couldn't agree more. this guy knows his stuff.
but it's not peoples fault for being uneducated.
we need consumer protection from many many companies that take advantage of audio enthusiasts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Neil Young to Debut 'PonoPlayer' High-Definition iPod Competitor This Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
couldn't agree more. this guy knows his stuff.
but it's not peoples fault for being uneducated.
we need consumer protection from many many companies that take advantage of audio enthusiasts.
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).
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).
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 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.
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.
thats what they said about records and even cassette tapes. but look whats happening with those.i
i don't get your point?
vinyls? contrary to what some in the media claim since 10 years there is no renaissance. same goes for cassettes.
smartphones killed dedicated mp3 players.
mp3 needs to die anyway. aac and flac/alac is all we need imo.
Vinyl and Cassettes are becoming popular with the younger crowd because they are "retro".
again...this has been said over and over the last 10 years. i think it´s a truly insignificant niche. if you can even call it that.
because it's a worse alternative. backwards. don't make me write a list.
and why do i care what others do? idk...maybe it's some primitive urge.
probably for the same reason why i don´t want people to be religious. or live like the amish.
I kind of want you to write the list because you don't want too
Did you ever have a record player growing up? It was a different experience that you just didn't get from a CD or "music player".
And it doesn't matter if you force everyone to an iPod if they are listening to it with crap ear buds. What's the point.
I kind of want you to write the list because you don't want too
Did you ever have a record player growing up? It was a different experience that you just didn't get from a CD or "music player".
And it doesn't matter if you force everyone to an iPod if they are listening to it with crap ear buds. What's the point.
yes yes..i am 35. technics 1210. tons of vinyls. still have them and a different record player. and i know cassettes and all that.
not forcing ppl to listen to ipods or earbuds.
i am forcing them to listen to the finest audio speakers they can afford!!!
it's about digital music. not ipods.
Now you will open a can of worms of digital vs analog and what is better. Is digital better, ok a better question is digital the way we here it better. Lets take a look at TV. Ever since we went digital the compression got worse. Analog HD will always be a better format but that takes up too much room.
I made a bunch of mdf disc's for a record maker. yes but think how cheap you can get a nachamichi dragon cassette player now.
So you would not take uncompressed analog HD over overly compressed digital we have now?
There's no reason we can't have uncompressed (or rather "losslessly" compressed) digital audio. We have compressed/lossy audio for one reason only. MONEY. It takes more storage space and more bandwidth for lossless and companies figure why spend the money when people listen with earbuds.
I get the "Retro" movement. It's one factor in why I bought a brand new turntable setup last year (the primary being I found some albums I was searching for that were only available on LP and I wanted a really good transfer to digital). Records have this whole mechanical vibe going for them (precise alignments for best sound, manually putting a needle to a piece of plastic that almost has no right to even sound as good as it does when you look at how it's made, etc.). It'd almost be nice if it were true that they sounded better than digital, but the problem is I have a good transfer system (PreSonus FireWire multi-track ADC that does 24/96, 24/192, etc. that I bought for recording my album with Logic Pro 9 and also makes a good transfer box for LPs as well) and it's blatant on an A/B comparison that the recording sound IDENTICAL to the record played back live (minus any surface noise changes between plays).
If anything, you can then take that and put it into something like iZotope RX and remove all the clicks, pops and surface noise so it sounds almost as clean as digital and then separate the tracks out with Audacity and basically have your own Lossless digital transfer that plays with track selection and carries Meta data and album covers, etc. Then you don't have to wear out your vinyl (which due to the Retro popularity movement is WORTH A FREAKING FORTUNE! My Pink Floyd PULSE 4-LP set (unopened) alone is selling for $1000+ and a $14 Tori Amos From the Choirgirl Hotel is going for $150-300 online and a $7.99 Tori Amos Boys For Pele LP that was recorded on DAT tape (save the percussion which was analog recorded) still sells for $150+ even though it's not only digital but only 48kHz DAT tape digital transferred! It doesn't matter! It's CLEAR (green tinted) vinyl and made in small quantities so it's a collector's item! Ironically, her true analog albums (Little Earthquakes and Under The Pink) aren't worth squat on LP (Under The Pink was even available on pink colored vinyl) by comparison so I can only assume they were produced in larger quantities or re-released. It really comes down to the availability and what the market will bear because of that (Tori has rabid fans and they want everything associated with her). I only wish I had bought more '90s LPs when I could get them for next to nothing compared to what they are worth today. There are 1960s and 1970s albums worth far less than some 1990s stuff. I pick up 1960s LPs (e.g. recently Tony Bennett stuff) at Goodwill locations for like 40-50 cents an album! Some are like new! Even ones that are only worth $5-10 still brings in 10x-20x the amount online). You can make a nice little hobby collecting/cleaning/reselling LPs from garage sales, Goodwill, etc. online. I get them to listen to, transfer and collect (for not at least), but I still note their value.
