Neil Young came to the stage of D: Dive into Media to talk with Walt Mossberg and Peter Kafka about the current distribution and quality of digital music. Young is primarily concerned about whether the MP3 files we're all listening to actually are pretty poor from an audio-quality standpoint. He says that your average MP3 file only contains about five percent of the audio from an original recording and he says Apple Lossless only offers "10.3 percent." The concern is twofold, which Young called the "front and back end" of the donkey. The back end is the devices we're using to listening to audio, and Young hopes that we'll get better devices than what's currently available. For example, on Beats Audio, he says "I think they make it look better, and I think they make it have more bass." Young also wants to see better music recording and high resolution recording, but we're not anywhere near that yet. He hopes that "some rich guy" will solve the problem of creating and distributing "100 percent" of the sound in music.
One rich guy Young knew was Steve Jobs and on that subject, Young had this to say:
Steve Jobs was a pioneer of digital music, his legacy was tremendous. [...] But when he went home, he listened to vinyl.
Young is calling for a new digital ecosystem of high quality music files and he believes that Jobs would have gotten there had he lived long enough. On the distribution side, Young isn't particularly concerned with the effects of piracy on artists, he's more concerned that the files that are being shared are of such low quality:
It doesn't affect me because I look at the internet as the new radio. I look at the radio as gone. [...] Piracy is the new radio. That's how music gets around. [...] That's the radio. If you really want to hear it, let's make it available, let them hear it, let them hear the 95 percent of it.
Despite that attitude, Young is still on the side of record labels because they care about music and about supporting artists — but somehow we doubt those studios take the same attitude towards piracy that Young does.

There are 105 Comments. Add yours.
Good to see an artist realize the reality of today’s internet and youth. The more these people fight it the poorer they are going to get. Either embrace it or you’ll simply be washed away with it, it’s like trying to stop a Tsunami, you just can’t.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:19 PM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
The difference of course is Neil Young made plenty of money before digital.
And radio stations pay $ artists for plays surely he must know this.
It’s easy for big artists like Radiohead and NIN to play cool and say they are down with piracy and give away their music for free. But this of course neglects the little guys who didnt get rich in the pre digital age.
Not every musician plays live some artists were just purely recording artists and they basically have 0 chance of making a living of their work these days.
If we’re happy to have far far less musicians making money full time making music then sure piracy isn’t going to kill the music industry.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:39 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Artists see very little of the profit a label makes, Musician does not equal music industry. Long may the Music industry rot.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:43 PM EST reply Recommend (11) Flag actions
Except that Piracy’s affect on the music industry is impossible to measure, and the record companies measure every pirated song as a lost sale, without measuring the influence of the spread of music in any way what-so-ever. It helps them inflate numbers and justify million-dollar piracy lawsuits, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Say I have 10,000 songs in my iTunes. Well it’s quite likely that I didn’t shell out $0.99 per track to get them all, but it’s also quite likely that I don’t listen to all that music. And in fact, the music that I love and listen to most often, I have purchased physical copies of (plus band merchandise, and concert tickets), and the rest I could easily live without. It’s also mostly music that would never get played on the radio, since it’s not Ke$ha or Lady Gaga or whatever other popular music is being played repetitively. Without piracy, I would have never heard of the majority of the artists that I listen to, which means I would never have bought physical copies of any of the albums I own, nor would I have bought concert tickets or band merchandise, and perhaps more importantly, I would never have recommended the artists that I found to my friends with similar taste (who also subsequently went to concerts and bought albums). I didn’t pay for the majority of the music in my iTunes library, but I could also live without listening to the majority of my iTunes library. I pay for, and spread, the music I actually care about.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 4:14 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Wish there was an edit button, but something I’d like to add: One big difference between radio and piracy is that the radio is still controlled by the major record labels. Any unsigned bands, regardless of how good they, are not able to benefit from all the people listening to the radio. In this sense, piracy democratizes music discovery. All bands are on the same level, with the same amount of promotion when it comes to piracy. You can discover amazing unsigned bands or discover amazing signed bands, both of which you may never have heard of, but the unsigned one would have had a much lesser chance of reaching your ears. The good bands are then recommended and their music is distributed based on recommendation, voting systems, and comments. Suddenly music discovery is based on music quality, not on how many marketing dollars can be spent on a single artist. This terrifies the large labels because they can’t push out repetitive crap and expect it to sell as well if there are alternatives. So there’s this side to the story as well.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 4:22 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I don’t know why you think it’s up to you YOU how a musician is marketed or how YOU think they should make money? Shouldn’t this be up to the musician? So musicians dont play live how do they make money? A label PAYS MONEY to a band so they can hire a studio, a mixer and a producer and make great albums, a pirate does not.
