320 kbps. They are just not in majority, and it all depends on the conditions.

MP3 is a lossy format, so there has to be a lossless source to begin with (unless the files are compiled on the fly by the recording device). But there's room for many different formats. If you want to use MP3:s chances are you'll find a compression rate that's good enough for you.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Daniel A

[Jim Alfredson]

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.

Goodness. I can't imagine.

If you cannot hear a difference, then what does it matter if there is one or not? Just enjoy the music. It's not like the RedBook CD format was some kind of subversive plot by a secret cadre of engineers and the mp3 is their latest foil against human harmony. Don't start going all 432Hz on me, now.

[sidewinder]

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!

Vinyl is only worth worrying about if you have the playback kit to do it justice. In which case, it can be superlative. Otherwise stick to CDs or MP3s.

[A Lark Ascending]

Vinyl is only worth worrying about if you have the playback kit to do it justice. In which case, it can be superlative. Otherwise stick to CDs or MP3s.

No doubt. Which makes it a niche market. Why produce material only for that niche market?

Of course I know the answer - it's a marketing strategy like all the other special edition, ultra-hi-fi remasters etc releases.

Just wish they'd put out bog-standard versions; those who seek sonic perfection will buy the premium product anyway.

[sidewinder]

Vinyl is only worth worrying about if you have the playback kit to do it justice. In which case, it can be superlative. Otherwise stick to CDs or MP3s.

No doubt. Which makes it a niche market. Why produce material only for that niche market?

I don't see it as a solely 'niche' market at all. It's an alternative medium for those that want it and can get the benefit of it. I can think of very few sessions that have been released just 'vinyl only' of late (Gearbox Records excluded, perhaps). For Blue Note for example you now have the choice of Music Matters (45rpm vinyl, work-out freaks), ordinary vinyl (Scorpio, Heavenly Sweetness etc), those Japanese super high res CDs, ordinary CDs or MP3s. I don't think we've ever had it better, to be honest. Certainly beats the old days of the 'no effect on pound in your pocket' and choice of warped/recycled vinyl or nothing. Usually nothing..

Edited March 15, 2014 by sidewinder

[A Lark Ascending]

You are right. We're not talking masses of exclusive releases. And we have never had it so good in terms of availability and choice of format.

Just irritating when you have to buy into one of these premium formats to hear something you want to hear.

Can't think of any sensible explanation for putting out an otherwise unavailable recording ('Time Fades Away') in an LP only release as part of a set with 3 readily available recordings other than: a) a desire to produce something exclusive for those who like to own exclusive things; b) Neil's legendary bloody-mindedness.

I'll wait. It's probably not that great a record anyway!

[sidewinder]

Yes, that is a fair point. Exclusively on vinyl seems daft !

[GregK]

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.

Not much. He developed some loss of hearing during the Weld tour in 1991. Not surprising, since that was Crazy Horse's loudest and most intense music

[Scott Dolan]

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

This is not the case, since there are people that really can hear the difference, even at 320 kbps. They are just not in majority, and it all depends on the conditions.

Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

The people that claim they can hear the difference are also the same people who think the ABX test is a sin against god.

If I ever see a definitive and conclusive ABX of these mythical golden ear types, then I'll believe it. Until then, I'm calling bullshit.

[Scott Dolan]

Vinyl is only worth worrying about if you have the playback kit to do it justice. In which case, it can be superlative. Otherwise stick to CDs or MP3s.

CD's are not inferior to vinyl no matter what kind of system you're listening to. That's simply some nonsense that audiophiles who want everyone to think are on the cutting edge of sonic reproduction want others to think.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

Might as well make the argument that VCR is only worth worrying about if you have a superior CRT television to play it back on.

Vinyl, like tubes, sounds different to digital. But, good system, or bad, it really doesn't matter which format you're using. It's strictly personal preference.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[sidewinder]

Vinyl is only worth worrying about if you have the playback kit to do it justice. In which case, it can be superlative. Otherwise stick to CDs or MP3s.

CD's are not inferior to vinyl no matter what kind of system you're listening to. That's simply some nonsense that audiophiles who want everyone to think are on the cutting edge of sonic reproduction want others to think.

I said nothing about CDs being inferior to vinyl. Read carefully.

[Scott Dolan]

No, it was implied when you stated if you don't have some awesome system for playing back vinyl, then stick with CD's and MP3's.

If you have a lesser system, the music won't sound that great. If you have a superior system, the music will sound great. The source is irrelevent.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[mjzee]

Can't think of any sensible explanation for putting out an otherwise unavailable recording ('Time Fades Away') in an LP only release as part of a set with 3 readily available recordings other than: a) a desire to produce something exclusive for those who like to own exclusive things; b) Neil's legendary bloody-mindedness.

I'll wait. It's probably not that great a record anyway!

The reason it hasn't come out to date is that it's Neil's least favorite record. I like it, though it's a mess. It's interesting as much as a psychodrama as for the music. Neil's doing too much drugs, he fires his friend Danny Whitten on the eve of a huge, high-profile tour, Danny then dies by his own hand, and Neil has to go out and face huge audiences expecting to hear Harvest. The record is an incredible document of those encounters.

As for the format in which it's being re-released, it's been noted since the '70's that those 4 records are "of a piece" - call it The Danny Crronicles (I know, I know, Bruce Berry too). It's the journey of a man going through hell, and emerging the other side.

As for why now, and in this format, it's for Record Store Day. it's good to support the survival of record stores.