I don't know why anyone would want audio cassettes, though unless they have a vintage car that only has a tape player or something and they don't want to change the deck out. Cassettes were horrible all around. The industry went to great lengths to get them to sound as good as technically possible (mostly on the self-recording side; the stuff the record companies put out RARELY used chrome or metal tape formulations that had less noise, etc.), but you still had no easy way to select different tracks (at least at any reasonable speed change) whereas a record you can drop the needle on a track fairly easily. I used to record music mixes on VHS tape (VHS might have sucked for video, but it had damn near CD quality analog audio playback and it was dirt cheap as well and you could easily make a 6-hour long house party mix; no cassette could ever approach that!)
If anything, if I wanted to go "Retro", I'd go for 8-track. Not only was their sound quality better throughout the 70s and most of the 80s than cassette, but due to the odd track change limits, many 8-tracks had alternative orders and mixes that the cassette, LP and CD versions did not have (e.g. Pink Floyd's Animals album had a single track with a guitar solo bridge for "Pigs on the Wing" at the start of the album while the LP, CD and Cassette had two songs (Pigs on the Wing Part I at the start of the album and Part II at the end). The guitar solo bridge only existed on the 8-track version of the album (Youtube has recordings of it out there you can check out). Wild Cherry's self-titled album had a different track order on 8-track than the LP and cassette and a CD version didn't become available until around 1998 or so (and used the same order as the LP). The order change was to avoid putting a song where it would track change. Even so, "Get it Up" had a track change on 8-track between tracks 3 and 4.
Reel-to-Reel is even more "Retro" and I'd imagine commercial recordings made on it would fetch a few dollars today. It certainly had better sound quality than cassette as well (which could be not too far from master tape quality, but was mostly limited by the 7 inches per second rate typically used in commercial reproduction which increased the noise, wow & flutter and limited high-end response). Certainly, this was the best quality "tape" format available in the 60s and 70s. Cassettes pretty much destroyed high quality sound since the industry abandoned sound quality for convenience (shock shock; hello crappy but popular low-bitrate MP3s many years later).
For hobbyists wanting to have "fun", nothing beats turntables. There are so many out there, new and old alike with so many cartridge choices and other parts you can vary, customize, etc. (tonearms, isolation platforms, etc.) that make a real audible difference (i.e. "upgrading" is "fun" for people who want a HOBBY rather than a pass-time). Then there's record washing, bargain hunting, etc. and do-it-yourself digital transferring (that you get to do over and over again by varying the parts of your turntable setup and cleaning records and finding better pressings, etc. etc. etc.) You can spend the rest of your life chasing that perfect sound or you can just buy a good CD transfer and find better things to do with your time.
I get the "Retro" movement. It's one factor in why I bought a brand new turntable setup last year (the primary being I found some albums I was searching for that were only available on LP and I wanted a really good transfer to digital). Records have this whole mechanical vibe going for them (precise alignments for best sound, manually putting a needle to a piece of plastic that almost has no right to even sound as good as it does when you look at how it's made, etc.). It'd almost be nice if it were true that they sounded better than digital, but the problem is I have a good transfer system (PreSonus FireWire multi-track ADC that does 24/96, 24/192, etc. that I bought for recording my album with Logic Pro 9 and also makes a good transfer box for LPs as well) and it's blatant on an A/B comparison that the recording sound IDENTICAL to the record played back live (minus any surface noise changes between plays).
If anything, you can then take that and put it into something like iZotope RX and remove all the clicks, pops and surface noise so it sounds almost as clean as digital and then separate the tracks out with Audacity and basically have your own Lossless digital transfer that plays with track selection and carries Meta data and album covers, etc. Then you don't have to wear out your vinyl (which due to the Retro popularity movement is WORTH A FREAKING FORTUNE! My Pink Floyd PULSE 4-LP set (unopened) alone is selling for $1000+ and a $14 Tori Amos From the Choirgirl Hotel is going for $150-300 online and a $7.99 Tori Amos Boys For Pele LP that was recorded on DAT tape (save the percussion which was analog recorded) still sells for $150+ even though it's not only digital but only 48kHz DAT tape digital transferred! It doesn't matter! It's CLEAR (green tinted) vinyl and made in small quantities so it's a collector's item! Ironically, her true analog albums (Little Earthquakes and Under The Pink) aren't worth squat on LP (Under The Pink was even available on pink colored vinyl) by comparison so I can only assume they were produced in larger quantities or re-released. It really comes down to the availability and what the market will bear because of that (Tori has rabid fans and they want everything associated with her). I only wish I had bought more '90s LPs when I could get them for next to nothing compared to what they are worth today. There are 1960s and 1970s albums worth far less than some 1990s stuff. I pick up 1960s LPs (e.g. recently Tony Bennett stuff) at Goodwill locations for like 40-50 cents an album! Some are like new! Even ones that are only worth $5-10 still brings in 10x-20x the amount online). You can make a nice little hobby collecting/cleaning/reselling LPs from garage sales, Goodwill, etc. online. I get them to listen to, transfer and collect (for not at least), but I still note their value.
