Wow, I wrote a five paragraph apology for digital music, but let's just leave at this: FLAC 'lossless' or even 320 (even vbr 320) will produce a measurably different file on a chart, but one that is sonically identical to the overwhelmingly vast majority of listeners (including self-styled audiophiles). One of the reasons the industry is still in dire straits (aside from being beaten to the punch) is because they offer horribly encoded tracks that are sonically inferior even to the average 15 y/o, leaving an extremely appealing option of pirates who care about fidelity uploading lovingly converted tunes. Tough call.
Had you dolts simply created an online store with lossless or higher bitrate options, you could have earned the reputation as the quality and only modestly expensive option to what, at that time, was an internet full of terrible, god-awful 128k rips @Napster, Kazaa, et al. Instead, you offered the same garbage fidelity and expected people to pay for it, in some cases more than the price of the actual disc. Again...tough call.

So I'm done hearing your crying.

Oh, and vinyl does sound better, Neil. But as the CD mostly killed vinyl due to convenience, the file format has done to the CD. Pleas from your audiophile heart fall on deaf ears, mainly because just about everyone listens to god-awful stock earbuds, logi-crap 'speakers,' or marginal car stereos. High fidelity lives on, but extreme convenience has clearly won, here.

Pay heed.

This is coming from a guy who uses old skateboards on strings and pulleys plus radio-shack components mounted on cast off plywood boards to create his sound.

The sound is awesome and real.

Listened to Let it Bleed on the turntable the other day while vegging out at the house. It really does sound better.

It was Brian Eno who turned music into wallpaper, thank you very much.

/And God bless him for it.

that Blu-Ray set up he's releasing sounds really cool. I too am guilty of the mp3 proliferation, but for me, it's a matter of not having the space for a proper stereo system. When I get the room, I will have an area dedicated to nothing but my music.

Stay Cool Babylon: Pleas from your audiophile heart fall on deaf ears, mainly because just about everyone listens to god-awful stock earbuds, logi-crap 'speakers,' or marginal car stereos. High fidelity lives on, but extreme convenience has clearly won, here.

This is true. But the convenience factor of MP3 was made universal because the music industry remained so stubborn about the monetization of online distribution. It's kind of like prohibition: when alcohol was made illegal, people started drinking rotgut, ripple and tub gin. And they did it in a tax-free underground economy.

In time, things will get better. The labels will be all but destroyed and artists (who obsess over sonic quality) will find new ways to distribute HQ lossless codecs of their music online. Music listeners will enjoy an Eden of music availability. Fat pipes and new storage technologies will allow the distribution of great-sounding digital tracks. Old ways are gone. A new era dawns.

My my...

Perhaps Neil needs a unit to sample and hold. But not the ANGRY one. A new design. New design.

I farkin' love that guy.

Geeze, not to be a jerk but that article was a load of crap.

The first three paragraphs telling us how great Neil is?

Neil as a sort of rock 'n' roll renaissance man? Please.

He is over-rated and has been for the past ten years.

He has nothing of interest left to say as an artist.

He might as well standing at a punch-press the way he churns out songs.

I used to be a big enough fan, too.

Now, say what you want but I would rather hear the ten disc set that Prince has stashed away before listening to Neil caterwaul about how life sucks, politicians are evil and Indians have purer souls than the white man.

For a guy who loves vinyl so much and bemoans the CD as the beginning of the end of rock and roll released none of this on vinyl and obsessed about the Blu-Ray version, the most expensive way to experience entertainment. The CD version is the only version anyone on a budget could remotely afford. A Vinyl version would be even cheaper.

Certain folks might claim that he is just another rock star who is now in it only for the money.

I've always hated Neil, always -- and there are times where I think he jumps on a critical bandwagon simply because it makes him appear relevant.

Regardless, I agree with what he says here as someone who's only recently come to adore the warmer quality of vinyl. In regards to the mp3 being a matter of convenience, I also like how listening to vinyl becomes a sort of social activity. "You want to listen to some albums" not "want me to play some shiat off of my iTunes?"

/politely gets off of old man Young's lawn.

This note's for you.

Bozos arguing the virtues of vinyl over cd or over mp3 is just like guitarists arguing tube amps vs. solid state.

Analog vs. digital....etc....

....yawn....yawn.....

Everything has its merits and everything has its bottom line cost or convenience factor.

I fault nobody for their choice.


