Well "MagnusVonMagnum", in your haste to compose such a finely written retort, you didn't take the time to even attempt to understand my main point.
You "main point" STILL seems to contain the notion that the audio FORMAT is the problem when the RECORDINGS are the actual problem, namely the final mastering in most cases. You don't have to believe me, an electronic engineer with two degrees that is also a musician as a hobby. Go ask any career mastering engineer worth his salt and they will tell you that they are forced by the industry to make LOUD recordings (i.e. compress the hell out of the signal) and optimize for the least common denominator (i.e. cheap radios, earbuds and car speakers). Not every label and every recording is terrible sounding, but it's hard to find albums made in the past 20 years that aren't at least compressed sounding (i.e. little to no dynamic range).
Given the number of bits in audio is DIRECTLY correlated to dynamic range, demanding 24-bit audio when most music doesn't even contain anywhere NEAR 12-bits (approximate equivalent dynamic range of the vinyl LP) of dynamic range is downright SILLY (notice how I didn't have to insult anyone to make that point either).
The sample rate is directly correlated to frequency response. No human being can hear much over 20kHz even at birth (possibly 21-22kHz absolute maximum and that degrades over time). Most people over 40 can't hear above 15kHz (I can hear 17 in one ear now and 15 in the other; fifteen years ago I could easily hear 19/20 respectively). LPs naturally start rolling off above 10-12kHz or so and also degrade over time as they are played with a needle repeatedly. In short, neither word length (bits) or sample rate are the reasons so much music sounds poorly recorded. Go listen to something like Amused To Death by Roger Waters and you'll find CDs can sound perfectly fine (and I have his newer 24/96 remaster and the original CD and the Mastersound version. All of them sound great, but the Mastersound version is my favorite, but I'd still take the original CD (only slightly different anyway) over the new remaster because the song changes made in remastering on some of the songs aren't to my liking (e.g. Perfect Sense Part Part I and II).
One of the reasons people found CD sound "harsh" is that CDs do NOT roll off period within their bandwidth range and thus typically contain far more high-end treble than an LP recording. My active crossover for my ribbon speakers have a pot for that range and it's amazing the psychoacoustical effect it has to adjust it down with about a 6dB curve from 10-20kHz with people that think CDs sound awful. They shout with glee about how wonderful my Carver ribbons sound and they wish CDs sounded so awesome on their systems. Yeah, put one in the bank for toning DOWN high frequency response (I've had these speakers for over 20 years so obviously the difference is less noticeable to me now than then). That is recording dependent, of course. A mastering engineer who cannot HEAR above 14 or 15kHz probably should not be adjusting levels in that region and should have someone double check the final result to make sure there are no recording anomalies in that range that would annoy younger ears (electronic gear tends to put off signals sometimes that don't always sound pleasant in that range).
I am a big fan of Neil Young and had just finished reading his biography yesterday when I stumbled on this discussion. I scanned through a couple of pages and found nothing but what appeared to me to be a bunch of Millennials disparaging Old Neil with little discussion of the issues he is trying to address.
Being a "fan" of someone's music does not make that artist qualified to be a recording engineer, let alone someone who designs playback gear. I would LOVE to have better recorded albums out there, but the problem is that so many CD "remasters" actually did the OPPOSITE. They compressed the crap out of the CDs so they would be LOUDER, not "better".
Many bands are guilty of this themselves. Look at the original
Pretty Hate Machine by NiN and compare it to the "remastered" version by Trent himself. The original is 10x better sounding (and I have it on LP as well) because the new version is compressed as hell. Either Trent went deaf since he made the album (entirely possible given his career choice) or he went with the trend for making it "badder" sounding by making it LOUDER. Now not every track is mastered the way I would have gone on the original (Head like a Hole is a bit weak sounding in the bass even compared to the very next track), but that doesn't mean compress the hell out of the entire album.
The Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication is a great album, but it's overloaded as hell! It clips with distortion so bad it hurts my ears. I've got a pre-production mastered version that is MUCH improved (far far fewer clipping distortion points), but it's still compressed as hell sounding and from what I've read that part was the band's fault (that's the "sound" they were looking for and it's hard to argue with the artist themselves about their own vision; it's another thing when some record company mastering engineer under orders RUINS a recording).
If it is your general opinion is that the majority of responses in this discussion are from people who understand these issues, you probably need to go back and read some of them again.
I've never talked about other people's responses. I've posted my own to try and educate people about the real reasons for poor sounding audio quality rather than some ridiculous shaped box that is unneeded when they COULD be remastering albums in better quality and offering them for sale on CD and other formats that already exist. That would actually IMPROVE the sound quality and get them better distributed. They seem to be remastering as part of the course anyway (and that
will change the sound unlike the 24/96 or 24/192 formats) so if Neil's REAL GOAL is to improve the sound of music, he should be doing THAT instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. You can put ALAC on your iPods (i.e. losslessly compressed music) and Neil could be selling remastered high quality 24/96 in ALAC that would play at 24/96 on a Windows or Mac computer and at least playback on an iPod as well (probably sample rate adjusted but at least uncompressed). So why isn't he doing THAT instead? Oh, it's because if this catches on, he'll make a lot more money. If he cared about music, he'd make the improved masters available on any format.
You will have to forgive me if I put more credence in the well spoken comments of a rock and roll icon, rather than you.
You can do whatever you want and believe whatever you want to believe, but being a "rock and roll icon" does not automatically make one an expert on digital audio reproduction technology. A musician and an engineer are two different occupations. You CAN learn both, but I wouldn't automatically trust some musician that's well past his prime for hearing to comment on audio reproduction just because he wrote some hit songs. Writing music and making a digital audio system are two different things.
Neil may hear something wrong with many recordings as most of us do, but that doesn't mean his solution is the correct one. I'm sure he consulted with others for this project. He isn't making it all on his own, after all. Being able to offer the studio master (today mostly all digital) sounds like a great idea for marketing, etc. and ensures you hear just what hte mastering engineer puts down, but in reality, it is the mastering stage that makes and breaks all albums, regardless of whether they are on LP or CD or even iTunes AAC. "Mastered for iTunes" means they COMPRESSED THE HELL OUT OF IT. It should be avoided at all costs unless you like LOUD.
I just checked my music library and I could not find any of your stuff. Did you play another a different name?
Obviously, MagnusVonMagnum is NOT my real name. I am on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, etc. under my real name but for privacy sake, I use a pseudonym. I keep my hobbies and real life separate. Music is just a hobby for me, anyway. My real job is in electronic engineering. Suffice to say, I play multiple instuments including keyboard and guitar and I sing as well. In fact, my last album was made 100% by me on a Macbook Pro with Logic Pro 9 (and my gear and instruments) at all stages from writing to recording to mastering. My goal was Pink Floyd-like recording quality for a rock album. Based on the comments I've gotten from Floyd fans, I'd say I came pretty close for a home studio recording.