I don't know why anyone would want audio cassettes, though unless they have a vintage car that only has a tape player or something and they don't want to change the deck out. Cassettes were horrible all around. The industry went to great lengths to get them to sound as good as technically possible (mostly on the self-recording side; the stuff the record companies put out RARELY used chrome or metal tape formulations that had less noise, etc.), but you still had no easy way to select different tracks (at least at any reasonable speed change) whereas a record you can drop the needle on a track fairly easily. I used to record music mixes on VHS tape (VHS might have sucked for video, but it had damn near CD quality analog audio playback and it was dirt cheap as well and you could easily make a 6-hour long house party mix; no cassette could ever approach that!)
If anything, if I wanted to go "Retro", I'd go for 8-track. Not only was their sound quality better throughout the 70s and most of the 80s than cassette, but due to the odd track change limits, many 8-tracks had alternative orders and mixes that the cassette, LP and CD versions did not have (e.g. Pink Floyd's Animals album had a single track with a guitar solo bridge for "Pigs on the Wing" at the start of the album while the LP, CD and Cassette had two songs (Pigs on the Wing Part I at the start of the album and Part II at the end). The guitar solo bridge only existed on the 8-track version of the album (Youtube has recordings of it out there you can check out). Wild Cherry's self-titled album had a different track order on 8-track than the LP and cassette and a CD version didn't become available until around 1998 or so (and used the same order as the LP). The order change was to avoid putting a song where it would track change. Even so, "Get it Up" had a track change on 8-track between tracks 3 and 4.
Reel-to-Reel is even more "Retro" and I'd imagine commercial recordings made on it would fetch a few dollars today. It certainly had better sound quality than cassette as well (which could be not too far from master tape quality, but was mostly limited by the 7 inches per second rate typically used in commercial reproduction which increased the noise, wow & flutter and limited high-end response). Certainly, this was the best quality "tape" format available in the 60s and 70s. Cassettes pretty much destroyed high quality sound since the industry abandoned sound quality for convenience (shock shock; hello crappy but popular low-bitrate MP3s many years later).
For hobbyists wanting to have "fun", nothing beats turntables. There are so many out there, new and old alike with so many cartridge choices and other parts you can vary, customize, etc. (tonearms, isolation platforms, etc.) that make a real audible difference (i.e. "upgrading" is "fun" for people who want a HOBBY rather than a pass-time). Then there's record washing, bargain hunting, etc. and do-it-yourself digital transferring (that you get to do over and over again by varying the parts of your turntable setup and cleaning records and finding better pressings, etc. etc. etc.) You can spend the rest of your life chasing that perfect sound or you can just buy a good CD transfer and find better things to do with your time.
@MagnusVonMagnum I assume you have seen Dave Grohl's documentary on SoundCity. What is your opinion on recording reel to reel vs digital. There seem to be artists who detest recording digital. Do they have a valid case or in this day in age with everything digital should we just give up on mastering to tape.
I don't think I've seen it. I think people should do what makes them happy and if analog tape is it, go for it. Personally, I loved Logic Pro editing and I hear nothing bad about the results if it'd done properly. I think people are looking for that early Rock'n'Roll "Beatles/Rolling Stones/etc." type "analog sound" when it's not so much analog as it is the equipment used. Analog generates tape noise (i.e. hiss) and has wow & flutter issues, etc. (motors aren't perfect in terms of even speed, etc.), but really what are you getting out of it? I think a LOT of people BELIEVE that there is this fundamental difference between analog and digital (i.e. the old "stair step" argument that is invalid and demonstrates an utter total lack of understanding how digital reconstruction filters work) and that the supposed difference is WHY artists today don't sound like the old Beatles albums. Yeah, that's not it. Get some vintage amplifier equipment and guitar effects pedals (yes they do simulate those today in digital processors to greater or lesser effect as well) and start playing music in that STYLE (it's not just the equipment, music has changed overall considerably since those days and most people learning power chords to play Metallica may not be instantly comfortable playing skiffle influenced early pop or country based rock or whatever).
