Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 06:14 PM CST

Though I'm not much known here yet I'm going to wade straight in here.

I too dislike the sound quality of MP3 files, but yes it is a good way to pass music around for casual listening or for the car. Since it's close to impossible to get top quality sound in a car or from an iPod it's fine for those uses.

But I would contend that 24-bit digital sound with a good sampling rate (48 KHz and above) is much better than analogue, and I've seen a recording engineer demonstrate this to an analogue enthusiast so comprehensively that the analogue enthusiast could barely speak afterwards (great fun it was too, watching his face). What some people miss when they listen to any new and unfamiliar sound format is whatever they loved about their favourite when it first impressed them. The background noise in vinyl always annoyed me, but I tolerated it until CD players improved enough to rival it. The warmth that analogue enthusiasts rave about is not better sound reproduction, it's a form of distortion; analogue compression! Both tape compression and the dynamic range compression required to get music onto vinyl add their own qualities to the sound, and that's what some people love, that indefinable but audible difference.

Modern digital sound can reproduce the original sound that the microphones picked up so closely that few or no people can hear the difference. Analogue cannot do that and never could. Even if you used the best tape machines ever made there would either be some background noise if you recorded it quietly to give accurate reproduction, or there would be some "warmth' (i.e. distortion) added by the tape compression if you recorded it loud enough to hide the background hiss.

So my view is that the analogue enthusiasts are not missing the accuracy of analogue, they are missing what it added to the sound. Their description of the "cold" sound of digital is due to the digital equipment not adding anything; what you put in is what you get out, with no warmth added but nothing taken away.

All that applies of course, only to the best digital sound, which only comes from very good equipment properly used. If recording engineers are careless or unskilled or the mastering is rubbish you'll get poor sound, just as you would have done in the days when vinyl was king.

Getting back to the matter addressed by the video, yes, MP3 is poor and I have never bought one and never will; give me a good digital audio format and I might buy it. Get the price right and I'll buy it even if it takes half an hour to download one song.

Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Tuesday, February 07 2012 @ 08:21 PM CST

I admit it's nostagia plus that certain uncertainty I miss

evidently upon researching dvd-a is the newest highend audio fomat for digital 192? mhz 24 bit which smooths out many of the digital edges.

look if I do get an otari 2 track I will still roll off into the digital environ but I do want to record on tape again very badly. will it sound as pure and clean and nice no but pure clean and nice isn't what I do and not what I'm looking to do

um I don't think ?

Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Wednesday, February 08 2012 @ 10:39 AM CST

I agree, to a certain degree, with just about everything everyone has said. I think there are a lot of factors that go into the whole digital vs. analog/vinyl vs. mp3 argument. Both sides definitely have their plusses and their minuses.

But one thing several people have mentioned is how music is mastered these days as a factor, and, after this morning, I've been giving it some thought.

Here's the scene: It's morning. One of those mornings where I could have very well dragged myself out of the house to work not wearing any pants and wouldn't have noticed. I get climb into something roughly shaped like my car and decide as much as I love Public Radio, I didn't really want to be informed about anything as I drove to work. So, I popped in a CD. At least I was pretty sure it was a CD. It could have been a cat at the time and I wouldn't have noticed the difference.

Being in that frame of mind, my body didn't do what it automatically did when I switched from radio to CD and turn the volume down from about 6 or 7 to 1 and so, quite suddenly and rudely, I was pulled from my stupor by the opening chords of the Keane CD I had inserted into the CD player.

Though I've noticed this before, after reading about this particular issue of quality, engineering, nostalgia, digital, analog for the past week, the whole issue of how music is engineered really came home to roost.

It reminded me of Nigel Tufnel's amp and I wondered if he recorded today with his amp set on 11, would it be mixed in such a way that the listener would get that 11 with his volume set on 2.

Everything is really loud. When I listen to a new CD and a CD I've had for 20-25 years (Good lord! Have I really had CDs for almost 25 years?) the difference is startling. Even if it's a new CD of an old album. I know changes in technology and digital vs. analog remastering and all those things I only vaguely understand come into play, but the difference is startling. And I wonder what all is really lost and gained in the process.

The argument between digital and analog reminds me of the arguments going on over the past decade or two over digital photography vs. film photography. I was right in the middle of that at work, pushing digital photography for our newspapers. To me, it was simple: digital was easier and cheaper than film and the quality, once you plastered it on a newspaper page, was just as good if you trained you people in at least using the basics of Photoshop. The photographers, however, fought tooth and nail against making the switch. They argued on and on about what was lost with digital, how, in a way, the quality of the image was almost too good.

