Neil Young was working with Apple on super high-def music format

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post


    It amazes me how people clamour for HDTV and 3DTV whilst happily listening to the enfeebled noise Mp3 or other lossy/data reduction algorithms deliver.



    Many people listen to music as background noise while doing other things. Often, it is in noisy environments where the extra quality would be drowned out anyhow.



    But, when watching a movie or TV show, people are more likely to have most of their attention focused on the movie or TV, so having higher quality there makes sense.
  • Reply 62 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    Which other system do you mean? If somebody buys something on iTunes, they own it for life too, and it can be played on any of the machines that the person owns.



    Yes but you can't transfer it to your Sony player - it's legal as long as it's only on an Apple system. So in essence Apple owns the song - not you.
  • Reply 63 of 138
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Enjoy trying to transfer your digital file to another system - you're breaking the law.



    A physical CD is mine. I can do whatever the hell I want with it, play it in any player I want, legally sell it to someone else etc. etc.



    Convenience and lethargy will be the death of us all.



    You are incorrect. Apple explicitly states that you can burn a CD from iTunes songs that you have purchased. Once it's a CD, you can legally play it on any CD player you wish.
  • Reply 64 of 138
    Yes!! I have been waiting for this forever!!!! Forget .mp3 we need Neil Young Format .NYF
  • Reply 65 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You are incorrect. Apple explicitly states that you can burn a CD from iTunes songs that you have purchased. Once it's a CD, you can legally play it on any CD player you wish.



    iTunes will let you export from AAC to MP3 or WAV?



    I thought only certain songs don't have DRM on them - most songs have to be played in iTunes.
  • Reply 66 of 138
    I was approached about this (apparently after Neil's group parted

    ways with Apple; we discussed FLAC which would have be anathema to

    Apple). I do not know why they were no longer working with Apple, but

    my impression was that they understood that 24/192 was nonsensical.

    I called it snake oil to its face, and they agreed though perhaps not

    enthusiastically.



    24/192 will actually sound worse than 16/44.1 or 16/48, and the problem

    isn't theoretical.



    No audio driver can reproduce up to 192kHz without distortion. If the

    same transducer is attempting to reproduce any content in the audible

    range (which actually ends well below 20kHz), you end up with

    intermodulation distortion, which shifts the ultrasonic content down

    into the audible range in an uncontrolled way as a spray/smear of

    nasty distortion products.



    You can't and won't have ultrasonic intermodulation distortion in the

    audible band if there's no ultrasonic content.



    So this is a case where 'more' is going to be worse. You will always

    be damaging the quality of the audible portion of playback by

    simultaneously trying to reproduce content that isn't audible anyway.



    Thus, 24/192 playback is not only bull, it's inferior bull.

    it should never be part of audio outside a purely virtual DSP chain.



    Here's a fun bit of homework: Go get your self a SAC or HDDVD or

    anything else that offers 88 or 96 or 192 playback, rip it, and look at

    the actual digital audio content on that disc: It ends below 20kHz.

    All that extra sampling rate holds no information. 192kHz sampling

    was only ever used because older ADC/DACs were synchronous and

    antialiasing filters work better with a wide transition band. Modern

    DACs are asynchronous and can have a wide transition band even if

    the input is low-rate. 44.1 and 48 are thus the best rates to use today.

    All the benefits 192kHz delivered on the more primitive/limited equipment

    of 20-ish years ago, none of the drawbacks, and no wasted space.



    Anyway...



    Headphones were also touched upon (if you want better

    fidelity, ship better headphones), as was 16 vs 24 bit.

    I wholeheartedly supported the idea of a lossless encoding.



    They asked me if I could walk into a studio with a 16/44.1 (or 48)

    playback device and demonstrate to the best ears in the industry that

    it sounded every bit as good as 24/192. I said yes, tell me where and

    when, but I've not heard back since. No idea if that was the reason :-)



    Cheers,

    Monty

    Xiph.Org
  • Reply 67 of 138
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Yes but you can't transfer it to your Sony player - it's legal as long as it's only on an Apple system. So in essence Apple owns the song - not you.



    I see what you mean, but songs from iTunes are now free of DRM, so somebody can technically play it on whatever they want or transfer it to wherever they want, even if it technically might be a violation of some agreement. You mentioned "illegal", but I wouldn't have any second thoughts about doing whatever I wanted to music which I have purchased and paid for.
  • Reply 68 of 138
    It would certinaly not take that long on a regular high-speed connection. I have purchased a number of 24/192 albums. On a cable modem, it can take 15-20 minutes for an entire album. A lot of high-def music is 24/96.



