[RyanH22]

I read in "Rolling Stone" today that artist Neil Young has trademarked what could be new high def audio formats. Neil Young has hated mp3's, and is wanting to get "studio quality" recordings in a digital form. The names of them are "21st Century Record Player", "Earth Storage", and "thanks for listening". I wonder how these will sound if they ever see the light of day, what do you guys think?

 

[Melvins]

i heard he was working with steve jobs on this before he passed, hopefully something comes of it! I'm excited to see what it will culminate in

 

[RyanH22]

I hope it sounds great and becomes successful! I mean those names just sound cool, I wonder what "Earth Storage" is? There is one i didnt mention which he trademarked called "SQS" or studio quality sound, that sounds like it could be great. I have a feeling it wont do well though... most kids today only want fast and easy music that is loud, they don't care if it sounds good.

 

[jupitreas]

As has already been discussed in the sound science forums, this is all pretty much one big marketing scam in order to sell 'higher-quality' files that are more expensive than ordinary files, while not sounding any different. There is scientific proof that 24 bit files don't make an audible difference.
 
What is nice about this whole thing is that, at least to some extent, the awareness of the problems that digital audio has will increase. The main cause of bad digital audio nowadays is the huge amount of compression used during mastering and I am hoping that initiatives like this one will make people more aware of what sounds.

 

[RyanH22]

That's what i hope as well... I hate how we have awesome technology yet our music sounds terrible. Over compressed, ear fatiguing, and just not fun to listen to.

 

[KG Jag]

Neil Young is a guy who does not sell out.  I trust that his actions are well intentioned and directed at improved music quality for artists, sound techies and the music customer.  What level of success he has and at what price point will be seen in time.

 

[skamp]

There is one i didnt mention which he trademarked called "SQS" or studio quality sound, that sounds like it could be great.

We would still depend on what artists, producers, mixing and mastering engineers decide what sounds "great". If that means over compression (or god forbid, clipping), we're still screwed.

 

[RyanH22]

 
 

We would still depend on what artists, producers, mixing and mastering engineers decide what sounds "great". If that means over compression (or god forbid, clipping), we're still screwed.

Yeah I am aware, but maybe with this high quality sound those issues would be heard to people who normally don't hear the loudness and over compression. Maybe it could start to put an end to those bad habits/marketing strategy's.

 

[jaycalgary]

"There is scientific proof that 24 bit files don't make an audible difference." lol

 

[goodvibes]

It's called not being able to hear a difference on the crap I've chosen and know in my heart is excellent even though it only cost me a few hundred dollars plus my (yuk) computer. If I can't hear (have) it, nobody else can either.

 

[TheGame21x]

Are FLAC and *INSERT LOSSLESS AUDIO CODEC HERE* not good enough?

 

[jupitreas]

Here, enjoy: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Quote:

"There is scientific proof that 24 bit files don't make an audible difference." lol

 
 

 

[goodvibes]

 
Quote:

Here, enjoy: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
 

 
The listening tests were completely bogus by using SACD. Try it with direct analog master conversions and proper playback if you're going to compare formats. Not make universal assessments based on some SACD player. 192 is overkill but there's benefits to 96.

 

[jcx]

SACD specs a 50 kHz bandwidth - no real difference from 96k PCM Nyquist 48 kHz (SACD originally speced 100 kHz but the shaped noise annoyed some "audiophile" amps - provoking them into oscillation)
 
SACD has the potential to convey whatever "extra" you think 96 k PCM would

 

[goodvibes]

Unless you're certain every SACD player sounds identical to another and also to an original file on a drive through the best DACs, there's a fly in your ointment. Even wave players through the same DAC don't sound identical to each other.