Apple has killed audio quality, says Neil Young

And neil young will say anything to sell out anyone so i don't listen to his i am full of myself attitude.

If he wanted better quality he should re-record his albums so they aren't resurrecting them from the dead.

Be glad people are listening to your music.

Its kinda true!
My friend who buys music from itunes thinks it is realllllly good quality. haha

It is what it is! It is what technology allows at this current point in time! For me it is convince in multiple ways! I can stay home & buy a legal cd and i don't have to rip it liek i would do when i got home with that new cd, i can fit most/all of my music with me! if he is gonna take a bluray for his music what will i do with all 30 years of RUSH i have? so now i need a 100 disk blu-ray changer in my car??? my Flipping a$$! Until my music player can hold 100 Terra bites for high quality no rips they its good! What about the sub par stock car speakers? u think u are gettign the high quality threw those?

its semi true. i mean .mp3 isnt the best, but at 320kbps quality, its pretty darn good. not as good as .flac or .ogg though. ipods have crap quality sound too.

Uh, not everyone can afford a "real tube amplifier" and an audiophile quality turntable to spin that vintage vinyl Neil. Like a couple of the other posters noted, be glad someone is keeping that dinosaur shit alive.

any lossey format is guilty of destroying the quality of the original cd.

lest compose a list of shops or services that offer lossless formats instead of the RIAA choke hold and bandwidth scrudges, starting with:

Quote:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3#Legal_issues

On December 18, 2006,[8] the RIAA, on behalf of EMI, Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group filed a US$1.65 trillion lawsuit against the site. That equates to US$150,000 for each of 11 million songs downloaded between June to October 2006, and exceeds Russia's entire GDP

---

lmfao at the RIAA which is a trade body name just to protect EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner from bad press but as the quote below shows the are not "The Law"

Quote:

---

http://www.allofmp3.ru/press.shtml
May 23 (Bloomberg) -- Sony BMG Music Entertainment and other record companies dismissed their copyright lawsuit against Russia-based Internet music store AllofMP3.com, which was accused of distributing millions of pirated song files.

---

i know allofmp3 is closed at the moment, but not for long since they have been found within the guidelines of russian law as they pay royalties to ROMS but the greedy RIAA will not negotiate with anybody unless they can control it by dictating the prices they want to be charged, so they can continue to manipulate the global prices.

MP3Sparks http://www.mp3sparks.com/

AllTunes http://www.alltunes.com/

MP3 offers weak qaulity, it simi true but BR is not the answer....

There is nothing better than a good old vinyl LP played on an old vacuum tube stereo. Even the little bumps and hiss all enhance the experience. CDs are like generic medicine or Frankenfood.

Originally posted by garmoon:

---

There is nothing better than a good old vinyl LP played on an old vacuum tube stereo. Even the little bumps and hiss all enhance the experience. CDs are like generic medicine or Frankenfood.

---

Frist off that only works for good music...2ndly...old music....you can emulate it now but why bother theres enough noise in the new music..... *hides*
:P

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

MP3 offers weak qaulity, it simi true but BR is not the answer....

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

Even 2 channel LPCM @ 192Khz/24bit will annihilate a regular CD (44.1Khz/16bit).

I'm sorry guys but I have to agree with Neil Young... Quality is always of the highest importance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

MP3 offers weak qaulity, it simi true but BR is not the answer....

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

Even 2 channel LPCM @ 192Khz/24bit will annihilate a regular CD (44.1Khz/16bit).

I'm sorry guys but I have to agree with Neil Young... Quality is always of the highest importance.

---

and what is the most Itunes offers?
MP3 is a weak standard, only a few devices can play it fully, while the mainstream line of palyers are realtivly "cheap".

Or am I iz wrognz?

Can't diss a guy whos been making music for the last 40 years.

Originally posted by susieqbbb:

---

And neil young will say anything to sell out anyone so i don't listen to his i am full of myself attitude.

If he wanted better quality he should re-record his albums so they aren't resurrecting them from the dead.

Be glad people are listening to your music.

---

BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!

Truer words were never spoken.

Quote:

---

And neil young will say anything to sell out anyone so i don't listen to his i am full of myself attitude.

If he wanted better quality he should re-record his albums so they aren't resurrecting them from the dead.

---

I don't think he tries that hard to sell records anymore, he said in an interview about his song "lets impeach the president", that he didn't care how much negativity the song received, he stated that he had enough successes and it wasn't about selling records, it was about making good music.

