[ohhgourami]

Quoting Niel Young's words from this article: http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/31/2761597/neil-young-music-steve-jobs-piracy-is-the-new-radio
 
Not sure how this is true...and definitely not sure how vinyl would offer 100% of the sound as he implies.  Of course I'm not trying to stir up another digital vs vinyl battle.  I just think that 10.3% is quite an exaggeration.
 
 
Although this post is a bit of the wrong section of the forum, I did want to share the article.

 

[zazex]

Ya, interesting - the relevant quote in the article for those who don't want to click on the link -
 
"He (Neil Young) 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." "
 
 
I have absolutely no idea to what Young is referring.
 
 
Perhaps someone else might.

 

[Devarika Woulf]

No idea.
 
I've compared cds to FLAC and I couldn't tell any difference. On the other hand FLAC cd vs FLAC vinyl, you can tell a difference. Vinyl is usually better.

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

"He (Neil Young) 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." "
 
 
I have absolutely no idea to what Young is referring.
 

 
Using those numbers "plucked out of the air" - I really don't suspect he does either.  Would be interested to hear someone like LFFs views on this.
 
And why does he specifically say Apple Lossless - it's the same digital info as any other lossless file.

 

[Somnambulist]

Whatever Neil Young has been smoking... I'll pass.

 

[Currawong]

He might have meant AAC and simply confused the terms, since Apple doesn't supply lossless music files.

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

He might have meant AAC and simply confused the terms, since Apple doesn't supply lossless music files.

Would make sense I guess - although their aac256 now is actually pretty good - about on par with mp3 320.

 

[Satellite_6]

Quote:

No idea.
 
I've compared cds to FLAC and I couldn't tell any difference. On the other hand FLAC cd vs FLAC vinyl, you can tell a difference. Vinyl is usually better.

Not really possible, but ok. . . 
 
 
He meant AAC I'm sure. . . 
 
128/1411 = ~10% of the file size but iTunes is now 256 so it doesn't make much sense either way though. He's terribly misinformed. 
 
He seems to imply that AAC is twice as good as mp3 as well, which is completely wrong. 
 

 

[Devarika Woulf]

Quote:

Quote:

No idea.
 
I've compared cds to FLAC and I couldn't tell any difference. On the other hand FLAC cd vs FLAC vinyl, you can tell a difference. Vinyl is usually better.

Not really possible, but ok. . .

 
What?

 

[Somnambulist]

Often the vinyl version of an album is mastered by different (and usually less LOUD) people compared to the CD/digital release, hence it sounds different and is usually better.

 

[ManchildProdigy]

I wonder if he's referring to the 16/44.1 resolution.  I'd imagine the studios work with 24/192 or higher before it's converted down to CD resolution.

 

[zazex]

Quote:

He might have meant AAC and simply confused the terms, since Apple doesn't supply lossless music files.

Apple Lossless Audio Codec = ALAC
 
http://applelossless.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

 

[Somnambulist]

Aye but Apple doesn't SELL anything in ALAC format. You have the option to go ALAC when ripping a CD but not with buying things off iTunes.

 

[Head Injury]

24/192 uncompressed files will have a bit rate of 9,216 kbps. Losslessly compressed 16/44.1 files will have a bit rate of around 800-1000. That's probably where he's getting it.
 
Good thing that other 90% has never been shown to be audible 

 

[zazex]

Quote:

Aye but Apple doesn't SELL anything in ALAC format. You have the option to go ALAC when ripping a CD but not with buying things off iTunes.

Yes, thanks for mentioning that.  (I should have...)