    A full album is roughly 2Gb and 24/192, and 1Gb at 24/96.
  • Reply 69 of 138
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mkral View Post


    I'm not sure that this is true. Steve Jobs was a person with highly unique qualities. I do think it's an overstatement to say that innovation at Apple is dead. I don't think it's an overstatement to express concern that this may happen. I can't hink of any other CEO that has had the impact that Steve had over so many different industries. It's possible that he was able to create an environment where this will continue on, but it's also a distinct possiblity that it won't. I don't see too many higher ups at Apple that have gone on to revolutionize industries in the way Steve's team at Apple did. Time will tell, of course, but I don't think it's crazy to wonder if Apple has the structure in place to continue on as they have in the past.



    I appreciate your approach rather than the automatic pronouncement of doom based on the missing Jobs factor.



    Trying to stay on topic here, the question is whether Apple will push audio resolution as an innovation in the industry the way they have with photography, including video. They are apparently not going to hold back on visual resolution -- we'll see with the next iPad -- and will be bringing out something that is insanely great just for the sake of pushing the desirability and usefulness factors.



    This is the main "invention" that they have brought to technology: aesthetics, desirability, must-have usefulness. These factors were introduced by some of Steve's favorite predecessors, like BMW bikes, Leicas, and early Sony, but it was he who saw this as the absolute basic requirement for any new product. Since the first iMac and Ive, they've made nothing but delightful stuff, after a period without Jobs when Apple was in its beige box phase.



    This is the genie that everybody knows is out of the bottle, at Apple anyway: maximize delight and usability. To look at it another way, any way that you can amplify people's senses and intellect, do it. Steve created a permanent revolution. The world won't tolerate ugly, beige and clunky once they've held a high-res iPad in their hands. (Well, the sane world anyway. The haters seem to be allergic to aesthetics.)



    I'd say it's inevitable that high-resolution digital audio is in the future, from Apple or someone learning the established aesthetics of Apple. The Nest wall thermostat and J.C. Penny, believe it or not, are just the beginning of the aesthetic revolution. Neil Young is saying let's push audio on that basis. This could be part of the Apple effect. Someone who knows Neil, ask him.



    Edit: looking at some of the previous posts, for example xiphmont, it reminds me that I know next to nothing about audio, so all this pontificating about Apple's aesthetic mission may be way to one side of this thread. As far as any product is concerned, I can't see any company coming up with or using a standard that would please most audio people. The crankiest bunch of gear heads I've ever encountered. : ) Not you on that crank factor so much, xiphmont, I enjoyed that post.
  • Reply 70 of 138
    Actually it's easy to hear the difference between mp3s and higher quality audio files with modest equipment if you listen carefully. Some folks care about "sound" quality of the music and not just music itself. For me "good" sound quality helps me to be more engaged in the music. My wife could care less. She's just interested music itself. This is neither good or bad, just different approaches to "listening" to music.



    In fact I can hear the sound quality difference in my Ford factory car stereo between XMRadio, MP3 files, and apple lossless files. XMRadio has the lowest sound qaulity. I would described the sound as an unnatural "plastic" sound. MP3s and apple lossless files played through my ipod touch via the usb port both sound better than XMRadio and the apple lossless files sound the best. Do I notice on the highway? Not as much as I'm more focused on the road, but I do notice when I'm waiting for my kids. The XMRadio sound will drive me crazy.



    If there's no perceptible difference in sound quality than why do recording companies and artists spend any money any recording equipment that's better than a 16bit/44khz. You can buy a Tascam DP-008 Digital 8-Track Recorder for a $200. What more do you need?



    Getting "better" sounding quality music doesn't have to break the bank either. You can use your beloved mac to "power" it.



    On the "low" end for $350 you can get the HRT Streamer II and a pair of Audio Engine A2 speakers. This will improve the sound quality of any mp3/aac/flac file played through your Mac with iTunes. I don't use any fancy cables, but you might want to experiment with the USB cable from the mac to the DAC.



    On the "high" end for $750 you can move up to the HRT Streamer II+ and a pair of Audio Engine A5 speakers. And if you want to listen to the Hi-Res files you can use Songbird (no charge) and buy those Hi-Res music files from HDTracks, Linn Records or subscribe to B & W Society of Sound (I'm sure there are other sites I don't know about).



    I have this set up running on a 3 year old MacBook Pro and I think the "sound" is quite engaging. Good transients, sound stage spcing, music pacing, air around the instruments, etc. The sound is especially good with Hi-Res audio 24bit/96khz (I haven't tried 24bit/192khz), and I think the sound is pretty darn good with mp3s bought from the iTunes store, Amazon, or eMusic and with apple lossless files I create from my CDs. Much better than I would've imagined they could be.



    I'm sure there are other USB DACs and powered speaker combinations that sound great are in the same general price range.