I hate to break it to you but money makes the world go round if you take the money out of the music business it’s going to get very crappy for artists.
You may pay for some music based on your love=payment algorithm but millions of people don’t.
How many small independent labels need to go out of business before you realize that piracy doesn’t just hurt the Ke$ha’s out there.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 5:02 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
A label usually LOANS money to a band to record their music. That’s a big difference. The band may never see a penny from their contract if their release doesn’t sell enough. Labels aren’t charities – they’re in it for the money. The vast majority of bands never see a penny from traditional CD and download sales. See: http://business.songstuff.com/article/recording_contract_basics
This is why many artists self-publish and use the internet and social networks to generate interest and sales. Often they can do more than a traditional indie label could manage anyway, which is one of the reasons why smaller labels are on the decline (and seeing as there are tens of thousands of indie labels, seeing a few go under is no sign of a catastrophe anyway).
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:00 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
You have a very skewed understanding of the music industry. I did a research report on this and let me tell you, this statement: “A label PAYS MONEY to a band so they can hire a studio, a mixer and a producer and make great albums” is false 99.9% of the time.
Studios loan artists money, and most of the time, that artist remains in debt for that loan forever. They’re not required to pay it back, but all money from album sales, radio plays, etc. go directly to the label to pay back that loan, and the artist doesn’t see a penny until that loan has been paid off. The size of the loan varies but it’s large enough that you have to be very successful to see a cent. Those artists make money by touring and by selling merchandise. It is very, very, very rare to see an artist that doesn’t play live because that’s where they make the majority of their money. And if the label’s marketing money isn’t going into a particular band/artist, they still rely on the same word of mouth that all other unsigned bands rely on.
Two studies I read (I believe both were from the UK, or maybe on from Canada and one from the UK, excuse me as it’s been a couple years and I don’t want to go digging them up) also showed that for each song that someone pirated, they purchased half a song more. So if they pirated 1000 songs, they would buy 500 more than normal. This goes hand-in-hand with the thought that most music pirates are just larger music enthusiasts in general and actually have an appreciation for the music itself, and while they are more likely to pirate, they’re also more likely to purchase because of that appreciation.
Like I said, it’s very hard to gauge the effect of piracy when there are no concrete numbers to go by anywhere. But I would argue there is a net benefit to having easier music availability, and if the major labels would embrace change and technology with something like a subscription model, they could probably cut down a ton of piracy and quit complaining.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 1:09 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Just make good music, and you will find a way to make money. Youtube is a prime example. There are so many artists on Youtube that make money primarily through revenue sharing, and I don’t think they are complaining about their income being lower than those so called “artists” being supported by the major labels, because true artists are not concerning themselves with stardom. While with the support of major recording studios will make you famous, the music you are able to produce are limited to whatever they told you to make, things that they feel they can market. With all the major recording studios are now owned by media conglomerates, the music industry quality have been going down, not up, because they are not concerned with quality music, they are concerned with cost and profits.