/just bought an all tube AMPEG bass amp this weekend
//my wife is gonna kill me when she finds out how much I spent

I'm not a big Neil Young fan, and I get tired of the "mp3s suck" argument (even if it's true) but he gets a pass for Rockin' In The Free World.

If he were that concerned about sonic quality, he would have released an SACD version. And blaming Apple for the rise of the MP3 is like blaming McDonald's that you're so damn fat. I like his music, but he's a blowhard.

I'm a southern man so I'm getting a kick out of these replies

Vinyl is crap, real audiophiles hire the bands to play live in their living room.

/Nothing less is acceptable, according to the standards I just made up

I don't get all this snobbery. All the music I get from iTunes sounds fine. Can someone explain this controversy to me, a lowly member of the unwashed masses?

gamacrit: If he were that concerned about sonic quality, he would have released an SACD version.

He did release some albums on DVD-Audio a few years ago. Unfortunately, that format is now as dead as HD DVD.

Sony is pretty close to killing SACD, from what I hear. They took SACD playback out of the PS3. I have an older one that still has it.

WhileAmericaBurns: I don't get all this snobbery. All the music I get from iTunes sounds fine. Can someone explain this controversy to me, a lowly member of the unwashed masses?

MP3s use a form of compression to make their digital files smaller that results in loss of quality.

See this info.

And let me beat you to this: Just because you can't hear the difference on your equipment doesn't mean nobody can.

7Mary3and4: WhileAmericaBurns: I don't get all this snobbery. All the music I get from iTunes sounds fine. Can someone explain this controversy to me, a lowly member of the unwashed masses?

MP3s use a form of compression to make their digital files smaller that results in loss of quality.

See this info.

And let me beat you to this: Just because you can't hear the difference on your equipment doesn't mean nobody can.

So has anyone scientifically concluded what equipment is best for listening to MP3s and what is the worst? I mean, if it sounds fine in my cheap headphones, how bad could it be in other equipment?

WhileAmericaBurns: 7Mary3and4: WhileAmericaBurns: I don't get all this snobbery. All the music I get from iTunes sounds fine. Can someone explain this controversy to me, a lowly member of the unwashed masses?

MP3s use a form of compression to make their digital files smaller that results in loss of quality.

See this info.

And let me beat you to this: Just because you can't hear the difference on your equipment doesn't mean nobody can.

So has anyone scientifically concluded what equipment is best for listening to MP3s and what is the worst? I mean, if it sounds fine in my cheap headphones, how bad could it be in other equipment?

I should add: cheap headphones and an iPod Classic.

All these artists love to come up with excuses for the state of the music industry.

The problem is the music sucks.

Maybe its unavoidable that the "top 40" stations and MTV are going to have shiatty music because their largest demographic is 10-18 year old girls, but the music industry has done a worthless job of creating a market around people who would be willing to take their music a little more seriously. Those are the types of people who would be willing to spend a little money on a decent stereo setup and a little more money on buying complete albums as opposed to individual tracks.

And what have we been offered? Nothing. Most music that gets any mainstream press coverage sucks, average at best. There is a lot out there thats great but for some reason its never allowed to reach a critical mass. Its like this post-modern phenomenon where if something isnt already popular then it is considered weird and can never get popular because its already understood as weird. The only way around it is to be a corporate act where you're going to be instantly enmeshed in the MTV/clear channel reality of shiatty pop music.

WhileAmericaBurns:So has anyone scientifically concluded what equipment is best for listening to MP3s and what is the worst? I mean, if it sounds fine in my cheap headphones, how bad could it be in other equipment?

There can be quite a difference in quality. It is less noticeable until you train yourself to hear the finer details by playing your tracks using better equipment with minimal to no loss. This allows you to hear the music being played as the artist originally intended and there's not as much distortion (if any) as volume is increased.

MP3's make a fine trade-off if you are just grabbing and going. They're also a quick and convenient way to expose yourself to newer music without having to invest as much time or hard disk space. But if the song quality is too low, it can actually reduce your opinion of that new music simply by sounding like crap due to a bad rip or a low bitrate.

I've noticed that tracks below 192kbps (my standard) are either quieter, have some crackling where there shouldn't be, or some combination of both. Playing them in higher quality equipment only amplifies this problem. However for my interests 192kbps is usually sufficient.

And as far as scientific conclusions on equipment to use, the discussion of audioporn enthusiasts is ongoing across the internet.

