If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   If you have been asking what is the latest on Neil Young's new high-resolution music system - then this link's for you   (news.cnet.com) divider line 59
    More: Cool, Neil Young, David Letterman, stereos  
•       •       •

3033 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Oct 2013 at 10:15 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-24 08:53:17 AM
I don't understand the cost issue of creating two mixes.  If you master at the high audio quality level, the cost of exporting it to a lower quality should be negligible.

I really don't understand the cost issue associated with simply recording at the high resolution either.  How is it more expensive to select ProTools equivalent of "Save As --> 320kHz" as opposed to "Save As --> 48kHz"?

The higher resolution files are larger so there would be bandwidth costs to streaming services but are they the ones dictating the standards?
 
2013-10-24 08:56:06 AM
I'm more interested in his trains.

graphics8.nytimes.com

/the guy has an entire barn for his setup
 
2013-10-24 09:17:17 AM

Muta: I really don't understand the cost issue associated with simply recording at the high resolution either. How is it more expensive to select ProTools equivalent of "Save As --> 320kHz" as opposed to "Save As --> 48kHz"?


yeah, there's a huge difference in the amount of storage, drive throughput, memory and processing necessary to not only record but simultaneously playback and process complex signal chains for as many tracks as are used in a modern recording.  all for what?  high compression, low bandwidth consumption.  it's a LOT of overhead for a decidedly niche market, if it even exists at all.

there are DECADES of 44.1k/16bit sessions out there because ultimately that was the highest resolution it would ever be distributed at and it wasn't seen as necessary to any better.  lots of people would argue there still isn't a need to do any better.
 
2013-10-24 09:37:28 AM
More barn?
 
2013-10-24 10:23:28 AM
You would have to think that Neil is essentially deaf anyway...
 
2013-10-24 10:31:21 AM
Everybody seems to wonder what it sounds like there. You gotta get away from the day-to-day runarounds. Everybody, Pono's...going nowhere.
 
2013-10-24 10:36:49 AM
I don't know. I heard it was a piece of crap.
 
2013-10-24 10:41:53 AM
This will bomb. The average consumer will have zero interest in this.
 
2013-10-24 10:42:10 AM
44.1 kHz sample rate
16-bit word length
Samples represented in twos complement binary
8 to 14 expansion
Set reproducer for reference level: 1000 Hertz
 
2013-10-24 10:47:24 AM
Maybe I misread this "article", but did I miss the part where there is any actual information whatsoever about Pono?

Seems like a bunch of guessing and questions..?
 
2013-10-24 10:50:53 AM
I read Young's autobiography just last week. It was an interesting book, clearly not ghostwritten and likely barely even edited, but boy he would not shut up about this format. He goes on and on about it. He is obsessed with it, and will never give up on it.

He has good intentions, but I suspect he's a very high functioning autistic in some ways. He thinks everyone will be blown away by the HD sound that they don't get with mp3's and they just don't know it yet. He doesn't seem to realize that people who listen to mp3's also hear live music on a regular basis and some even play their own instruments. In short: the average music listener hears both lo res digital and live music (a.k.a. the highest resolution sound) all the time, and they just don't care.

Neil Young's time might be better spent trying to convince pc makers to include better speakers. I think THAT'S the real weak link between good audio and mass consumption.
 
2013-10-24 10:56:15 AM

Muta: I don't understand the cost issue of creating two mixes.  If you master at the high audio quality level, the cost of exporting it to a lower quality should be negligible.

I really don't understand the cost issue associated with simply recording at the high resolution either.  How is it more expensive to select ProTools equivalent of "Save As --> 320kHz" as opposed to "Save As --> 48kHz"?

The higher resolution files are larger so there would be bandwidth costs to streaming services but are they the ones dictating the standards?


My understanding is that when most of your audience will be listening via a set of iPhone earbuds or worse, FM Radio, you'll want to change the sound for the more compressed audio. The dynamic range is so compressed that it won't sound "right" if you just downsampled the higher fidelity recording. You really would have to master it twice to get something that is optimal at both levels.
 
2013-10-24 11:08:36 AM
I've listened to some MFSL and SACD remasters of old jazz classics and they aren't always better.  Many of the SACD versions just seem to boost the volume and compression, which seems to work for louder music like rock and blues, but covers up many of the nuances in classic jazz which can get quite quiet in certain passages.

Haven't sampled any of these formats for classical music, but may now that I've thought about it.
 
2013-10-24 11:23:57 AM
 
2013-10-24 11:27:12 AM

StrikitRich: I've listened to some MFSL and SACD remasters of old jazz classics and they aren't always better.  Many of the SACD versions just seem to boost the volume and compression, which seems to work for louder music like rock and blues, but covers up many of the nuances in classic jazz which can get quite quiet in certain passages.

Haven't sampled any of these formats for classical music, but may now that I've thought about it.


Depends on who does the mastering.  In the jazz world, sometimes you don't have the best source tape to work with, so depending on the "vintage" of the remaster they could be starting with some other cobbled together digital master that wasn't very good to begin with.  The Mosaic folks have always done a good job with this... not only in getting pure session sound out of the tape, but in reveal the inner details of the recording.  Jazz recording geeks get into things like proper note decay and cymbal sibilance.
 
2013-10-24 11:36:24 AM
Here's an interesting study on the perceptibility of sampling rate differences, conducted by the Audio Engineering Society.

The playback gear, room acoustics, speaker placement, where you're sitting... even moving your head slightly has a much bigger effect than differences in sampling rates above 44.1kHz.

Honestly, I think anything above 24/48 is largely wasted. Considering we already have 24/192, which is insanely high resolution and higher than 99% of the existing music was recorded at in the first place, I can't imagine much need for Pono. That's not to say it won't fly, because guys who invest big money into wood volume knobs, esoteric stands for their speaker cables (yes, the cables.) and little bags of aquarium rocks to tie around their interconnects to improve audio quality may go nuts over Pono, but only if the files and playback gear is insanely expensive.
 
2013-10-24 11:40:02 AM

bearded clamorer: More barn?


What a great story!
 
2013-10-24 11:42:45 AM

thatguyoverthere70: I read Young's autobiography just last week. It was an interesting book, clearly not ghostwritten and likely barely even edited, but boy he would not shut up about this format. He goes on and on about it. He is obsessed with it, and will never give up on it.

He has good intentions, but I suspect he's a very high functioning autistic in some ways. He thinks everyone will be blown away by the HD sound that they don't get with mp3's and they just don't know it yet. He doesn't seem to realize that people who listen to mp3's also hear live music on a regular basis and some even play their own instruments. In short: the average music listener hears both lo res digital and live music (a.k.a. the highest resolution sound) all the time, and they just don't care.

Neil Young's time might be better spent trying to convince pc makers to include better speakers. I think THAT'S the real weak link between good audio and mass consumption.


I picked up his autobiography but have been a little leary of starting it......if it is a hard read that jumps all over the place I would not be able to finish it.
 
2013-10-24 11:49:26 AM

StrikitRich: I've listened to some MFSL and SACD remasters of old jazz classics and they aren't always better.  Many of the SACD versions just seem to boost the volume and compression, which seems to work for louder music like rock and blues, but covers up many of the nuances in classic jazz which can get quite quiet in certain passages.

Haven't sampled any of these formats for classical music, but may now that I've thought about it.


I've only had the chance to play a hybrid SACD on conventional hardware. There is one noticeable difference though.

d2bktxdiepbdhz.cloudfront.netschuetz-neue-medien.de
 
2013-10-24 11:50:16 AM
"high resolution music system"? That makes as much sense a "low carb hammer".
 
2013-10-24 11:56:45 AM
Neil, I love your music - but I don't need to hear the quiet farts you pumped off during the studio sessions.

/a bit deaf - can make do with mp3s
 
2013-10-24 12:00:01 PM

oldfarthenry: Neil, I love your music - but I don't need to hear the quiet farts you pumped off during the studio sessions.

/a bit deaf - can make do with mp3s



That's my whole thing....I have hearing problems as it is....a better format would be wasted on me.
 
2013-10-24 12:09:54 PM

RevCarter: Needs more barn.

http://www.thatericalper.com/2013/10/19/awesome-story-how-neil-young -i ntroduced-his-classic-1972-album-harvest-to-graham-nash/


came for this
 
2013-10-24 12:21:02 PM

Mr. Richard Smoker: Maybe I misread this "article", but did I miss the part where there is any actual information whatsoever about Pono?

Seems like a bunch of guessing and questions..?


Yeah, I had the feeling even the author didn't have a clue what he was writing about.
 
2013-10-24 12:21:18 PM

GibbyTheMole: Here's an interesting study on the perceptibility of sampling rate differences, conducted by the Audio Engineering Society.

The playback gear, room acoustics, speaker placement, where you're sitting... even moving your head slightly has a much bigger effect than differences in sampling rates above 44.1kHz.

Honestly, I think anything above 24/48 is largely wasted. Considering we already have 24/192, which is insanely high resolution and higher than 99% of the existing music was recorded at in the first place, I can't imagine much need for Pono. That's not to say it won't fly, because guys who invest big money into wood volume knobs, esoteric stands for their speaker cables (yes, the cables.) and little bags of aquarium rocks to tie around their interconnects to improve audio quality may go nuts over Pono, but only if the files and playback gear is insanely expensive.


...and regardless of the sample rate, you're still just trying to re-create analog, right? The only things digital offers that are better than analog (as far as the listener is concerned) are convenience and signal to noise ratio. Of course digitial is much easier and cheaper to store and edit; but that's not the listener's problem. I don't think Pono is going to be as convenient as MP3's/iTunes, etc. and it's not going to sound as good as analog. I'll likely stick with my iPhone for on-the-go music and vinyl for serious listening.
 
2013-10-24 12:23:43 PM

karmaceutical: StrikitRich: I've listened to some MFSL and SACD remasters of old jazz classics and they aren't always better.  Many of the SACD versions just seem to boost the volume and compression, which seems to work for louder music like rock and blues, but covers up many of the nuances in classic jazz which can get quite quiet in certain passages.

Haven't sampled any of these formats for classical music, but may now that I've thought about it.

Depends on who does the mastering.  In the jazz world, sometimes you don't have the best source tape to work with, so depending on the "vintage" of the remaster they could be starting with some other cobbled together digital master that wasn't very good to begin with.  The Mosaic folks have always done a good job with this... not only in getting pure session sound out of the tape, but in reveal the inner details of the recording.  Jazz recording geeks get into things like proper note decay and cymbal sibilance.


Often times that's the case, but what I've listened to on MSFL or SACD were the standards which usually have many, many multiple releases, like 'Kind of Blue' or 'Time Out.'.    Lots of versions to compare each other to.
 
2013-10-24 12:32:09 PM
LOL at Pono ever becoming a standard. Although it would be nice to have 24-bit 96KHz be the standard, just because, really. You know, better than CD, a 40-year-old standard, but not too bulky for portable use. Anyhoo, at least I can listen to my CDs and LPs at the proper bandwidth at home and only use compressed audio in noisy situations.
 
2013-10-24 12:32:20 PM

TV's Vinnie: "high resolution music system"? That makes as much sense a "low carb hammer".


continue...?
 
2013-10-24 12:45:52 PM
This is my barn....
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-24 12:49:31 PM
And we need a signal to noise ratio of 20 log(2^24) dB why?
 
2013-10-24 01:21:58 PM

karnal: I picked up his autobiography but have been a little leary of starting it......if it is a hard read that jumps all over the place I would not be able to finish it.


Have no fear... It's very readable. Like having a conversation with him. Read it. You'll be glad you did.
 
2013-10-24 01:23:06 PM

Dragonflew: This will bomb. The average consumer will have zero interest in this.

 
2013-10-24 01:35:58 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: karnal: I picked up his autobiography but have been a little leary of starting it......if it is a hard read that jumps all over the place I would not be able to finish it.

Have no fear... It's very readable. Like having a conversation with him. Read it. You'll be glad you did.


Thanks - good to know.  I picked up Zappa autobiography years ago, The Real Frank Zappa Book, and it was torture to get through it.
 
2013-10-24 01:47:15 PM

karnal: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: karnal: I picked up his autobiography but have been a little leary of starting it......if it is a hard read that jumps all over the place I would not be able to finish it.

Have no fear... It's very readable. Like having a conversation with him. Read it. You'll be glad you did.

Thanks - good to know.  I picked up Zappa autobiography years ago, The Real Frank Zappa Book, and it was torture to get through it.


Heh, I have that one too. And you're right. Not the best written book ever published. Of course, Frank never did things the easy way...
 
2013-10-24 01:57:06 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: karnal: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: karnal: I picked up his autobiography but have been a little leary of starting it......if it is a hard read that jumps all over the place I would not be able to finish it.

Have no fear... It's very readable. Like having a conversation with him. Read it. You'll be glad you did.

Thanks - good to know.  I picked up Zappa autobiography years ago, The Real Frank Zappa Book, and it was torture to get through it.

Heh, I have that one too. And you're right. Not the best written book ever published. Of course, Frank never did things the easy way...



True, the stream of consciousness style was tough.
Who I Am by Townshend was very good......have you read that one yet?
 
2013-10-24 02:00:49 PM

karnal: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: karnal: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: karnal: I picked up his autobiography but have been a little leary of starting it......if it is a hard read that jumps all over the place I would not be able to finish it.

Have no fear... It's very readable. Like having a conversation with him. Read it. You'll be glad you did.

Thanks - good to know.  I picked up Zappa autobiography years ago, The Real Frank Zappa Book, and it was torture to get through it.

Heh, I have that one too. And you're right. Not the best written book ever published. Of course, Frank never did things the easy way...


True, the stream of consciousness style was tough.
Who I Am by Townshend was very good......have you read that one yet?


Nope, I'll have to see if that's available for the Nook. I'll check it out! :)
 
2013-10-24 02:01:24 PM
I checked out the files sizes to a Miles Davis album that's 24bit 192 kHz and the album weighs in at 1.7 GB in FLAC.

I just don't see this taking off.
 
2013-10-24 02:41:46 PM
How will " A Horse With No Name" sound on it?
 
kab
2013-10-24 03:04:09 PM
If this was going anywhere, .flac would now be the standard rather than MP3.

Your average listener isn't nearly this discerning.   And the few that are won't be interested in experiencing accurate audio through a consumer grade device to begin with.

As stated above, this is going to sell vastly different than hotcakes.
 
2013-10-24 03:16:06 PM

dryknife: How will " A Horse With No Name" sound on it?



 Em     D6/9
 
2013-10-24 03:53:40 PM

Glitchwerks: I checked out the files sizes to a Miles Davis album that's 24bit 192 kHz and the album weighs in at 1.7 GB in FLAC.

I just don't see this taking off.


Two decades ago, 700MB of music on a CD was an unimaginably vast amount of space, bigge

My 24/96 multichannel FLACs from the source DVD-Audio discs of the Complete Lord of the Rings soundtracks weigh in at around 22GB and they're worth every bit.
 
2013-10-24 03:56:03 PM
The human ear, the BEST human ear, can't hear anything at a higher frequency than ~21khz, or lower than ~18hz [I think the units are right... the numbers are anyway].

Nyquist tells us that to losslessly convert a signal from analog to digital, you have to use a sampling rate of at least twice the highest frequency you want to encode. For humans that'd be about 42khz... lower resolution than a CD. 44.1khz is plenty of headroom in that regard, and increasing the sampling rate will NOT give you better sounding audio. It's the equivalent of demanding that movies include ultraviolet wavelengths on their encodings. You can't possibly detect it anyway.

Increasing the bit depth DOES increase the audio fidelity, but you really reach the point of zero diminishing returns around 24-bit. 24-bit 48khz is  perfect audio for listening.

Mastering is another story, of course...
 
2013-10-24 04:00:53 PM

likefunbutnot: Glitchwerks: I checked out the files sizes to a Miles Davis album that's 24bit 192 kHz and the album weighs in at 1.7 GB in FLAC.

I just don't see this taking off.