Think about Adele, before her 19 and 21 album, no one hears about her, but because shes just so great that she got picked up my the labels, and now she can make music according to what she wants to make, not what they demand her to make. And she still sell 15m albums last year despite piracy. Make good music, good art, people will respect you, and they will support you.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 2:55 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Nope, a label LENDS MONEY to a band, there is a big difference.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 11:02 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Artists who made their fortune before the digital age aren’t protected from piracy, their protected from obscurity. Neil, Radiohead and Trent get marketing dollars (e.g. for billboards), and more reliable distribution channels like terrestrial radio. I can’t decide to start a music career, grant an interview, and expect it to end up on The Verge.
As far as “musicians” that expect to make a living by laying down tracks in Logic, piracy is the least of the problems.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 4:21 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Don’t use Radioheads name in vain!
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 5:14 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This is a very hard topic to talk about, so I don’t want to get into it and please don’t take offense to the question I’m about to ask. I genuinely am interested in knowing if there is a worthwhile response. Is there an artist who doesn’t tour that is worth listening to?
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
There’s plenty of amazing indie artists who simply don’t have the budget to go on tour.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 10:46 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Radio Stations usually don’t pay to play songs. In fact, some artists pay the radio stations to play their songs. Source: A famous rock star, one you’ve no doubt heard of, who pays radio stations to play his songs, no not me and no I won’t name him nor do I care if you believe me.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I just did an internship in a commercial radio station and i can tell you for a fact that EVERY song that gets played on air is tallied up every few months and the labels get a big cheque to pay for the airplay. They are not allowed to just play what they want, they have to play what they have deals to play and have done market research to play.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 5:21 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
My experience at a radio station is the same as Heypepito’s. That being said, I recognize that the artists inevitably get none of this money.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 11:04 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Ha!
Is he REALLY on the side of the labels? DO the labels REALLY care about artists or their pockets primarily?
As the process of producing and recording high quality music continues to come down, I hope that what the future brings is more independent music.
Why aren’t more artists bypassing the labels completely astonishes me.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:19 PM EST reply Recommend (10) Flag actions
This is why more labels don’t bypass artists. Let’s create a fictional example, we’ll this artis “Pop Hero”.
- Pop Hero is a nobody. He can sing decently, and he has a cute face. No acne. Slick hair. Plus, a small following of girls on YouTube seem to love the cover songs he uploads to YouTube.
- A label executive discovers Pop Hero when his daughter blasts his songs on repeat one weekend. He pulls some strings to get Pop Hero a record deal.
- Pop Hero agrees to a record deal under a few conditions. The record label will not pay for Pop Hero’s album production/recording, tour, food, hotel/house, and clothes. But the label will advance Pop Hero’s royalties from the album sales and tour. In that sense, the label is acting as a loan bank, offering Pop Hero all the money he needs to make it big. If Pop Hero can’t pay back the loan with his album sales and tour. That’s fine. He continues to work for the label until his contract is up and he pays off his loan.
- In most cases, Pop Hero will find that he cannot pay back the loan. Not only does the label own the rights to his recordings and probably most of his sheet music, but the label will continue to advance him money to create more albums and tours.
- Pop Hero spends the rest of his life paying back the advances, working non-stop tours and writing crappy but hot-selling music.
That’s why artists don’t bypass labels. The labels can turn any nobody into household name, so it’s hard to turn down a record deal with a major company. At the same time, once you enter into a record deal with that company, they will own you for life unless you have incredible, ground-breaking, word-wide success (examples of artists that used labels to make it big but have eventually broken away from the shackles of labels: Radiohead, DaftPunk, Dr. Dre).
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:52 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
The reality is worse than that. The labels make a ton off those masters and the artists make zero (meaning when you hear music during ads, most of the time it isn’t the artist that controls where that music went nor do they see a dime). Also that labels use fuzzy math to account for record sales cost/profit, so the artist has no clue how much the label makes off a single album sale (this means they don’t know when they will start to see royalty checks if ever).