From an artistic standpoint, I could see their argument. When I go back and look at all of the stuff I shot on film over the years, I definitely see that there are some aspects of the process that come out when you're processing the photo that are lost when particles of silver nitrate are substituted with 1s and 0s. But, in all honesty, I wanted to cut costs, speed up the process and eliminate the need to spend long hours in a cramped darkroom full of smelly chemicals.

I have to say, I love what the digital revolution has done for me where music is concerned. I used to do some recording using an old Fostex four-track. It was fun, but even recording a couple of tracks took longer than recording an entire song can take today. I had pretty much quit doing anything musical until GarageBand came around. So, my feelings for digital are kind of complex.

I have begun to ramble, so I'm stopping here for now.

Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Wednesday, February 08 2012 @ 08:35 PM CST

My gut-feelings on this one, JGurner, are that “maybe, in this particular case, Neil is truly on to something.”

Consider:   in the “film vs. digital” arguments that you offer in your previous post, the comparison made is between film and digital imaging, in a technical situation where the overall practical result is basically co-equal.

But... what Neil Young is promoting (lossless, un-compressed sound files) is by definition not co-equal with the current vogue of MP3’s.   Therefore, in this very-important point, your analogy very-politely fails.

Neil argues ... and I think, quite successfully (if only because I, as a Consumer With Money In My Pocket, wholeheartedly agree with him) ... that there is a viable commercial market for a sound recording that preserves every one of “the niggling and supposedly-irrelevant details” that a compressed version has oh-so conveniently elided out of that original studio experience.

I, for one, will very happily(!) pay to receive, electronically and therefore more-or-less instantaneously, the very same audio quality that I am currently able to receive from any one of the vinyl discs in my present oh-so lovingly assembled "dutifully paid for...") collection.

Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Wednesday, February 08 2012 @ 09:33 PM CST

Quote by: MikeRobinson My gut-feelings on this one, JGurner, are that “maybe, in this particular case, Neil is truly on to something.” Consider:   in the “film vs. digital” arguments that you offer in your previous post, the comparison made is between film and digital imaging, in a technical situation where the overall practical result is basically co-equal. But... what Neil Young is promoting (lossless, un-compressed sound files) is by definition not co-equal with the current vogue of MP3’s.   Therefore, in this very-important point, your analogy very-politely fails. Neil argues ... and I think, quite successfully (if only because I, as a Consumer With Money In My Pocket, wholeheartedly agree with him) ... that there is a viable commercial market for a sound recording that preserves every one of “the niggling and supposedly-irrelevant details” that a compressed version has oh-so conveniently elided out of that original studio experience. I, for one, will very happily(!) pay to receive, electronically and therefore more-or-less instantaneously, the very same audio quality that I am currently able to receive from any one of the vinyl discs in my present oh-so lovingly assembled "dutifully paid for...") collection.

I do have to admit my knowledge about technical aspects of digital vs. analog are very limited, especially when it comes to formats and such, so any opinions I spout have to be taken with the understanding that I probably don't know exactly what I'm talking about.

Even with learning over the past years more and more about music and the digital world, I still am more familiar with the digital vs. film argument than the audio arguments.But, I see your point where the photography argument fails.

I actually like the idea Neil put forward as well. One of the main reasons I all but refuse to buy music from iTunes is sound quality. Plus, I still like to have a physical object, a disc, that I can put my hands on. I have them all ripped to my computer, but I still listen to them in my car.

And I still think a Neil Young branded digital music player made by Apple would be hell cool!

Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Wednesday, February 08 2012 @ 10:17 PM CST

/me nods...

Yes, I do believe that on this score we are indeed on the same page.   To me, “MP3s suck,” and there is absolutely no way that I am going to pay the kind of money for some ultra-compressed, downloadable file that I would pay for an immutable plastic object that incorporates the same recording (a) at a much higher sonic resolution, and (b) in a form that I can keep on my shelf for the next twenty-five years ... as I have done with the very first CD that I ever bought.  (Lionel Ritchie:   Can’t Slow Down.)

Neil Young very-correctly points out that there are out there “folks like me” who would very much like to forsake the plastic, but who will not do so at the expense of recording quality.

“I want this, and I steadfastly refuse to accept that.   I want to buy this (but not that...) from you.   I have United States Dollars burning a hole in my pocket.   What part of this don’t you understand?”

We are the very same people who painstakingly bought those vinyl discs, and then those shiny plastic discs, from folks like Neil Young and many others, and who still own them, and we continue to find their “convenient replacements” unacceptably deficient.   Neil Young is right:   we bought those discs because we didn’t like what we were hearing out of our AM-Radio speakers.   No, we are not going to pay our money for less than what we know perfectly well that we can buy with the same amount of cash.   Therefore, your path forward is quite simple:   merely provide us with what it is that we require, now properly exploiting the technology of the Internet in the manner that we have come to expect, and we shall gladly pay you for it.   If it takes 35 minutes to download ... “frankly, my dear...”

Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Thursday, February 09 2012 @ 10:51 AM CST

Quote by: jgurner One of the main reasons I all but refuse to buy music from iTunes is sound quality. Plus, I still like to have a physical object, a disc, that I can put my hands on. I have them all ripped to my computer, but I still listen to them in my car.

The only reason I buy albums from iTunes is because most of the stuff I like you can't just go to Wally-World and buy off the shelf. And then I burn it to CD.

Another thing you're missing is the credits, the lyrics, and often some drop-dead gorgeous album art (e.g. David Minasian "Random Acts of Beauty" and 2002 "Damayanti").

I think I'll start going to the artist sites and buying the albums directly. That seems to be the best way to go these days.

Cheers,
Jim

Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 08:21 AM CST

Maybe they had this in the works already???

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/28/apple-reportedly-developing-high-definition-audio-format-with-adaptive-streaming/

Apple Reportedly Developing High-Definition Audio Format with 'Adaptive Streaming'
Tuesday February 28, 2012 6:26 am PST by Eric Slivka

The Guardian reports that Apple is currently working on a new audio format that could allow the company to offer "high definition" audio via iTunes. The format would also integrate an "adaptive streaming" component that would allow music being accessed from iCloud and iTunes Match by portable devices to be automatically adapted to fit bandwidth or storage constraints.

Apple is working on a new audio file format that will offer "adaptive streaming" to provide high- or low-quality files to users of its iCloud service. [...]

The new system would adjust itself to the bandwidth and storage available on the receiving device.

It is believed that Apple will use the new file type to upgrade its iTunes Match service, which allows users to re-download music from iCloud to their Apple devices.
According to the report's source, Apple has asked one London music studio to prepare audio files in the new format, which would allow Apple to instantly and automatically improve the quality of iTunes Match content. The source is unclear, however, on whether Apple would transcode the higher-quality files on the fly to match a given bandwidth/hardware setup or if it would simply maintain several versions of the track at different qualities and serve the most appropriate one for a given situation.

Given the timing of Apple's work, the source suggests that the company is likely preparing the new format for a demonstration at its iPad media event rumored for next Wednesday, March 7.

The new report comes less than a month after Neil Young revealed that he had worked with Steve Jobs on a high-definition music format for the iTunes Store but that "not much" had ended up happening with the effort. Apple has also recently begun a significant expansion of its Mastered for iTunes program. The initiative encourages recording professionals to utilize high-quality master recordings of songs and albums as the initial source material for iTunes Store submission, processing them using Apple's guidelines and tools to achieve file compression allowing for the highest-quality sound available.

Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 11:43 AM CST

Just to augment what Neil Young said on one point. The digital age is NOT the first time we dealt with the loss of quality by changing the basic medium of distribution. It was when we went to cassettes. Cassettes limited the high end frequencies we were able to hear in our music. This could be ameliorated somewhat by using expensive coated tapes or special circuitry, but was not the mainstream.

Just some quick info on digital sampling:

The sample rate determines the highest frequency that will be accurately reproduced. The Nyquist rate says that to accurately reproduce a frequency you must sample it at a rate which is 2 and one half times that frequency. This means that a sampling rate of 48KHZ will sample frequencies accurately to 19.2KHZ.

The bit depth determines the dynamic range that we can capture (actually it is the Signal to Noise Ratio). CD's are 16bit and can reproduce 96dB. DVD is 24bit and can reproduce 144dB, but effective electronic reproduction of sound limits this to 124dB which is very close to the limits of human hearing.

I am surprised that more MacJam'ers are not saying that in producing their own music they notice the loss when going from raw formats in their DAW to final MP3's.

I love the fact that we, as amateur producers, get to use both analog and digital and control (at least till we distribute) the overall quality of our sound. It might be a neat experiment for us to put our stuff on DVD and compare the difference to MP3.

Re:Neil Young, Steve Jobs and vinyl
Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 03:43 PM CST

I bought cassettes in 1977 like pink floyd animals and led zeppelin physical graffiti (my first two purchases! but by 1978 I was buying lps and recording them off on to maxell tapes on a harmon kardon cassette machine. so my lp collection was only played once.

in the 80s I started making my own music all the time and recorded over all the tapes. they are maxell udxl 1s and IIs and they still sound awesome

I don't know why the record companies used the crappiest cassettes