I'd love to hear some new catchy '60s style Do-Wop music, but who the hell makes NEW Do-Wop songs today that aren't covers? I'm betting some do, but most of us probably haven't heard about it for the same reasons it's hard to find any new good music these days without some work (i.e. don't expect the local radio stations to play something out of the main stream that's new and interesting like they used to when local DJs played whatever they felt like playing, which could be a 45 record sent to them in the mail or a b-side flip of something popular out of boredom, etc. Yes, there's Pandora, but even Pandora doesn't take submissions. They call you; you don't call them. "Hey, I sound like Pink Floyd! Will you add me to the Pandora list that comes up when Pink Floyd is searched since literally NOTHING comes up that sounds a DAMN THING like Pink Floyd when I make that my station other than Pink Floyd itself?" NOPE. They'd rather play Elton John than someone they've never heard of and isn't sponsored by the record labels). Personally, I've neither the time or inclination to search far and wide for some music I don't know what I'm looking for and so I've found other hobbies and things to do and stick to the 5000 or so songs I already own.
I like vinyl and I always will. I don't hear well enough anymore to tell the difference between all the different formats and there is something inherently right about a record.
"And I always will" suggests intractability and preference reasons other than the accuracy of the format. I don't hear 20kHz myself anymore, but vinyl has plenty of audible distortions that are well within the hearing range of even people who have severe hearing damage such as surface noise (comforting for many just as a noise maker helps me sleep at night) and the whole user participation and tactile feel of records (you hold the big disc in your hand; cleaning them improves the sound; there's big artwork to look at; even-order distortions sound "pleasant" to the human ear like tube distorted guitar sounds pleasant, etc.).
In other words, there are plenty of reasons to prefer vinyl that have nothing to do with hi-fi 'accuracy'. That in and of itself is different from suggesting extra words or a higher sampling rate is going to "fix" digital when those numbers are inaudible beyond a certain point and still pushes music into the "clean" digital plus harsh distortion when it overloads rather than "overdriven" analog territory that sounds warmer to most people rather than "harsh".
In other words, if people prefer vinyl or cassette tape's effects on sound, digital isn't likely to do anything for them ever as you say. I wouldn't call it an analog vs. digital thing, though. The "euphonic" distortions inherent in most of our analog formats have to do with the limitations of the format itself. Reel-to-Reel (particularly at higher speeds) sounds far more accurate than cassette or vinyl, for instance, but you aren't likely to have access to it. If anything, digital sounds more like the master and yet people PREFER the less accurate version for the reasons above. They just often don't want to admit it's less accurate or that they prefer added distortions over accuracy because they feel that implies they are doing something "wrong" and people want to be "right".
WHY NOT A NEW ANALOG FORMAT?
Ironically, we could easily have a highly accurate ANALOG format today but there doesn't appear to be a market for it anymore than there is a real market for SACD or this PonoPlayer thing. Namely, Laserdiscs had ANALOG video and ANALOG audio tracks on them from Day 1! Digital Audio was added later on. The analog tracks on most laserdiscs sounded poor because there was no standard for applying them or having particular volume standards, etc., but they COULD sound every bit as good as 2-channel digital and because they were protected under SEALED clear plastic and read by a laser, they weren't susceptible to DUST issues and/or damage like LPs are (even when read by a laser player like the Finial, LPs have DUST problems whereby it gets into the groove and is misread by the laser as noise).
Laserdiscs are the same size as 33 vinyl records (they have a 45 style hole in the middle, though). Yet they also have the ability to change tracks, etc. just like CDs. Now take modern Blu-Ray type lasers and multiple layers, etc. and you could EASILY create an ANALOG disc format the size of Mini-Disc that is almost every bit as accurate as digital but without digital! You could even put them into a Mini-Disc style hard jacket and it would be protected from fingerprints, etc. In fact, the last generations of Mini-Disc offered lossless recordable digital in that nice size, but it was still digital (which some won't accept and now we have SSDs and USB thumb drives anyway that hold a lot more).
An ANALOG Blue Laser format the size of a Mini-Disc or even CD size (so a player can play both) would be technically possible right now without ANY of the inherent problems of Vinyl or Tape. So why didn't Neil do that instead of digital? Isn't high-end analog preferable? Did he not think of it or do people who hate digital simply think 24/192 is the "fix" that makes digital "perfect sound forever" ?
Last edited:
When I was a youngster all the bands I liked made records there was something cool about going to the store getting a record with the big art, pull out and setting it on the turntable it's nostalgia I guess, it was a fun time in my life. I've been around guns my whole life whether it be personal, the military, or now my work and I've not always worn hearing protection and it's done a number on my hearing, tinnitus as well as some tones I just can't hear anymore so "better" doesn't apply as much as it used to so my pleasure comes from other parts of the experience.
I'm still a bit young for reel to reel that was my dads thing and to this day he still pulls the big thing out to listen to his old music it's as cool to him as my turntable is to me.