    No need to wait for Neil or Apple to get better sound today.
  • Reply 71 of 138
    bigmikebigmike Posts: 266member
    Well in digital format, more bits means better and more solid low end, which lets one "feel" the music more (I've been told I'm a bit of an audiophile). But, true, one has to use good quality speakers or headphones that can reproduce the audio spectrum properly.



    For most people, the existing common digital formats are fine. So, basically, this whole idea of higher resolutions would apply more to audiophiles.



    On another note (which most people don't think about), some upcoming solar flares are supposed to be strong enough that there's a good possibility of many of our electrical grids being wiped out. Aside from those using complete solar power systems, how are we going to live without electricity?... For music, maybe we can hand-crank an old vinyl record player! Haha
  • Reply 72 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ElectroTech View Post


    Most Canadians have triple digit IQ's but not this man. I am embarrassed to be Canadian after hearing his ignorant ramblings. He obviously doesn't understand the relationship between frequency response, sampling rate and encoding bit depth. He seems to be stuck on the file size as his main yardstick.



    There is a market for very large file music and that market has an IQ inversely proportional to their preferred file size and the thickness of their wallet.



    (Full disclosure: I'm also Canadian, but never measured my IQ.)



    Like Mr. Young, CD or MP3-quality audio makes me edgy and physically uncomfortable. Do I have the neurological, biological and technological savvy to be able to convincingly explain it? No, but the problem is still there. Analogue and high-def audio just simply sound better to my ears.



    My guess is that Mr. Young likely chose file size as the largest barrier in that conversation; I haven't heard him focus on it before but neither has he discussed Apple directly. Perhaps file size IS the problem for Apple, as it could notionally conflict with their push for iCloud, who knows.



    But Mr. Young is rightly frustrated that music isn't readily available in the quality it should be. He can hear the difference, I can, and many other music-lovers do too.



    Studios have recorded at least in 24/96 for 10 years (though not many engineers properly mix for it). A venue such as iTunes would help open things up.
  • Reply 73 of 138
    ch2coch2co Posts: 41member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    Digital music isn't destroying sound fidelity, the loudness war is.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war



    Most "remasters" just punch the volume up to such an extreme that you lose any variation in the sound quality.



    The worst thing about "punching up the volume" is that it causes the signal to go into clipping, introducing horrendous sonic artifacts that are even heard in, MP3's, Clipping is the scourge of many re-releases. Its no wonder that even old worn out vinyl sounds better than the CD.
  • Reply 74 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MandoKat View Post


    and buy those Hi-Res music files from HDTracks, Linn Records or subscribe to B & W Society of Sound (I'm sure there are other sites I don't know about).



    B&W Society of Sound is only 24/48. (Too bad, I like their choice of musicians.)



    There's a few other high-res music websites you may want to check out.



    A French site (with a fair number of artists exclusive to them) and a rapidly growing hi-res collection:

    http://www.qobuz.com/qualite/Studio-...-ecoute-albums



    For classical (up to 24/88) a Canadian site:

    http://www.analekta.com/en



    And this Dutch site, which has had a couple of exclusives as well:

    http://www.gubemusic.com



    Except for some localized promotions, I've had no trouble purchasing from them outside the country of origin.
  • Reply 75 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xiphmont View Post


    They asked me if I could walk into a studio with a 16/44.1 (or 48)

    playback device and demonstrate to the best ears in the industry that

    it sounded every bit as good as 24/192. I said yes, tell me where and

    when, but I've not heard back since. No idea if that was the reason :-)



    Cheers,

    Monty

    Xiph.Org



    Thanks for the informative and interesting post. It's posts like this that keep me coming back to AI despite having to wade through a sea of trolls. *cough* slappy
  • Reply 76 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    I agree. But audiophiles will always think that can hear something that the human ear cannot detect; well at least the difference between one recording and the next.



    It's the same people who think super expensive vodka is better than a $10 bottle.



    I think that the vodka experts are probably able to demonstrate, using proper blind testing methodology, that different vodkas taste different. Not better, which can't be assessed objectively, but different. When it comes to audio reproduction, it is easily possible when listening to different loudspeakers to determine that different speakers sound different. But here again it is not possible to objectively determine that one sounds better than another except when there is strong, nearly unanimous opinion among different people. And when it comes to digital recording formats, it is impossible for anyone to hear any difference between formats that use perceptual encoding (lossy encoding) and lossless encoding, as long as the bit rate used with perceptual encoding is adequately high. The ONLY question that is at all worth debating is what exactly constitutes "adequately high", but proper testing in controlled environments confirms that the popular bit rates are either indistinguishable from the original or else so close that only under very ideal circumstances and with particular types of audio recordings is the difference audible.