Uh-huh...

When the hell is the DVD of "Human Highway" coming out?

John Buck 41: I'm not a big Neil Young fan, and I get tired of the "mp3s suck" argument (even if it's true) but he gets a pass for Rockin' In The Free World.

Upon further review, FTA---That's his preferred machine for the Blu-ray set, the version he's most enthusiastic about because of the advanced interactivity -- users can listen to music while exploring the other features -- and superior audio and video quality. It's also the priciest, at $299, compared to $199 for the DVD set and $99 for the CDs.

I'll give him a pass, but not a 299, 199, or 99 dollar pass.

CitizenTed: Stay Cool Babylon: Pleas from your audiophile heart fall on deaf ears, mainly because just about everyone listens to god-awful stock earbuds, logi-crap 'speakers,' or marginal car stereos. High fidelity lives on, but extreme convenience has clearly won, here.

This is true. But the convenience factor of MP3 was made universal because the music industry remained so stubborn about the monetization of online distribution. It's kind of like prohibition: when alcohol was made illegal, people started drinking rotgut, ripple and tub gin. And they did it in a tax-free underground economy.

In time, things will get better. The labels will be all but destroyed and artists (who obsess over sonic quality) will find new ways to distribute HQ lossless codecs of their music online. Music listeners will enjoy an Eden of music availability. Fat pipes and new storage technologies will allow the distribution of great-sounding digital tracks. Old ways are gone. A new era dawns.

No, it's not going to get better. Storage technologies and production techniques (read: ProTools) will do nothing for melody, harmony, and rhythm.

The problem is that we've heard pretty much everything there is to hear. Everything from here on out is going to be a rehash of something that's been done at some point in the last 80 years. The musical Eden you speak of does not exist and I submit that it will only get worse.

Why? Because we're one global culture now. 100 years ago African (including slaves brought to the New World) and Latin cutural musics mixed with those from Europe and formed what we know as jazz and blues. Those morphed into Rock and Roll with the advent of the electric guitar and amplifier. The synthesizer was the last big, real music innovation before computers came along, which really don't do anything other than sequence and rearrange what's been laid down already. And they've peaked - there's not much more computing power necessary to do anything new, musically speaking.

So, what's going to be the next big inovation and/or the next big
cultural melt? Sure, we'll hear pockets of good stuff, and you always will - there's talent all over, but nothing is really... new.

We've heard it all, classified it seven ways to Sunday, put it in our Walkman Nano, and realized that the stuff made 40 years ago is better, anyway.

Music used to be a social thing, even after it lost it's roots in primitive worship, ritual, celebration, and communication - you could still party to it: dance, get high, fark, whatever. Now it's solitary, and we're actually trying to make it even more solitary by going the "indie" route. Good jorb.

The 20th century was the peak of musical culture. That's the problem the record industry is facing.

Don't worry, when the iMplant comes out, you'll hear your favorite music in all it's sonic glory.

Once again, Charlie Freak is correct.

AntonSzandorLaVey: I'm a southern man so I'm getting a kick out of these replies

A southern man don't need mp3s anyhow.

Charlie Freak: CitizenTed: Stay Cool Babylon: Pleas from your audiophile heart fall on deaf ears, mainly because just about everyone listens to god-awful stock earbuds, logi-crap 'speakers,' or marginal car stereos. High fidelity lives on, but extreme convenience has clearly won, here.

This is true. But the convenience factor of MP3 was made universal because the music industry remained so stubborn about the monetization of online distribution. It's kind of like prohibition: when alcohol was made illegal, people started drinking rotgut, ripple and tub gin. And they did it in a tax-free underground economy.

In time, things will get better. The labels will be all but destroyed and artists (who obsess over sonic quality) will find new ways to distribute HQ lossless codecs of their music online. Music listeners will enjoy an Eden of music availability. Fat pipes and new storage technologies will allow the distribution of great-sounding digital tracks. Old ways are gone. A new era dawns.

No, it's not going to get better. Storage technologies and production techniques (read: ProTools) will do nothing for melody, harmony, and rhythm.

The problem is that we've heard pretty much everything there is to hear. Everything from here on out is going to be a rehash of something that's been done at some point in the last 80 years. The musical Eden you speak of does not exist and I submit that it will only get worse.

Why? Because we're one global culture now. 100 years ago African (including slaves brought to the New World) and Latin cutural musics mixed with those from Europe and formed what we know as jazz and blues. Those morphed into Rock and Roll with the advent of the electric guitar and amplifier. The synthesizer was the last big, real music innovation before computers came along, which really don't do anything other than sequence and rearrange what's been laid down already. And they've peaked - there's not much more computing power necessary to do anything new, musically speaking.

So, what's going to be the next big inovation and/or the next big
cultural melt? Sure, we'll hear pockets of good stuff, and you always will - there's talent all over, but nothing is really... new.

We've heard it all, classified it seven ways to Sunday, put it in our Walkman Nano, and realized that the stuff made 40 years ago is better, anyway.

Music used to be a social thing, even after it lost it's roots in primitive worship, ritual, celebration, and communication - you could still party to it: dance, get high, fark, whatever. Now it's solitary, and we're actually trying to make it even more solitary by going the "indie" route. Good jorb.

The 20th century was the peak of musical culture. That's the problem the record industry is facing.

Music sounds best through a bong.
/Even Neil

WhileAmericaBurns: So has anyone scientifically concluded what equipment is best for listening to MP3s and what is the worst? I mean, if it sounds fine in my cheap headphones, how bad could it be in other equipment?

It also depends on what type of music you listen to. I listen to electronic music, and MP3 at low bit rates makes the music sound pretty awful. Most electronic music heads have become pretty snobbish about quality and stick to FLAC, 320 kbps, and V0 nowadays.

doshus: Once again, Charlie Freak is correct.

Thanks, I figure it's my manifesto and if keep on bringing it up in appropriate threads, at some point, just maybe, people will start to see beyond their "fark the RIAA" mentality. And trust me, I have no love for those pigfarkers either. But, what they've been doing in the last 20 years is milking the sick old cow for every last drop before putting a slug in her head. But it's part of the symptom, not the cause. Why is the cow sick?

Alkoholiker:
Music sounds best through a bong.
/Even Neil

To be honest, I wouldn't know, but I have to think there's at least a little merit to that statement.

I'm gonna agree with Stay Cool Babylon.

A 320kbps LAME mp3 played from my Echo Event interface into my McIntosh amp & Bang & Olufsen speakers sounds pretty good to me. Basically, the same as the original source I recorded it from. So, it's good enough for me.

I don't think MP3s are killing off music. I think the music industry is killing off music by discouraging anything different, and shoving American Idol pop star clones down our throats. If anything, mp3s have saved good music by allowing people easy access to it that would have never heard it otherwise.

GibbyTheMole: I don't think MP3s are killing off music. I think the music industry is killing off music by discouraging anything different, and shoving American Idol pop star clones down our throats. If anything, mp3s have saved good music by allowing people easy access to it that would have never heard it otherwise.

It's basically a double edged sword. While all the music in the world is at your finger tips now, the sad part is that many people have become accustomed to not paying for music. I'll sidestep the obvious arguments and say that because of the way the RIAA, major labels, and artists themselves have behaved many people feel completely justified not paying anything for music.

So for artists who produce good music and are not signed to a major label, it's quite difficult to make a living selling music. People will of course have all sorts of counterpoints to that, of course.

What he's failing to account for are two things:

1. How something is recorded is just as important as how you listen to it.

2. MP3's are not in their final format. The technology will continue to improve.

Websites like eMusic have figured out the proper business model. At some point, record studios will begin running similar websites with proprietary artists, and they will go back to making insane profits off of subscriptions and paying the artists as little as they can get away with.

Orgasmatron138: 2. MP3's are not in their final format. The technology will continue to improve.

No, they're done. It's now all about FLAC.

Stay Cool Babylon: One of the reasons the industry is still in dire straits (aside from being beaten to the punch) is because they offer horribly encoded tracks that are sonically inferior even to the average 15 y/o, leaving an extremely appealing option of pirates who care about fidelity uploading lovingly converted tunes.

Considering the Top 40 is littered with Lady Gaga, etc, I somehow don't think people looking for quality, even if it's a good quality MP3 of a bad quality song, are in the majority. Piracy is a problem due to the fact that even with shrinking sales of the CD, the industry will not budge at all on the price of CDs. Sure, you'll never beat free, but the market has clearly decided that $15 a CD is more than a bit much. Couple this with an industry increasingly seen as marketing "Pure shiat" with few redeeming (mainstream) acts, and now you know why the music industry is shooting itself in the foot.