Let’s not forget that the artists can be dropped at any time without warning nor with any penalties, while the artists cannot leave or even do a guest appearance on another label without permission (the guest appearance thing is what was special about Beck’s contract after he made a hit single before being signed).
One last point, most labels have final say on what goes onto an album. So if it is deemed to be “not commercial enough” then the artist is must write and record new songs.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:34 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I would have to imagine there are more artists ‘bypassing’ the labels today than at any point in history. That you don’t typically hear about them ever though might give you a clue as to why you have the impression otherwise.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:58 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
I read once that the actual artists only get 7 to 11% of the dollars from each sale. That’s hardly “supporting the artist”, that’s supporting the bureaucracy of the conglomerate.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:20 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Does that 7-11% include the song writers, the instrumentalists, etc. I don’t mean to stick up for the labels but when I hear unclear statistics like that I can’t help but ask.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:49 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
If they’re actual bands rather than poseurs (“Songwriters”? “Instrumentalists”? Seriously?), then the answer would be yes.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:26 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
A lot of “actual bands” don’t play the instruments on their albums. Studio bands do instead. I actually know a professional drummer who used to tour but now does studio work since he has a family.
P.S. Pull your head out of your ass.
Posted on Feb 06, 2012 | 1:35 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Artists make almost no money from record sales. Tours are their bread and butter. Album sales are usually used to pay back the advances, or loans, given to artists to create their albums.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:54 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I don’t think Neil Young understands what Apple Lossless is…
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:20 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Cd quality =/= studio master quality
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:21 PM EST reply Recommend (12) Flag actions
Crapy mastering has nothing to do with the technical limits of a coded. Apple Lossless supports bit depth up to 32 bits and sample rates up to about 380 KHz (with a theoretical limit to the tune of 4 GHz). You can fully losslessly encode any digital recording in that. Neil should address the crapy mastering complaint to the music labels.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:52 PM EST reply Recommend (18) Flag actions
It does not. That’s nonsense. 16 bit/44.1K is NOT studio quality. You are a majority of one.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s what I said. I didn’t know the keyboard code for the “does not equal” sign, so I made my own up.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:51 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Most people just use =!
It’s a programming thing.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 4:18 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Programmers use !=
We’re also pedants ;)
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:04 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
That because keyboards don’t have the “does not equal” sign—the crossed out equals sign–that goes back to symbolic logic and Boolean algebra. It wouldn’t occur to a mathematician to use “!=”.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:43 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
≠
ok done
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 2:57 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I think what they are getting at is that mastering quality (and the entire recording process, for that matter) is of much greater importance than the final bit-rate. For example, I would much rather listen to a well-produced 16-bit 44.1k album that was mixed/mastered with a lot of life and dynamic contrast than a 24-bit 96k album that was compressed, brightened, and squashed.
With all of that said, I very much agree with Young in the interview that listeners should have a choice in the matter, and a 24-bit online option would be a great thing for consumers.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
To clarify… I mean ‘compressed’ in terms of dynamically compressed. Most pop/rock “Radio” albums today have a dynamic range of less than 3dB for the majority of the song.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Then his concern shouldn’t be for mp3s and Apple Lossless or FLAC or whatever. He should be concerned about CDs quality.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 6:50 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Also that. He must not be thinking of ALAC but maybe the higher bitrate ACC’s.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:21 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Do not question Neil.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:43 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
Lolz..I don’t think you understand what a digital recording is compared to an actual sound source. Go look up what sampling rate is, and what bit resolution is..where is the sound going when the sampling clock is down? It’s certainly not being recorded…when the clock is up..do you think ALL the nuance of that aural moment in time can fit on 16 bits?
