Neil Young Hates mp3's
- Thread starter mzpro5
- Start date
Kazaam
Well-Known Member
Neil Young is right about today's music often sounding terrible---lacking warmth, depth and high end. But I believe most of our problem isn't with the technology our music is played on, but rather the fault lies mostly in the recording/mastering/mixing.
Everyone knows MP3 is inferior. It throws out data. But I tell ya what: I'd rather have a high-bit rate MP3 (320kbps or even 256kbps) if it has been mastered decently than a horribly recorded and compressed physical CD. I've heard plenty of MP3s that sound practically hi-rez compared to many regular CDs. And perhaps many vinyl releases, too. Though I can't say definitively since I haven't listened to vinyl in 15 years.
That said... I applaud his desire to let the modern world know that sound can be better than what we're typically getting even if I believe he is somewhat off base.
Everyone knows MP3 is inferior. It throws out data. But I tell ya what: I'd rather have a high-bit rate MP3 (320kbps or even 256kbps) if it has been mastered decently than a horribly recorded and compressed physical CD. I've heard plenty of MP3s that sound practically hi-rez compared to many regular CDs. And perhaps many vinyl releases, too. Though I can't say definitively since I haven't listened to vinyl in 15 years.
That said... I applaud his desire to let the modern world know that sound can be better than what we're typically getting even if I believe he is somewhat off base.
Kazaam said:
I agree. One factor is the convenience. I love my iPod filled with 256kbps songs in my car - the quality far out strips satellite radio and I have choice other than the horrible commercial radio that is filling the airwaves.
And when working in the office or around the house it is background music and sounds fine.
But when I sit down to really listen it is CD's or SACD.
One thing that concerns me though is that the majority of the younger generation will never know what real quality sound is.
Inside the industry, the people who make the decisions on how to produce music and dtermine the general "sound" of music, they are making very specific decisions on that finished based on two primary driving factors ---
How does it sound on the overly dnamically compressed radio broadcasts?
How does it sound on the low bit rate MP3 and internet radio services AND crappy headphones?
If that is the target audience, then what we get is crap. If you want to have a top 40 hit, that's the market you have to cater to. It is so rare that top quality sounding recordings return a healthy income for everyone involved. It is a business, after all.
I've recently been in studios where the initial mix is astounding and everyone in the room is very impressed in what they hear over the $10,000 studio monitors in the acoustically perfect room. Then the engineer will run it through a realtime lossy compression engine as is used for internet radio, and everyone wil cringe in pain at the result. So, the mix is tweaked until a compromise between the perfect reproduction sound and the internet radio sound can be reached. Neither is ideal, but it is what it is.
One solution is to return to the days when multiple mixes are produced - one licenses solely for internet radio, another for online music stores with low bit rates, and a final for CD/LP and high bit rate online stores (sometimes a last mix for dance clubs). The problem with that approach, as has already been learned, is the inability to control where a version is broadcast or distributed. Since digital is so easy to send wherever and whenever, the owners of the content find it very difficult to control where it gets played in the standard distribution model.
How does it sound on the overly dnamically compressed radio broadcasts?
How does it sound on the low bit rate MP3 and internet radio services AND crappy headphones?
If that is the target audience, then what we get is crap. If you want to have a top 40 hit, that's the market you have to cater to. It is so rare that top quality sounding recordings return a healthy income for everyone involved. It is a business, after all.
I've recently been in studios where the initial mix is astounding and everyone in the room is very impressed in what they hear over the $10,000 studio monitors in the acoustically perfect room. Then the engineer will run it through a realtime lossy compression engine as is used for internet radio, and everyone wil cringe in pain at the result. So, the mix is tweaked until a compromise between the perfect reproduction sound and the internet radio sound can be reached. Neither is ideal, but it is what it is.
One solution is to return to the days when multiple mixes are produced - one licenses solely for internet radio, another for online music stores with low bit rates, and a final for CD/LP and high bit rate online stores (sometimes a last mix for dance clubs). The problem with that approach, as has already been learned, is the inability to control where a version is broadcast or distributed. Since digital is so easy to send wherever and whenever, the owners of the content find it very difficult to control where it gets played in the standard distribution model.
Do the math.
Full stereo wave files at 16bit / 44.1kHz runs at 1.41Mbps. Historically, many MP3's are sold at 96Kbps and some are 128Kbps. Those two instances have 6.8% and 9.0% (respectively) of the original remaining.
His claim of 1/5th (20%) would be a data rate of 282Kbps, which most of us think is pretty high end for lossy compression.
Full stereo wave files at 16bit / 44.1kHz runs at 1.41Mbps. Historically, many MP3's are sold at 96Kbps and some are 128Kbps. Those two instances have 6.8% and 9.0% (respectively) of the original remaining.
His claim of 1/5th (20%) would be a data rate of 282Kbps, which most of us think is pretty high end for lossy compression.
Kazaam
Well-Known Member
Indeed, I think his choice is vinyl these days.
And he probably always preferred vinyl, even back in the early 2000s, I suspect. Though, I do recall an article in S&V from about 10 years ago where Neil Young thought DVD-Audio was the bees knees, and he liked it better than SACD soundwise. (Magic ears? Or just the fact that DVD-A was easier to work with and it was what his record company was using, I don't know.)
And he probably always preferred vinyl, even back in the early 2000s, I suspect. Though, I do recall an article in S&V from about 10 years ago where Neil Young thought DVD-Audio was the bees knees, and he liked it better than SACD soundwise. (Magic ears? Or just the fact that DVD-A was easier to work with and it was what his record company was using, I don't know.)
Kazaam
Well-Known Member
koufax65 said:
There was a train show at a nearby mall a couple of months ago. Some of these guys have really cool setups. For instance, somebody had a disguised a 7-inch LCD TV (or was it a tablet?) as a drive-in movie theater. And he had models of people moving about (said something about 'microwaves' underneath the table to get it to work; but I suspect it must've been similar to when putting magnets underneath the table??? Though, perhaps more reliable? Oh... and I always appreciate when they have model buildings of restaurants such as Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCNrs23r4DA[/youtube]
Ogden, Utard has a strong model train heritage; a very famous (I'm told) hobby shop called "Almosta Junction" is here, a few other train shops too. The old train depot at the end of Historic 25th street is now a modern art museum, restaurant, old car museum (my Mom was amazed by this room), Browning firearm museum (very cool!) but best of all has a model train, behind glass, running through half the building.
If I ever have a GTG this will be an afternoon visit. :handgestures-thumbup:
If I ever have a GTG this will be an afternoon visit. :handgestures-thumbup:
