Do you have adblock enabled?
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 8
    More: Cool, Neil Young, David Letterman, stereos  
•       •       •

3034 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Oct 2013 at 10:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-24 11:36:24 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:36:49 AM  
2 votes:
I don't know. I heard it was a piece of crap.
2013-10-24 04:42:09 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:37:13 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:50:53 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:41:53 AM  
1 votes:
This will bomb. The average consumer will have zero interest in this.
2013-10-24 09:37:28 AM  
1 votes:
More barn?
2013-10-24 09:17:17 AM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report