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 5:47 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The “mp3s contain only 5-10% of original sound in music” is a bit misleading. There are frequencies that a human ear cannot hear over one another. Music compression takes advantage of that by compressing the sound so that there’s virtually zero perceived quality loss. Since most people listen to music through headphones nowadays there’s absolutely no point in offering “100% of the sound”. Talking about storing recorded material, however, is another story.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:21 PM EST reply Recommend (15) Flag actions
Even so if you goto a concert (not in a stadium setting) and hear an artist live (if they dont suck live) the sound is 100% better than listening to any digital medium, mp3, lossless or anything else.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:29 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Well duh! Of course it’s better – it’s pumping through better speakers, it gets amplified and/or modified by the acoustics of the room, etc. But live will always be better than any “non-live” medium – mp3, CD and even vinyl. It’s the nature of it not being live. Regardless though, this whole “5% of audio” is a silly argument. Even if it’s mathematically accurate, which I doubt it is, like gorskiegangsta says, most of the rest of it is stuff we can’t hear anyway, it’s akin to complaining that a photograph of a nebula doesn’t show the x-rays and ultra-violets and the infrareds.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:39 PM EST reply Recommend (9) Flag actions
That’s what I assuming he means but it’s an ambiguous statement. He could be completely clued up or completely clueless. And he must know that the only way to recreate music is to recreate the environment in which the music was created and recorded. But given the propensity to edit right in the studio, how true even that is, is itself highly debateable.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
True. However, I was talking about it in the context of the article. Neil claimed that " the MP3 files we’re all listening to actually are pretty poor from an audio-quality standpoint". While it’s a true statement, it is also an irrelevant one. Since most people listen through their headphones, the perceived quality loss is virtually nonexistent. Studio master copies are another story though even those can be fully digitally encoded with, in Neil’s words “100% of the sound”.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Do you have speakers at home that cost over $50,000? I’m pretty sure you’ll never experience sound quality at home that matches what you’ll hear in a well-funded concert, ever. Your neighbors probably wouldn’t appreciate it anyway.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Am I the only one who thinks live music usually sounds like shit? Usually too much echo and noise. And annoying crowds cheering.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 8:28 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
And potheads.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 8:44 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No, the pot actually increases the sound quality. If you’re the one smoking it, that is.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 3:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you serious? Live sound will never, ever, ever, not in a million years, sound as good as a recording.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 5:46 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Thats the old way of thinking, current understanding is more advanced these days and what the brain can perceive is much greater than previously thought.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:11 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The discrepancies between different pieces of research on the subject are small. Some people have better hearing than others. Certain people can hear much more what was previously believed to be humanly possible but the number of such individuals is rather small. Average human (i.e. 85-95% of the population) hearing ability is what we’re talking about here.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:31 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
That is such a generic statement as to be completely useless. If you have information to present, present it.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:42 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Do your own research.
Posted on Feb 03, 2012 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Most people can easily hear that MP3s seriously degrade music. Gizmodo sent a guy over to my place to “prove” it to me and left understanding that he’d been listening to garbage sound, which is what you’re proposing people be served. Headphones make the garbage that is Mp3 even more obvious—-as long as the headphones aren’t also garbage.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Some people pride themselves on being able to hear “more” than others. If you’re one of those people, good for you. The reality is that good standard bitrates (224, 256 or 320 kbps) offer perfect perceived sound to majority of people. However, no matter how high the bitrate is, through average headphones (which is what most people have) they’ll all sound the same. This is why Ia said that while Neil’s statement is true it is also irrelevant when speaking about an overwhelming majority of people who listen to digital music.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:47 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
that majority is even more overwhelming when you include the people who can tell the difference but still don’t give a crap.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 5:34 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Most people? No, most people can’t hear that and there is no reason to think most people do.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Except you don’t just perceive and experience sound with your ears, which is why concerts can have such a hugely physical effect on you.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Disagree 100% on this.
I have very good speakers with my Mac and use a DAC. I can assure you that the “perceived quality loss” is you speak of is more than “perceived”. 128, 256, 320kbps…..they all sound awful when turned up. Mind you, the actual recordings of that music is the key too. It’s all about the SOURCE of the music. If it was recorded like a 70’s Rolling Stones album (muddy mix) then the quality of the file makes no difference. At 128 or even FLAC-Apple Lossless, it still sounds like a bad mix. I find stuff like new trance, chill, lounge digital music sounds great even at 128kbps. I can crank it up and no discernable distortion.
Having said all that, I’d guess perhaps 95% of my music collection is FLAC and some of those have mirrored files in Apple Lossless. If you listen to music with an iPod then 128kbps seems OK since you are limiting things within the restrictions of headphones/earplugs. Get some $500-$1500 headphones along with a headphone amp and a DAC well, things don’t sound so great at that bit rate.
1) Bottom line is compressed music files simply don’t have all the nuances needed to sound as they were recorded.
2) The original source of the music recorded, warts and all, comes through on any bit rate. The mix on Exile on Main Street still sounds dreadful to me. So does Brothers and Sisters by the Allman Brothers.
3) You want good sound? You can’t start after the source and expect to improve it’s quality after it’s mixed and recorded. Utilize the best gear and you still can only get what started at the beginning of the process. Sure, EQ can help somewhat but, then you are meddling with the artists interpretation of what they want you to hear. I’m guilty of using tools to clean up some recordings so they sound better to my ears.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 4:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But Joe Public isn’t going to spend thousands of dollars on headphones, separate amps, DACs and all the rest, so the whole argument is moot. The fact of the matter is that MP3s are ‘good enough’. The format wouldn’t be around if it didn’t offer a fantastic compromise between aural quality and file size.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:10 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
MP3 is an old compromise. Bandwidth and HDD space is so plentiful now it’s time to move on.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 3:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m curious as to how you would listen to a digital music file without using a DAC.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:21 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t forget an important part of the equation: Neil’s hearing is probably not 100% after so many years of rock’n’roll. I have lost my share of acoustic bandwidth from playing the guitar…
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 8:42 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I love Neil Young’s music but his business ventures are truly awful. Remember his idea to turn heavy classic cars into EVs? Umm, anybody who knows anything about EVs will tell you that weight is the primary concern. This new venture will also fail. The average person cannot tell the difference between an MP3 and a completely lossless format. Sure, some people can. But not enough to make much money from.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:28 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I could definitely be wrong, but from what I remember, Neil’s efforts of turning his old car into an EV wasn’t a “business venture”, but more to raise awareness and show that it could be done. I believe this is a similar scenario with music.. This isn’t a “venture”. He’s, again, raising awareness to try to get music quality to continue moving forward. Of course, with earbuds, MP3 is fine… but it doesn’t always have to be that way. Let’s get wireless tiny earbuds with master recording quality audio coming from PMPs that play Master quality recordings. Maybe it’s far off, but so is everything until it starts making headway.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m pretty sure the primary concerns are temperature and drag, I would put weight as a third or maybe even fourth concern, behind general efficiency…
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 8:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Wait wait Neil! I was sure that Apple’s lossless format contains only 10.7% of the audio. I can’t believe I was off by .4%, I don’t think I’ll ever be able to listen to another track on iTunes.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:34 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Well done, sir. I agree with you 110%!
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 8:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
*109.6%
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 11:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Hope Neil Young will remember
Techie man don’t need him around…
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Just quoting an old song, I agree with his piracy/radio thing.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 2:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I can add Neil Young to a select group of musicians, including Trent Reznor, who “get it”. I love that goddamn Canadian.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:24 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I want to get stoned with his sideburns.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:30 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Considering Apple lets all their iPods and iPhones ship with the abomination that are the ‘White Earbuds’ I have a feeling that they are really that concerned with hearing ‘100%’ of music.
Also how does the ‘Loudness Wars’ play into this? If they’re clipping the music right from the start to make it louder by default, what good will getting the full sound be?
