Originally Posted by cnocbui
So how was Neil going to do this. does he have an electrical engineering degree with expertise in signal processing?
Haven't seen much of his efforts at producing a viable electric car.http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=71135
As for 24/192 files. If anyone knows of double blind listening tests that clearly show people can hear the difference between them and 16/44.1, please post a link.
I am still waiting for someone to show they can hear the difference between 223kbps AAC and the original source, let alone higher resolution originals.
Mostly agreed. I bought a standalone CD-R some years ago that's capable of 96/24. I was very excited about both live recording and copying LPs in 96/24. Could not perceive any difference whatsoever.
Furthermore, I make CD copies of old vinyl albums for broadcast use when the vinyl is not available on CD. In spite of all the vinyl lovers who hate digital audio, no one can ever tell the difference between the vinyl playing back and the CD copy of the vinyl playing back, so if 44.1/16 bit red book digital recordidng is screwing up the original analog recording, no one can tell.
In addition, I frequently think when I hear a CD remastering of an LP that I had owned that the CD sounds inferior. Then I go back and listen to the LP. 98% of the time, it sounds worse, usually far worse. I think what many people are actually comparing is their hearing when they were young and listening to LPs with their hearing now listening to CDs or downloads.
However, I do agree that compressed MP3 is not very good. But it is good enough for most people. Remember that even during the LP age, while there were hi-fi buffs who listened to LPs on quality sound systems, the masses listenend on junk and treated their records like crap.
The biggest problem with today's recordings is not that they're digital and not that most people listen on compressed MP3. The biggest problem is that because everyone wants their recording to be "the loudest", the recording is compressed as hell with no dynamic range. Digital recordings have a theoretical dynamic range of 96db and LPs had a theoretical dynamic range of about 35db and most recordings today have a dynamic range of only 10-15db. They're also mastered with the meter "slammed" so that there's ridiculous levels of digital distortion which, unlike harmonic distortion, is really annoying to the ear. Clean that up and all recordings, file compressed or not, will sound better.
But having said all that, I doubt very much that Neil Young was seriously working with Jobs on a higher quality format (unless that was Apple "uncompressed"). Maybe he spoke to Steve about it and Steve was "polite". For years, Apple has placed precedence on convenience over quality and with all their success, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Apple's lack of support for Blu-ray is another indication of that. As for Young, MP3 quality is certainly less than optimal, but it's most certainly NOT only 5% of what's heard in the recording studio. And as with almost every musician I've ever met, he almost definitely has severe hearing loss due to a lifetime of touring so I can't believe that he can tell the difference regardless of his claims.
In addition, the market has rejected every attempt at producing higher quality audio. SACD and DVD-Audio were market failures. Except in recording studios, no one was interested in 96/24 or higher resolutions. Except for enthusiasts, BD-Audio has gotten a big yawn. While LP sales increased 33% last year, it's still less than 2% of the market.
And I say all that as an ex-recording engineer who loves high-quality sound and still has 400 LPs and 500 CDs in my living room played back through a large sound system.