[Daniel A]

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

This is not the case, since there are people that really can hear the difference, even at 320 kbps. They are just not in majority, and it all depends on the conditions. Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

The people that claim they can hear the difference are also the same people who think the ABX test is a sin against god.

If I ever see a definitive and conclusive ABX of these mythical golden ear types, then I'll believe it. Until then, I'm calling bullshit.

Well, visit the Hydrogen Audio forums and see for yourself. ABX tests are the only accepted method of evaluating the development of the LAME MP3 encoder.

Maybe we're talking about different things. Since Jerry was talking about MP3:s, I had the highest possible bitrate, 320 kbps, of standard 16 bit MP3:s in mind.

There are known "problematic" samples that are often used in the developing process. If some people couldn't hear the difference, further development of psychoacoustical codecs wouldn't be possible.

[Scott Dolan]

I visit HA all the time. I've never seen a 256 VBR AAC vs CD ABX. The only ABX tests I've seen are between different compressed formats. If you can link me to the appropriate test, I would greatly appreciate it.

I do find it somewhat confusing that earlier you said VBR averaging 256 was your cutoff point (and that sentiment is echoed far and wide amongst fair-minded audio entusiasts, including myself), then Jerry said cd blows MP3 away to which you took minor issue with, and now you seem to be saying exactly the opposite.

Some people claim they hear a difference between cd and FLAC/ALAC/AIFF as well. I take what people say they can hear with a grain of salt.

As for your closing line, advances in codecs are made using scientific research. It's not based on what people do and do not hear anecdotally.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Scott Dolan

[Daniel A]

One possible point of confusion is that I've been talking about MP3 and you're talking about AAC.

I don't think that CD "blows MP3 away", but ABX tests show that some people are able to hear the difference on some samples. MP3:s will always be about a size-quality tradeoff. For me there's no point of going past 256 kbps VBR. Others may have a different cut off point.

Those dismissing MP3:s as inferior often do not seem to have performed ABX tests, and it's my opinion that the format is better than they think. But as long as someone still is able to hear the difference at a given bitrate, you can't say that it will be "indistinguishable - period."

[Daniel A]

As for your closing line, advances in codecs are made using scientific research. It's not based on what people do and do not hear anecdotally.

Listening tests are the only way to verfy that a certain psychoacoustical codec is producing a result that sounds the same as the uncompressed source. I was not referring to anectdotal information.

[Scott Dolan]

OK, I guess that's fair enough. I'd still like to see those ABX tests if you can direct me to them.

As for MP3 vs AAC, I have to be perfectly honest and again say I can't find any appreciable differences between them, either. Now, I know AAC "leaves more detail in", but just this past week I compared a 240 VBR MP3 (Sympathy For The Devil - Rolling Stones) that I had downloaded from Emusic to its 256 VBR AAC counterpart from iTunes and after about 20 minutes of desperately trying to find a difference, I gave up. I did this both through loudspeakers, and headphones.

So even the MP3 vs AAC argument at higher bit rates seems rather dubious to me, even if I do defer to the fact that they are "different".

Either way, I've enjoyed the conversation. It never hurts to have food for thought, or being forced to do even more homework.

At the end of the day, I'd say you and I are pretty much on the same wavelength.

[Daniel A]

At the end of the day, I'd say you and I are pretty much on the same wavelength.

With a few reservations, I'd say yes.

[Scott Dolan]

I'd say those reservations are both minor, AND likely due to the limits in communication the internet straps us with.

If we were sitting in a bar face to face we'd have them ironed out in a matter of minutes.

And if we didn't, we could step outside and settle it like men! With a knockdown drag out round of rock/paper/scissors!

[Daniel A]

If we were sitting in a bar face to face we'd have them ironed out in a matter of minutes.

A bar that would probably have one of Neil Young's worst albums cranked up loud on their PA system.

[Daniel A]

Returning to Neil Young, Pono has passed 3.5 million dollars on Kickstarter with 30 days to go. You can even get a special Herbie Hancock edition of the hardware!

[Scott Dolan]

If we were sitting in a bar face to face we'd have them ironed out in a matter of minutes.

A bar that would probably have one of Neil Young's worst albums cranked up loud on their PA system.

Well, if we weren't able to settle our differences at said bar, we only have one option left.

Find a better bar!

BTW, did you catch the thread on HA about all of this?

It wasn't particularly kind...

[Jim Alfredson]

As for your closing line, advances in codecs are made using scientific research. It's not based on what people do and do not hear anecdotally.

Listening tests are the only way to verfy that a certain psychoacoustical codec is producing a result that sounds the same as the uncompressed source. I was not referring to anectdotal information.

I would think the best way to do that is to do a null test on the compressed audio and the uncompressed audio.

[Daniel A]

As for your closing line, advances in codecs are made using scientific research. It's not based on what people do and do not hear anecdotally.

Listening tests are the only way to verfy that a certain psychoacoustical codec is producing a result that sounds the same as the uncompressed source. I was not referring to anectdotal information.

I would think the best way to do that is to do a null test on the compressed audio and the uncompressed audio.

I'm no expert, but I believe a null test would indicate differences that are not audible when listening to the original compressed signal, since psychoacoustical compression algorithms are relying on masking effects. The purpose is to discard acoustical information that isn't perceptible for humans.

Obviously, this doesn't work when the compression gets too heavy, but when one (hopefully) has reached the level where the compressed signal is indistinguishable from the original, a null signal test would probably show a difference anyway.