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:54 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Link: Loudness Wars Wiki
didn’t realize I had to put a title in the link tags…
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 3:56 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“your average MP3 file only contains about five percent of the audio from an original recording”
Where does he get these numbers from? What is “original recording” to him? I’d love to hear more information.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 4:39 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He’s probably talking about master recordings…which are ridiculously good typically.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 10:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How large (in MB) is an individual song’s master recording?
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 3:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
iPhone cannot play .WAV files = Jobs High-Rez fail.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 5:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
The iPhone supports AIFF format which is essentially the same thing. i.e. uncompressed PCM data.
That said, at the same bit depth and sampling rate Apple lossless will give you exactly the same digital output as a .WAV file. The only effective difference is that .WAV (and AIFF) use a lot more storage space.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 10:39 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Of course I can play .wav files.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
Stop making things up.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 5:14 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
They put .WAV in their specs, but all I can tell you is that I loaded my iPhone 4 up with .WAV files from my iTunes library, they show up in the phone, I can look at the album art, but boy, they certainly will not play on the device.
Posted on Feb 07, 2012 | 9:57 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He sounds smarter than I would have ever given him credit for. That is most likely why he is filthy, dirty rich.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 5:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Lets get to the real issue here…apple’s crappy white ear buds!!! Who cares how amazing the sound quality of the digital file is when its being listened to through some of the worst quality headphones on the planet.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 5:57 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I think that is the fault of the consumer if they expect to have great sound quality from the “thrown in” earbuds. Great headphones are likely to cost the same or more than the price of the iPod. Of course, if you care that much about sound quality, you are probably listening to something other than iPods most of the time.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 6:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
If only the Iphone was compatible to Nokia’s awesome noise-cancelling headsets…
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 8:35 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Silly me, wasted 10 years on Electric Engineering schools listening to all that signal processing b.s. while I should have just learned from Neil and Steve what is really good.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 8:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“Apple lossless” is an oxymoron. Using Apple is all about losing your money!
If you have bucks to spend on Apple gear, you really should spare some for a decent set of speakers:
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 8:48 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I think that some people not most, but some people would love to have 24bit/96KHz files available for download. It can just be another avenue of revenue. Why not?
Regular album 9.99: 24/96 album 15.99
I think people would buy it.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 10:54 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I would agree that 24-bit might be useful for some material with very large dynamic range such as classical music but I don’t see why you would need anything more than 44.1 or 48 kHz unless you’re planning on capturing ultrasonic material.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 10:04 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Even a “young whippersnapper” like me, who only ever purchased music digitally (and use crap headphones), can hear a perceivable quality difference between the CD and the downloaded mp3s of the same songs. I wish higher quality versions were available to purchase digitally, i would by them in a heartbeat.
Posted on Jan 31, 2012 | 11:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
320 or FLAC I hear no difference, the bit-rate depends where you buy/pirate from.
Most people don’t even care they listen to 128 kbps, unless they are big fans of electronic music.
iTunes is shit btw, foobar is way better.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 12:44 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Totally dude! I converted all my 56kbps MP3s to ALAC using iTunes and they sound no better! Which means iTunes sucks.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 2:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually it’s the other way around – electronic music works better at low bitrate due to its nature. It’s harder to spot limitations in at low bitrates simply since electronic music is made with fake sounds and instruments. When you do not know what synth sound the artist used you can not judge if it is a correct representation you’re listening to. No listener will know if the resulting effect or noise you hear is intended by the artist or mixer, or if it appears due to bit degration or compression artifacts. The same goes for processed vocals. You don’t know the effect they used so you can’t tell if what you hear is correct or not.