Two decades ago, 700MB of music on a CD was an unimaginably vast amount of space, bigge

My 24/96 multichannel FLACs from the source DVD-Audio discs of the Complete Lord of the Rings soundtracks weigh in at around 22GB and they're worth every bit.


How do you rip DVD audio? I'm in the process of FLAC-ing all of my CDs using cdparanoia, would be interested in figuring out how to encode other sources.
 
2013-10-24 04:08:53 PM
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Recording individual tracks in better-than-CD quality makes sense, because when you mix many tracks together the noise floor can come in to play.  What I would like is "mastered for dynamics and clarity instead of volume" digital copies.  I don't even care if it's lossy as long as it sounds good and doesn't end up causing listener fatigue.

A number of albums should be re-re-mastered.
 
2013-10-24 04:12:37 PM
Everything you need to know:

http://www.xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml
 
2013-10-24 04:32:43 PM

likefunbutnot: Two decades ago, 700MB of music on a CD was an unimaginably vast amount of space, bigge

My 24/96 multichannel FLACs from the source DVD-Audio discs of the Complete Lord of the Rings soundtracks weigh in at around 22GB and they're worth every bit.


Yeah, but for portable listening, albums that take up 1.7 GB and, in your case, 22 GB are going to be pretty impractical until we get flash memory into the cheap range and sizes in TB.

In which case, it's probably going to be a decade before that happens.

Basically, I don't see Pono happening in Neil Young's lifetime.
 
2013-10-24 04:37:13 PM
The most important quote from my link:

"Another recent study investigated the possibility that ultrasonics were audible, as earlier studies had suggested. The test was constructed to maximize the possibility of detection by placing the intermodulation products where they'd be most audible. It found that the ultrasonic tones were not audible... but the intermodulation distortion products introduced by the loudspeakers could be."
 
2013-10-24 04:42:09 PM
I'm glad I don't have this much OCD about sound quality. How do you people enjoy ANY music? I get a headache just trying to understand these threads, all these debates about how you record the VERY BEST POSSIBLE sound, and then how do you get the VERY BEST POSSIBLE sound playback, and what equipment to use and cables and speakers and on and on. Sheesh, I just want to listen to decent-sounding music, not major in sound engineering.
 
2013-10-24 05:00:57 PM

Scrotastic Method: 44.1 kHz sample rate
16-bit word length
Samples represented in twos complement binary
8 to 14 expansion
Set reproducer for reference level: 1000 Hertz


To the one true God above, this is my prayer.

/nothing is obscure on Fark
 
2013-10-24 05:01:48 PM

Glitchwerks: Yeah, but for portable listening, albums that take up 1.7 GB and, in your case, 22 GB are going to be pretty impractical until we get flash memory into the cheap range and sizes in TB.


Meh. My Android devices and for that matter my Sandisk Clip+ can both decode the native multichannel FLACs into something I can play back. If I plug my phone in to a receiver with an MHL connector it delivers the same audio as anything else. My phone has 96GB of storage now so it's not wholly impractical if that's how I choose to use it.

A Plex media server will also deliver source audio and video to any client that reports that it is capable of playing back that audio and video. It only transcodes over low-speed connections or for reduced-capability clients like iOS devices or STBs. With Plex, one's content does not necessarily have to be local.

NateAsbestos: How do you rip DVD audio?


There's a program called DVDAexplorer that lets you do it. It's fairly painless. SACDs are much, MUCH harder. You have to find 1st generation Playstation 3 that hasn't had its firmware updated past a certain specific revision. You then have to start the PS3 in Linux and monkey around with the command line, which can be scary for people who aren't nerds to begin with.


B.L.Z. Bub: Sheesh, I just want to listen to decent-sounding music, not major in sound engineering.


The thing is, if you really care, what you find out pretty quickly is that a lot of the things that are done in relation to modern audio engineering practices are antithetical to a good listening experience. Many people have their own ideas bout what an optimal experience is, but continually pushing up the volume on recordings so they sound less shiatty on headphones and portable electronics pretty much ruins everything ever, which is why getting some kind of real alternative to just downloading whatever gets shat out to itunes and Amazon MP3 is so important.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report