Quote:

---

Can't diss a guy whos been making music for the last 40 years.

---

Exactly

My perspective on this release of music on Blu-Ray is that I don't believe it is the best solution. It may provide the best audio quality at the moment, but it is not convenient at all. I would buy a concert on Blu-Ray because I can set in front of my home entertainment system and have something to watch while I listen to the music, otherwise I'm staring at a blank screen, and I can't take the music anywhere else or do anything else with it. It doesn't all need to be about convenience, but there needs to be some, with Blu-Ray at this time, there is none at all.

On second thought, I do have an audio system that can take advantage of music on Blu-Ray, so that would be nice. Atleast it won't sound like Californication by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. That album was good, but the worst quality I have ever heard. If CDs just sounded better than that or up to their full potential it would be alot better.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

MP3 offers weak qaulity, it simi true but BR is not the answer....

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

Even 2 channel LPCM @ 192Khz/24bit will annihilate a regular CD (44.1Khz/16bit).

I'm sorry guys but I have to agree with Neil Young... Quality is always of the highest importance.

---

Ok..........now I'm getting tired of people saying, implying, doing stupid things. In this case............THE COMMENT IS JUST STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The title of this article is "Apple has killed audio quality"

Of course 192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is 'good enough' but that is irrelevant of this article. SO PAY ATTENTION!

Apple doensn't offer that. It's 128Khz, 16-bit, 2 channel and you pay extra for the higher quality only RECENTLY offered, without DRM, and few in number I'm sure.

The only part of your hair-brained comment I agree with, and I'm sure every one else does too is the "quality is always of the highest importance."

Originally posted by xtago:

---

Can't diss a guy whos been making music for the last 40 years.

---

and ..................... YES YOU CAN!

Ever heard the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks"?

Kinda like teaching my mother how to use her computer more efficiently. Just because she's been around a lot longer and maybe used a word processor or typewriter back in the day doesn't mean she's going to pick up on new technologies. Those making music for 40 years do have a tendency to stick with what they know and are comfortable with and often just don't want to change.

Maybe after 40 years...........it's time to retire. ESPECIALLY that crap from Neil Young. His music just sucks! Always has always will, except for the hippies of course. Damn tree huggers!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xtago:

---

Can't diss a guy whos been making music for the last 40 years.

---

and ..................... YES YOU CAN!

Ever heard the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks"?

Kinda like teaching my mother how to use her computer more efficiently. Just because she's been around a lot longer and maybe used a word processor or typewriter back in the day doesn't mean she's going to pick up on new technologies. Those making music for 40 years do have a tendency to stick with what they know and are comfortable with and often just don't want to change.

Maybe after 40 years...........it's time to retire. ESPECIALLY that crap from Neil Young. His music just sucks! Always has always will, except for the hippies of course. D*** tree huggers!

---

LynchGOP....dude, take a few deep breaths bro. Relax a little. :-)
</OT>

On Topic:
Honestly, it is to be expected that apple would offer lower quality stuff. Lower bandwidth, smaller file (meaning more will fit on the ipod) and most people don't care. I am sure the typical user doesn't even know you can get better quality much less care. Now don't get me wrong, I think they should offer something a lot better for those audiophile out there and for the same price as the lower quality song. Good way to make money off of a niche crowd.

Everyone knows you can do better than mp3's. But, "The best sound ever" is not the purpose of mp3. Just like divx/xvid for video. Both formats (mp3 + divx/xvid) is to get a good ratio between quality and file size.

And I am sure that is apples goal. Small file size for download.

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

MP3 offers weak qaulity, it simi true but BR is not the answer....

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

Even 2 channel LPCM @ 192Khz/24bit will annihilate a regular CD (44.1Khz/16bit).

I'm sorry guys but I have to agree with Neil Young... Quality is always of the highest importance.

---

and what is the most Itunes offers?
MP3 is a weak standard, only a few devices can play it fully, while the mainstream line of palyers are realtivly "cheap".

Or am I iz wrognz?

---

Does mp3 offer 192Khz/24bit???