    Neil Young is lucky to even have any hearing left, and given his obvious preference for music that sounds grungy, he is probably one of the last people on earth to have anything informed to add to this topic.



    One of the great ironies about what happened with vinyl after the introduction of the CD, is that long, long before the CD arrived, it was common knowledge that vinyl was inherently inferior to magnetic tape. Serious audiophiles had abandoned vinyl a couple of decades earlier. They had adopted reel-to-reel tape machines and had collections of tape reels. When "audiophile vinyl" arrived in the '70s, they all knew that it was just hype. You still had the limited dynamic range, the popping and scratching, and the various forms of distortion that were inherent. Bass has to be reduced to a barely perceptible level before the signal can be represented in that groove cut into the vinyl, and then has to be boosted upon playback. By analogy to photography, it would be like taking a slide and chemically process it to remove all but a small, miniscule amount of red, and then trying to restore the red by boosting it when displayed on a video display. The process is fundamentally flawed, and for a reason that is all too obvious. Yet, to this day, there are people who insist that vinyl is superior and that standard CD is flawed. Even after the higher resolution digital formats failed to catch on because no one could hear the difference, there are still people who insist that CD is flawed and that vinyl is superior. If that were true, then people would be able to hear the difference between CD and the higher resolution formats, but notwithstanding lies told by the editor of Stereophile magazine, the serious studies undertaken to answer this question concluded definitely that no one could hear any difference. When it comes to the claims that people make with digital compression, among the claims that people make as often as any of the other claims, is that they can hear the difference between uncompressed digital formats and lossless digital formats. Yes, people do claim this, even though it is manifest that there cannot possibly be any difference, because at the point of digital to analog conversion, the digital bit stream is identical in the two cases. Yet, people claim that they can hear a difference.
  • Reply 77 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenJammin54 View Post


    While I agree there is some quality lost in most of our digital music, I find it really hard to believe we're only hearing "5%". Really? Is he just making up numbers?



    Off and on over the years I have been a fan of Neil Young. Mostly early Neil Young, e.g, Cinnamon Girl, Cowgirl in the Sand, etc.



    But let's get real. Aside from music and his particular type of music, Neil Young does not know one damned thing about anything. In fact, he is the epitome of the artist who for reasons that only serve to demonstrate their lack of general intelligence, presume that their knowledge extends beyond their one specific artistic field. I seem to recall that Neil Young did not even finish high school. That did not prevent him from become very skilled at playing guitar and writing tunes for the guitar and singing in a peculiar falsetto. But none of that says anything at all about any abilities beyond those. He does not understand diddly squat about any of the other subjects about which he presumes himself to have special knowledge.
  • Reply 78 of 138
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,482member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woodlink View Post


    Consumers could care less about 24/192.



    As long as there is enough bass to make your ears bleed, the masses will be okie dokie.



    Sad, but a reality.



    I mean come on, CD's were a quantum leap over vinyl and cassettes and then Napster and iTunes started what I call the "compression era". We haven't progressed since.



    I long for the days when details could still be heard in recordings.



    CDs started the compression era. Apple Lossless encode of a CD is a lossless encode of a lossy source. SACD is almost dead in the US but struggles on. I import.



    www.sa-cd.net
  • Reply 79 of 138
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post


    Do you also think movies in DD5.1 sound as good as those in DTS-HD?



    I don't watch much TV or movies and have never gone beyond 2.1 stereo so I have no idea what those are. I do have a nice 2.1 system though.



    However, if you don't believe me, I have done two experiments.



    In the first, I recorded the output - via a dock - of my ipod playing a rip of a CD track. I then recorded the output of my CD player playing the original track. I then spliced sections from both recordings into a seamless whole. When played back, no one has been able to distinguish between the sections. I can upload the file if you like and you can have a listen.



    I have done the same with 223 kbps AAC and the source. Interleaved splices of both to create a whole. That one is already uploaded. https://rapidshare.com/files/3023221...3AAC_short.rar



    So far, no one has been able to tell me where the splice points are
  • Reply 80 of 138
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


    I don't watch much TV or movies and have never gone beyond 2.1 stereo so I have no idea what those are. I do have a nice 2.1 system though.



    However, if you don't believe me, I have done two experiments.



    In the first, I recorded the output - via a dock - of my ipod playing a rip of a CD track. I then recorded the output of my CD player playing the original track. I then spliced sections from both recordings into a seamless whole. When played back, no one has been able to distinguish between the sections. I can upload the file if you like and you can have a listen.



    I have done the same with 223 kbps AAC and the source. Interleaved splices of both to create a whole. That one is already uploaded. https://rapidshare.com/files/3023221...3AAC_short.rar



    So far, no one has been able to tell me where the splice points are



    I vaguely remember us having this exact argument months, years? ago
Sign In or Register to comment.