Charlie Freak: So, what's going to be the next big inovation and/or the next big
cultural melt? Sure, we'll hear pockets of good stuff, and you always will - there's talent all over, but nothing is really... new.


Welcome to music since the dawn of time. At worst, the internet has made it easier to trace an act's influences, so the Come-Out-of-Nowhere mystique of past acts, who became big in an era of limited exposure, will probably be no more.

Glitchwerks: No, they're done. It's now all about FLAC.

wake me when they have something of that quality that does not take up a huge portion of my harddrive just for one album. I know storage capacity is getting bigger and bigger, but goddamn, the one My Bloody Valentine bootleg I have in FLAC is bigger than the rest of their discography encoded in 256 kpbs...

FeedTheCollapse: wake me when they have something of that quality that does not take up a huge portion of my harddrive just for one album. I know storage capacity is getting bigger and bigger, but goddamn, the one My Bloody Valentine bootleg I have in FLAC is bigger than the rest of their discography encoded in 256 kpbs...

A 320 GB hard drive, 2.5" external costs like $80 at Wal-Mart. It will hold around 600-700 albums in FLAC. I honest to goodness don't see the problem. That's a lot of albums that you stuff into a very small space.

Glitchwerks: A 320 GB hard drive, 2.5" external costs like $80 at Wal-Mart. It will hold around 600-700 albums in FLAC. I honest to goodness don't see the problem. That's a lot of albums that you stuff into a very small space.

I'm still not sold that FLAC songs that are ~5x times larger than MP3s encoded at 256 kpbs really sound that much better, if at all, either.

craigdamage: guitarists arguing tube amps vs. solid state.

Dude, don't get me started.

\Mesa DC-5 with JJ 6L6 tubes, through a Celestion V-30 closed-back cab and an EVM-12L thiele cab..... heaven, baby.

FeedTheCollapse: I'm still not sold that FLAC songs that are ~5x times larger than MP3s encoded at 256 kpbs really sound that much better, if at all, either.

The basic argument is that no one can distinguish beyond 192 kbps or V2. People, however, debate that immensely and I myself can hear the difference in FLAC and 192 kbps and V2 on my equipment. 256 kbps is sort of pointless, it's better to shift to 320 kbps. At that point, almost no one can even claim to be able to tell the difference, although that doesn't stop people from doing so. The amount of space saved between 256 kbps and 320 kbps is almost negligible, which is why you should just go for 320 kbps and be done with it. Just sayin', of course. It's your music, your collection, you do what you want with it.

There's a lot of nuances in the type of stuff I listen to. I choose lossless quality whenever possible.

Glitchwerks: GibbyTheMole: I don't think MP3s are killing off music. I think the music industry is killing off music by discouraging anything different, and shoving American Idol pop star clones down our throats. If anything, mp3s have saved good music by allowing people easy access to it that would have never heard it otherwise.

It's basically a double edged sword. While all the music in the world is at your finger tips now, the sad part is that many people have become accustomed to not paying for music. I'll sidestep the obvious arguments and say that because of the way the RIAA, major labels, and artists themselves have behaved many people feel completely justified not paying anything for music.

So for artists who produce good music and are not signed to a major label, it's quite difficult to make a living selling music. People will of course have all sorts of counterpoints to that, of course.

Quite.

Making a living selling music has a lot of negative connotations, starting with education. If the music industry provides little-to-no profit incentive, then why pay for a music education or training?

Screw it, just give me the next bit of three-chord dreck played and sung by a teenager bemoaning how hard his or her crappy life is.

Moar, please.

Glitchwerks: The amount of space saved between 256 kbps and 320 kbps is almost negligible, which is why you should just go for 320 kbps and be done with it. Just sayin', of course. It's your music, your collection, you do what you want with it.

I just use WMP, so it tops out at 256, I believe. That's the only reason why it's set at 256. I can certainly believe that there would be a noticeable difference between FLAC and 192 kpbs mp3... but I would probably just go with a higher bitrate Mp3, with a fifth of the disc space used compared to the FLAC file.

FeedTheCollapse: I just use WMP

OH NO YOU DI'INT!

Yup, thats it Neil. Keep putting out boxes of crap I'll find at Goodwill in 6 months. Hard copy music is for old people and retards.

eh, I have no problems with it, outside of occasionally getting the tags incorrect. Is there something better?