I was of course referring to the audio that Blu-ray can offer. This is an untapped potential that could satisfy any audiophile.

i agree that mp3's arent the greatest, but apple sells these mp3s off of itunes so that itll go onto peoples ipods. and to be honest with you guys, ipods have crap sound quality. so whether you have 320knps or 120kbps bit rate for an mp3, your not going hear the difference on a crap-pod. and ipods dont even play any loss-less files anyways, just mp3 and aac. so maybe if ipods began to offer better sound quality and better headphones for their customers, more people would realize the music they offer is bad quality. and apple isnt going to start selling high-quality music when you cant even tell the difference on their products.

I've ripped a CD into various formats and bitrates, and I must say that the AAC offered by Apple probably is the most bang for your buck versus MP3 or WMA, just based on quality and file size (so you can fit more songs on your iPod or MP3 CD.) The convenience of having several thousand songs at my fingertips, especially while driving (the time I listen to music exclusively) is negligible to any benefits of vinyl or for that matter, changing CDs. Sorry fellas.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

Even 2 channel LPCM @ 192Khz/24bit will annihilate a regular CD (44.1Khz/16bit).

I'm sorry guys but I have to agree with Neil Young... Quality is always of the highest importance.

---

Ok..........now I'm getting tired of people saying, implying, doing stupid things. In this case............THE COMMENT IS JUST STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The title of this article is "Apple has killed audio quality"

Of course 192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is 'good enough' but that is irrelevant of this article. SO PAY ATTENTION!

Apple doensn't offer that. It's 128Khz, 16-bit, 2 channel and you pay extra for the higher quality only RECENTLY offered, without DRM, and few in number I'm sure.

The only part of your hair-brained comment I agree with, and I'm sure every one else does too is the "quality is always of the highest importance."

---

Listen up newbie!

The article clearly mentioned Blu-ray as a suggested platform for the high quality alternative to the ever increasing low quality media available for download on the net.

Oh and by the way Apple does not offer 128Khz like you say, it's 128Kbs... Also, mp3 and mp4/aac (also compatible with the iPod) aren't restricted to 128Kbs as the only bitrate of choice.

The "Khz" refers to the sample rate. In my example of 192Khz, that would mean 192,000 wave form samples are taken every second. With regular CD audio (and mp3) there are 44,100 samples taken per second.

Now who looks stupid?

If you would like to continue this conversation, please feel free to do so but I would like to request that you bring some intelligence to the table next time.

lynchGOP

Please observe rule 6.

... now keep in mind regarding ipod users:

a) What percentage of the people who listen to ipod music can:
1) hear any sounds outside the range of 20Hz to 20kHz
2) rip music to 320kbps to listen to on their ipods
3) use "studio quality" speakers to listen to their music
(when they are not listening to their ipods)
4) think that the ipod is the best audio gear that has come along

b) Of these people (above):
1) have they ever heard the difference between a live studio
recording and the finished product (cd)
2) able to understand the technical difference
(aside from hearing it, and being able to distinguish the difference)

... my guess is maybe .0001 percent if any.
====================================
Let's just face it. Sure the ipod audio is crap... and so is your singing ... and you just want to hear a "close" rememberance of a song that is stuck in your head...again...and again.
So you get your ipod fix!
Now you can only hear between 30hz and 10khz due to your crappy headphones... but you got your fix!
Cheers!

the ipod is fine as has been posted, the lo quality itunes is peddling is poor, i agree with mr young there.
BUT unless this multi millionaire is prepared to allow you to exchange your back catalogue of his music for the blu ray he's going to release. then he's just using the media to sell his product to you again. greedy ass wipe! no better than EMI, Sony and fergal sharkey!
IMO :o)

As long as I can get a decent quality of sound and tune out all of my worries then I'm fine. I'm no audiophile.

Originally posted by dragnandy:

---

ipods have crap sound quality. so whether you have 320knps or 120kbps bit rate for an mp3, your not going hear the difference on a crap-pod.

---

Not necessarily true. Try different bitrates between MP3 and AAC files on an iPod and you will notice a difference, especially when you use the iPod's dock connector with a car stereo or external speaker setup that is made specifically for it.

I know there is a difference with lossy, etc. but like posted by others, I'm no major audiophile, I just hate getting crappy MP3 files and adjusting the volume on my stereo all of the time. All of my AAC files are the same bitrate and work out just fine for me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xtago:

---

Can't diss a guy whos been making music for the last 40 years.

---

and ..................... YES YOU CAN!

Ever heard the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks"?

Kinda like teaching my mother how to use her computer more efficiently. Just because she's been around a lot longer and maybe used a word processor or typewriter back in the day doesn't mean she's going to pick up on new technologies. Those making music for 40 years do have a tendency to stick with what they know and are comfortable with and often just don't want to change.

Maybe after 40 years...........it's time to retire. ESPECIALLY that crap from Neil Young. His music just sucks! Always has always will, except for the hippies of course. Damn tree huggers!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by xtago:

---

Can't diss a guy whos been making music for the last 40 years.

---

and ..................... YES YOU CAN!

Ever heard the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks"?

Kinda like teaching my mother how to use her computer more efficiently. Just because she's been around a lot longer and maybe used a word processor or typewriter back in the day doesn't mean she's going to pick up on new technologies. Those making music for 40 years do have a tendency to stick with what they know and are comfortable with and often just don't want to change.

Maybe after 40 years...........it's time to retire. ESPECIALLY that crap from Neil Young. His music just sucks! Always has always will, except for the hippies of course. Damn tree huggers!

---

---

funny,but i would think most people with any sense at all would disagree with that statement.for forty years neil young has been evolving with time and technology.he has always been on the cutting edge and not afraid of change.he is right,the quality sucks,and if you can a-hear it,and b-appreciate it then it would follow that quality is of utmost importance.sure,not everybody likes neils music,but this is not just about his music.its about all the music we listen to.by the way,i have listened to neil young for over 30 years and liked it.i am not a hippy either.by the way,to use that term i think you at least have to know what it means.lol

Originally posted by rlessmue:

---

... now keep in mind regarding ipod users:

a) What percentage of the people who listen to ipod music can:
1) hear any sounds outside the range of 20Hz to 20kHz
2) rip music to 320kbps to listen to on their ipods
3) use "studio quality" speakers to listen to their music
(when they are not listening to their ipods)
4) think that the ipod is the best audio gear that has come along

b) Of these people (above):
1) have they ever heard the difference between a live studio
recording and the finished product (cd)
2) able to understand the technical difference
(aside from hearing it, and being able to distinguish the difference)...

---

Awesome take, at least your's is on topic...

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

Even 2 channel LPCM @ 192Khz/24bit will annihilate a regular CD (44.1Khz/16bit).

I'm sorry guys but I have to agree with Neil Young... Quality is always of the highest importance.

---

Ok..........now I'm getting tired of people saying, implying, doing stupid things. In this case............THE COMMENT IS JUST STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The title of this article is "Apple has killed audio quality"

Of course 192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is 'good enough' but that is irrelevant of this article. SO PAY ATTENTION!

Apple doensn't offer that. It's 128Khz, 16-bit, 2 channel and you pay extra for the higher quality only RECENTLY offered, without DRM, and few in number I'm sure.

The only part of your hair-brained comment I agree with, and I'm sure every one else does too is the "quality is always of the highest importance."

---

Listen up newbie!

The article clearly mentioned Blu-ray as a suggested platform for the high quality alternative to the ever increasing low quality media available for download on the net.

Oh and by the way Apple does not offer 128Khz like you say, it's 128Kbs... Also, mp3 and mp4/aac (also compatible with the iPod) aren't restricted to 128Kbs as the only bitrate of choice.

The "Khz" refers to the sample rate. In my example of 192Khz, that would mean 192,000 wave form samples are taken every second. With regular CD audio (and mp3) there are 44,100 samples taken per second.

Now who looks stupid?

If you would like to continue this conversation, please feel free to do so but I would like to request that you bring some intelligence to the table next time.

---

Out of context so PIPE DOWN! I was right and will continue to be so. BD was simply MENTIONED and was not targeted as being a problem for audio.............and maybe a concern. You're still a goof. Can you say "read between the lines?" Guess not because you'd ASSUME that BD is going to have unparalleled UNCOMPRESSED and lossless quality. I'm sure he knows that too. Young was referring to the formats NOW. So..........again...........PIPE DOWN. And before you use "newbie" and a method of attack, recognize that some aren't. I've been on this for years and years. Should be a senior member but had to come back over and over for being harsh................DON'T MAKE ME GET HARSH WITH YOU!!!! I'll make you cry to mama.

Originally posted by lynchGOP:

---

Should be a senior member but had to come back over and over for being harsh

---

Keep it up and you'll be starting over again.

@Ryu

Regardless of status we still have to be nice to one another...that goes for everyone.

*group hug*

now back to the topic please.

something everyone seems to be forgetting here... apple does lower the music standards greatly, but not my mp3, by using 128 kbps aac... with DRM! actually, mp3 encoded properly at V0 setting using EAC and lame is quite good, and meets my standards. That does not mean that FLAC and 24 bit losless rips of music arent better, but one thigns for sure, apple has killed the quality of music...

Meh, Some good amp + UE-11's = WIn.

ALL compressed formats suck, if you have the ears and equipment to tell the difference.

Neil has a small point, but since when have his recordings ever been really high quality? (production values not content... he hasn't released anything worth a toss in years)

I have quite a few of his old LP's.. and they are compressed to hell.. decidedly lo-fi, compared to say.. a good Harvest release from the same era (edgar broughton band.. wasa wasa anybody?)

Lets face it.. just carrying on releasing whiney drivel for 40 years doesn't necessarily denote quality, just persistence.. so while I understand his wish to release his music in the best possible format for quality he is somewhat missing the point he has so often spouted.. that music is for everybody regardless of wealth... Big business is bad.. eh Neil?

People once you hear true high quililty music you'll never go back. Just like riding a bycicle then a car or old tv's to hdtv's with high dev players or upscalers.

I want my eyes and ears to hear and see the best the technology we can provide now can offer..............die apple.

...yep...
funny thing about quality and standards...
everyone:
1)has their own level of quality
and
2)they also have their own standards

so the results are:
people + more people = a lot of people
people with low quality + more of the same = crap

people with high quality + more of the same =
few people in which only a small percentage can affort it!
========================
Basicly... enjoy the crap you can afford!
Cheers!

Quote:

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

---

It is if you can download a file of this quality (192Khz, 24bi) from itunes which is not possible. Neil Young is totally right about this. A lossy format such as MP3 or WMA even at its highest bitrate is at best acceptable mediocre sound quality. There was a time when people spent thousands of dollars on high end discreet circuitry electronics played back on beautifully designed concert quality reproducing speakers. Now every one listens to music through small integrated IC chip circuitry systems that fail to recapture the sound of the original content, or small portable music players with headphones. Don't get me wrong I love my MP3 player, but I also know that it's no where near the quality of sound that people listened to in the 1970's.
Today we have superior quality recording capability but it is wasted on playback systems both in music format and hardware.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

---

It is if you can download a file of this quality (192Khz, 24bi) from itunes which is not possible. Neil Young is totally right about this. A lossy format such as MP3 or WMA even at its highest bitrate is at best acceptable mediocre sound quality. There was a time when people spent thousands of dollars on high end discreet circuitry electronics played back on beautifully designed concert quality reproducing speakers. Now every one listens to music through small integrated IC chip circuitry systems that fail to recapture the sound of the original content, or small portable music players with headphones. Don't get me wrong I love my MP3 player, but I also know that it's no where near the quality of sound that people listened to in the 1970's.
Today we have superior quality recording capability but it is wasted on playback systems both in music format and hardware.

---

===============================
I agree 100%...but things sounded better back in the 1970's where you could wear-out a LP...
so if you were able to "wear-out" a LP, your music would get worse after each play...until it was so bad you couldn't play it.
Today people can hear the same -exact- track over and over with-out any loss...so the quality (good or bad) doen't change.
When this happens - one can become more "critical" regarding "quality" of the recording that they have.
...I think this is what happen to Neil...TOOO much editing!
Cheers!

Quote:

---

I agree 100%...but things sounded better back in the 1970's where you could wear-out a LP...
so if you were able to "wear-out" a LP, your music would get worse after each play...until it was so bad you couldn't play it.

---

That is somewhat true if one played an LP over and over again thousands of times and in a small collection. There were also special recorded albums that were cut from the original master lacquers, and the king of them all was rare direct to disc recordings. A common solution for storing and organizing music in those days was to purchase a reel to reel recorder that recorded at 15 IPS which preserved the sound quite close to the original, in fact the difference was inaudible, and with DBX introduced no extra noise to the system was added, but what made it really work was the quality of the playback systems.

Quote:

---

Today people can hear the same -exact- track over and over with-out any loss...so the quality (good or bad) doen't change.

---

The problem is that the degree of loss before they even get the track is so great to start with that only about 20% of the original sound is left. Remember that each time there is a transfer from one format to another a degree of loss occurs.

I have no issue with the use of MP3's except that superior methods of storage are ignored in favor of expedient lower quality formats Neil Young was and is right.

I think it's somewhat unfair to blame Apple (or ANY place that sells compressed music formats) for "kill[ing] audio quality." It's unfortunate that they all likely HAD to (at least to begin with) to get enough customers...but it IS kinda bad that still 128Kbps-192Kbps is still the standard bitrate for downloadable music. I'm sure the record companies are also partially to blame, not wanting PRISTINE copies of music out there.

I, for one, still buy actual CDs of music I REALLY want to appreciate and rip my own for more casual use, though usually at 256Kbps (in iTunes, since I find their encoder quite acceptable). I can see blaming them somewhat for the dumbing down of many consumers on what quality should be, but most consumers were quite dumb to begin with and deserve a lot of the blame too for apparently not caring.

MP3s were just a natural extension of what was going on...I don't recall Neil Young complaining that Sony Walkmans or even minicassette players in general were ruining music because it wasn't anywhere near the quality of reel-to-reel! :-)

Quote:

---

Today people can hear the same -exact- track over and over with-out any loss...so the quality (good or bad) doen't change.

---

The problem is that the degree of loss before they even get the track is so great to start with that only about 20% of the original sound is left. Remember that each time there is a transfer from one format to another a degree of loss occurs.

I have no issue with the use of MP3's except that superior methods of storage are ignored in favor of expedient lower quality formats Neil Young was and is right.

---

...the "REAL" problem is we never get the "original track"...it is always lost in the studio, and the copy begins at the first recording!
...everything "else" I agree with except for:

Quote:

---

Remember that every time there is a transfer from one format to another a degree of loss occurs.

---

...so my hard drive image copy goes though a "degree of loss"??
Microsoft should hear about this! Pleeese! That's like saying every CD that is mass produced at the factory by Columbia is different -even if it has the same ISBN number?
...I agree that some "traditional" transfers (conversions from FLAC to MP3) will have losses. But hard drive to hard drive? Depends on how you do it...
Cheers!

Quote:

---

I don't recall Neil Young complaining that Sony Walkmans or even minicassette players in general were ruining music because it wasn't anywhere near the quality of reel-to-reel! :-)

---

Mini cassettes were never used for music, just voice, and most cassettes were like what you do when you rip a CD for use on your portable player. I too prefer to buy CD's and make my own content for my portable player. I know every back system known for both CD and DVD but I still prefer to have originals.

Originally posted by lynchGOP:

---

Out of context so PIPE DOWN! I was right and will continue to be so. BD was simply MENTIONED and was not targeted as being a problem for audio.............and maybe a concern. You're still a goof.

---

I never said there was any problem with Blu-ray audio. In fact I was attempting to post very much on topic but for some reason you still can't understand.

Originally posted by the article:

---

Young spoke out about the poor audio quality of the most popular audio codec, MP3, and also talked about his "long-term, multimedia archiving project of his entire career" which will be available as a series of Blu-ray discs. Young hopes his project will become the basis for an alternative digital platform with higher quality sound.

---

He clearly references his plans to archive his entire career onto Blu-ray discs.

Originally posted by lynchGOP:

---

Guess not because you'd ASSUME that BD is going to have unparalleled UNCOMPRESSED and lossless quality.

---

I don't need to assume that Blu-ray will have "unparalleled UNCOMPRESSED and lossless quality" as you call it. I already know it does. As I mentioned in my very first post, which you somehow completely misunderstood...

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

Even 2 channel LPCM @ 192Khz/24bit will annihilate a regular CD (44.1Khz/16bit).

I'm sorry guys but I have to agree with Neil Young... Quality is always of the highest importance.

---

Originally posted by lynchGOP:

---

Young was referring to the formats NOW. So..........again...........PIPE DOWN.

---

Blu-ray does offer uncompressed 192Khz/24bit audio now.

Originally posted by lynchGOP:

---

Should be a senior member but had to come back over and over for being harsh................DON'T MAKE ME GET HARSH WITH YOU!!!! I'll make you cry to mama.

---

LOL!

Originally posted by Sophocles:

---

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is not good enough??

---

It is if you can download a file of this quality (192Khz, 24bi) from itunes which is not possible. Neil Young is totally right about this. A lossy format such as MP3 or WMA even at its highest bitrate is at best acceptable mediocre sound quality. There was a time when people spent thousands of dollars on high end discreet circuitry electronics played back on beautifully designed concert quality reproducing speakers. Now every one listens to music through small integrated IC chip circuitry systems that fail to recapture the sound of the original content, or small portable music players with headphones. Don't get me wrong I love my MP3 player, but I also know that it's no where near the quality of sound that people listened to in the 1970's.
Today we have superior quality recording capability but it is wasted on playback systems both in music format and hardware.

---

Where am I losing people here?

I never mentioned downloading audio of that quality. I don't know how much clearer I need to be... 192Khz/24bit audio is available on Blu-ray discs.

My post attempted to highlight that Blu-ray offers extremely high quality audio at sample rates and bit depths previously unavailable on media that can be used readily at home.

I also agree that mp3, aac and the like don't sound the greatest, especially when you listen to audio through quality equipment.

Compressed audio certainly has it's use, but I believe it is best served as a portable medium rather than an alternative to quality digital mastering.

Quote:

---

the "REAL" problem is we never get the "original track"...it is always lost in the studio, and the copy begins at the first recording!
...everything "else"

---

With modern recording formats it doesn't have to result in any loss since most music is now recorded digitally and most digital formats can be transferred like to like. It's only when it is transcoded to another format that loss begins.

Quote:

---

Remember that every time there is a transfer from one format to another a degree of loss occurs.


...so my hard drive image copy goes though a "degree of loss"??

---

The key word in my statement was transfer from one format to another, IE, wave to MP3. When you transcode from one format to another something will be lost. If you're just ripping to your hard drive while maintaining the original content in its original format then nothing will be lost.

I have my own homemade digital recording studio and the idea situation is to capture music in as true a form as possible, but even doing that incurs loss. When one sings into a microphone they are in effect converting acoustical energy into electrical using a vibrating diaphragm that converts wave forms analogous to the original, but only analogous and not original. Once it is recorded it can theoretically be copied and preserved in its original recorded state, but once a change in formats occur then there is significant loss.

Quote:

---

you will notice a difference, especially when you use the iPod's dock connector with a car stereo or external speaker setup that is made specifically for it.

---

probably because those stock headphones are very poor. i wouldnt consider myself an audiophile but i can tell the difference from apple stock headphones and some 30USD IEM headphones. i agree that when you hook an ipod to some speakers, itll sound better than the stock headphones, but if you get a different music player, like the sansa clip (great sound quality player), and hook it to the same speakers, you will notice the difference.

Originally posted by SProdigy:

---

I've ripped a CD into various formats and bitrates, and I must say that the AAC offered by Apple probably is the most bang for your buck versus MP3 or WMA, just based on quality and file size (so you can fit more songs on your iPod or MP3 CD.) The convenience of having several thousand songs at my fingertips, especially while driving (the time I listen to music exclusively) is negligible to any benefits of vinyl or for that matter, changing CDs. Sorry fellas.

---

I 100% agree! i think this debate is split of those who want quality at what ever cost & those who want quantity! So Apple is killing music? so my Static FM radio isn't? My XM?Sirius (i have had both) isn't? WTF??? Oh & what about streaming? I think if this was titled right it should be compression is killing audio< but it has always been done! Tapes where compressed too! So unless you have a minimum of a cd which is oh so not convenient you are loosing something! I highly doubt i miss much in my squeaky, rattely work truck!

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

Does mp3 offer 192Khz/24bit???

I was of course referring to the audio that Blu-ray can offer. This is an untapped potential that could satisfy any audiophile.

---

omg how to twists a apple attack into a pro sony "purchase this format" topic in one foul swoop.


instead of wasting money on a blu-ray player to play compressed glorified mp3's, why not just stick with the relatively cheap CD player that has a 24bit true multi-bit DAC & is already uncompressed sound instead of being forced all over again to replace your entire music collection just so the record companies can squeeze every dollar out of everyone because they have 150 year copy writes on all works and they feel they need to sell you the same media time and again on the "new" buzz word "better" format.

There are already two competing "better" audio formats

DVD-A & SACD neither took off because they were a complete waste of money and the last attempt to squeeze cash out of your pockets by the RIAA.