High fidelity recordings of unprocessed vocals and true to the source- recordings of acoustic instruments are way more likely to make listeners aware of the degration added by lossy compression. Most people know how a guitar, a drum set and a natural voice sounds, so any weird artifacts are easily heard during playback. If you want to experiment and try to hear the differences yourself then use a pure source. You are most likely to find these in folk, jazz, blues, songwriter or similar categories.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 3:12 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not sure I fully agree, Drum & Bass and Dubstep are shit if not 320, especially the sounds with a deep minimal bass.
Posted on Feb 04, 2012 | 3:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I love Neil Young.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 4:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh and if you happened to download an album illegal and you really like it I think it’s only fair to reward the Artist with some cash money. I don’t think that’s much to ask….
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 4:25 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Is there a problem finding the favourite music in lossless format?
On other thoughts agree.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 4:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Neil Young wouldn’t let the record companies resell his LPs on CD because he thought the quality was low. Finding lossless versions of many of his albums is quite difficult.
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 4:57 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Up until the CD we were listening to nowhere near 100% fidelity (tape, vinyl were never amazing) yet the music will still enjoyable. Music is about songs not bitrates! No one cares about 100% sound quality cos hardly anyone can hear these ultra high and low frequencies that compression removes (unless your a dog or a 5yr old!).
If they did, SACD would be massive. Consumers have voted, they dont care about have a 60mg file for 1 song. They’d rather listen to a 3mg file. There is hardly any difference.
Anyway, Neil Youngs ears must be F*cked by now anyway. How many studio sessions with loud headphones.. I’m surprised he can hear anything but a permanent ringing noise!
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 6:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Haha, since when do big music business care about artist or music? Que the likes of Bieber
Posted on Feb 01, 2012 | 6:56 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m sorry, this just isn’t true. Apple lossless is only 10%? Compared to what? Did you know that 92.8% of statistics are made up on the spot?
My degree is literally this. I studied audio and recording arts and sciences, and to call a lossless format just 10% is beyond silly. In a blind listening test on very high end audio systems (Tascam CD-RW2000 player, Apogee DAC, through the Sony Oxford console, played back on large 3-way Genelec, 15" Tannoy, and nearfield Right-Hemisphere monitors), my colleagues and I could not tell the difference between the original CD recording and an AAC encoded file at 320kbps, VBR.
Of course, CD isn’t the end all-be all. 24-bit audio recordings do sound better, as do DSD (SACD) recordings. However, anything above a sampling rate of 48k is simply wasting storage. We can’t hear it. Period. In reality, we can’t hear the maximum of CD, but I do think a bit of headroom is worth the storage cost. If we say that CD is 70% of studio quality (hint, it’s more), then a lossless encoding like ALAC or FLAC is 70% of the original recording. There’s a reason it’s called lossless.
A lossless codec does not rely on psychoacoustic properties to compress the file, it relies on the same sorts of criteria that file compresison use: compress only enough such that the original file can be constructed in a bit perfect way. It can use common patterns, store only chnages between words, etc, but NO data is lost.
On the other hand, lossy formats do use psychoacoustic properties to reduce space. They throw out frequencies above human hearing, as well as any sounds that would be masked by more powerful or very close (in time) repetition (the precedence effect). The result is that, while the original cannot be reconstructed, and while every subsequent encoding will result in lower and lower quality, for the most part, the audio will be indistinguishable from the original, given a high enough bitrate.
Our blind tests showed that at 128kbps, the sound-stage was clearly collapsed, and transient sounds were lost. The same was true of 192kbps, though to a lesser extent. At 256kbps, the transients were not lost, but some of the spacial transparency around the sound was still missing. Once VBR was introduced and the bit-rate was increased to 320, none of us could tell a difference.
Oh, and while I do consider myself an audiophile, I’m not, for lack of a better term, crazy. I could spend my whole life and paycheck in search of the best headphone cable, but when the transducer (the speaker/headphone driver) is already way less accurate than the cable, the difference is simply not worth it.
Posted on Feb 04, 2012 | 2:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
How did that get so long?
Posted on Feb 04, 2012 | 2:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.