Neil Young Developing high definition audio formats. - Page 2

They do in a bit-perfect playback chain. Prove me otherwise.

Neil Young can suck it.

 

Come on man--you can do better than that if you want to join the discussion.

You mustn't know me very well.

OK: Neil Young is a crazy old hasbeen who probably only found out about computers and digital music after receiving an itunes royalty check from slightly less old people buying one of the three good songs he's written. I applaud him for his delicate understanding of psychoacoustics and the constraints of limited digital storage and internet bandwidth, but I sadly suspect that it will be another few years before he finally catches on to the fact that there are a variety of audio compression formats, including lossless, that are not proprietary and were not designed by out-of-touch geezers. Seriously, if you ignore the fact that he once made music, all you have left is some crotchety old man whose grand ideations are being tacitly supported by a company hoping to squeeze the last few pennies from his name's cachet. Which is made all the more ironic when you realize that by now he probably can't even hear anything past 14khz anyway and has no need for the headroom afforded by regular 16/44.1, much less any high resolution format.

More like 10 kHz!

I have always liked neil youngs recordings. Even the older albums are very well mastered.

He has a point, mp3s can be nasty, but its inherent with any compressed format.

Analysing lossy .jpg against lossless .png or .tiff is similar in regards to seeing quality reduction using compression. Its fine under the right circumstances for most people. Same as mp3, which is small and most people are happy with it.

Not sure we need yet, another high res format, we have plenty already for the audiophile audience.

Still, i think neil tries hard to make people aware that they will never get the best from mp3 music.

Anetode - open your mind before you open your trap.
Neil young won awards for his Archives boxset. A multi disc bluray boxset with elaborate multimedia experiences and high definition sound. He pioneered new ideas in the box set format with it.
Also anetode - when you get inducted into the rock & roll hall of fame under three different bands, just let us all know. Mmmmkay?

Whatever Neil Young did, none of it makes him an expert in digital audio. From what I've read, he doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about.

I know, I'm in no position to render any judgment based on my horrible taste and lack of critical acclaim. Just like Neil Young is in no position to develop a CODEC

Maybe the issue isn't that you based your judgement on bad taste and no acclaim, maybe it is simply that you hurl invectives at people you don't know and use that as a case on whether someone is qualified or not.

 

Neil Young actually was using digital instruments and recording techniques in the 80s touring without a band, He was a bit ahead of the curve. He claimed that he could tell the difference between analogue and digital sound, possible because of the poor quality of the DACs back in the 80s.

 

Whether he is technically capable of developing a codec or not is actually for the most part an assumption.

 

In anycase, recording artists who have actually cared about things like the technology of recording and mastering have generally speaking made much better quality recordings (from a technical standpoint). Of course sometimes they take a wrong turn or two in the quest for audio perfection, but I don't see why an artist being so interested in delivering the best sound quality (a rarity, no?) that they try to work with the biggest music distributor in the world, qualifies them to be a suitable object of derision. But that's what people like to do in forums i guess.

That's pretty much it. A few years ago I noticed Young's name popping up as the composer of a number of songs I loved by many different artists. I took a quick read through his wiki entry and bought a greatest hits album. All the songs were there, though I wasn't a huge fan of his voice or instrumentation -- which is fine, because he had great lyrics and killer sideburns.

But coming across this article, right now, my first impression was exactly that invective-filled rant posted earlier. If I were not aware of anything but the most cursory facts about Neil Young, I would see him as out of touch and out of time with current technology and technology use. I do know more than those cursory facts, but I see no compelling reason to think otherwise. Complaining about mp3s and calling for a new high-rez format in 2012 is about two decades too late. If, on the other hand, I see him presenting a new and novel compression algorithm or sampling theory at the AES, then I will eat my words.

As for not knowing him: no, I don't know him personally. He is a public figure, a widely published artist, and far worse has been said about him than making fun of his age.

I actually really like his guitar playing/sound. He isn't a technical player and he doesn't over process the sound, often just plugging directly into an amplifier. The recordings pick up the distortion, feedback and plenty of little errors. its all part of his charm. The complete opposite of Yngwie Malmsteen for instance, who would re-record the whole track again for even a single pinched note error, instead of capturing the moment, mistakes and all.

 

I agree, you probably need to be older however to appreciate his style. a little like Bob Dylan. I do however love those older singer/songwriters as they have a certain magic in their style of recording. warts n all.

 

I wouldn't debate it, some people will always say someone 'sucks'. Thats the joy of music, right?

 

In regards to this thread topic, I can't knock someone for wanting to improve recording quality and the options for the consumer, however in this case he will have a hard time pushing a completely new format. especially when there are already very high quality alternatives.

Edited by zardon - 5/6/12 at 1:19pm

I really doubt Neil Young is actively involved in any of the research and development in this endeavor. He is just a spokesperson for this new format. I'd say that we should take what he is saying with a grain of salt, he's probably getting paid to say it. 

 

Meanwhile, all currently available scientific studies prove that we don't actually need a higher bitrate/frequency file format as RedBook audio is already good enough. Instead, it is necessary to convince artists/labels/producers that loudness war mastering is no longer necessary in the iTunes/digital world of replaygain. If music was not as compressed during mastering, we'd indeed all enjoy a higher quality of sound.

Easily done if we sat next to each other. I can't argue proof but a dem would be hard for you to deny.

This only have to do with the mastering and your speakers/headphones.