The Forgotten Format War: Toshiba’s "DVD-Audio" vs Sony’s "Super Audio CD"

Why DVD-A is better than SACD. AVReview.co.uk

and unless you have quality separates that are £4000+ a piece with £100+ per metre interconnects and speaker cable coupled to either bi or tri wired £6000+ B&W or equivalent speakers you will not hear the difference other than the pathetic attempt at out of phase using the rear channels.

lets not forget that sony are the RIAA and we all know their business ethics.

compression = bad and blu-ray playing compressed = lmfao.......... some ppl.

all compression is poor and pointless.

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

---

omg how to twists a apple attack into a pro sony "purchase this format" topic in one foul swoop.

---

Once again, I will point out that the article had already mentioned Neil Youngs plan to use Blu-ray...

Originally posted by the article:

---

Young spoke out about the poor audio quality of the most popular audio codec, MP3, and also talked about his "long-term, multimedia archiving project of his entire career" which will be available as a series of Blu-ray discs. Young hopes his project will become the basis for an alternative digital platform with higher quality sound.

---

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

---

instead of wasting money on a blu-ray player to play compressed glorified mp3's, why not just stick with the CD player that has a 24bit true multi-bit DAC & is already uncompressed sound instead of being forced all over again to replace your entire music collection just so the record companies can squeeze every dollar out of everyone because they have 150 year copy writes on all works and they feel they need to sell you the same media time and again on the "new" buzz word "better" format.

---

Well, that sounds great but what CD format in use today is mastered in 24bit?

Also, when did I say to use Blu-ray to play compressed audio? I honestly can not understand why a few people here are finding it so hard to understand me.

Everything I am saying is exactly in line with the article.

mp3/aac = compressed, convenient & portable low quality audio.

Blu-ray = uncompressed (or lossless compression, otherwise known as MLP), 192Khz/24bit, 8 channel audio.

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

---

There are already two competing "better" audio formats

DVD-A & SACD neither took off because they were a complete waste of money and the last attempt to squeeze cash out of your pockets by the RIAA.

The Forgotten Format War: Toshiba’s "DVD-Audio" vs Sony’s "Super Audio CD"

Why DVD-A is better than SACD. AVReview.co.uk

---

Yes, the quality there is of course the same as I have been comparing here. I feel that these formats may have failed because to get the full benefit you would have needed a SACD/DVD-A compatible DVD player.

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

---

unless you have quality separates that are £4000+ a piece with £100 per metre interconnects and speaker cable with £6000 B&W speakers you will not hear the difference other than the pathetic attempt at out of phase using the rear channels.

---

Hmmmm, I don't think that's entirely true. I can hear the difference between regular CD audio and mp3 audio on almost any decent speakers.

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

---

compression = bad and blu-ray playing compressed = lmfao.......... some ppl.

all compression is poor and pointless.

---

Agreed... Isn't that what I have been trying to say the whole time?

Blu-ray is already starting to become an established format. If an artist released a anthology on say 1 or 2 Blu-ray discs and had a RRP of say $50, do you think that would be worth it for an entire careers worth of work and mastered at higher quality than ever heard before?

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

once again, I will point out that the article had already mentioned Neil Youngs plan to use Blu-ray...

---

ok, an artist that is old and obsolete jumps on the "new buzz word format" for some free advertising just as he used the 9/11 attack to get free press before.

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

Yes, the quality there is of course the same as I have been comparing here. I feel that these formats may have failed because to get the full benefit you would have needed a SACD/DVD-A compatible DVD player.

---

and this format you still need to purchase new equipment in a blu-ray player.

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

Hmmmm, I don't think that's entirely true. I can hear the difference between regular CD audio and mp3 audio on almost any decent speakers.

---

the comparison i was making was between CD audio and SACD, DVD-A and now what is basically SACD on the blu-ray hardware. telling the difference between compressed and uncompressed is easy just turn on BBC radio1 on DAB then switch to classic FM. But by using extra speakers to fill the sound fields as the supposed "better formats" do, instead of quality gear that can replicate music utilising in and out of phase sounds just as poor as compressed music. this is why the true enthusiast still use British Made valve amplifiers and phono stages not imported asian crap that has to use graphic equalisers and microchips to try to recreate a flat sound.

who is this aimed at, the city yuppie who wants something to go "look what i've got, don't you love me, you know this kit must mean i have a really big penis"

there is absolutely no reason for the average consumer to buy into this fad as they will not get any benefit from it other than the moronic feeling of worth, by "buying into a lifestyle".

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

Blu-ray is already starting to become an established format. If an artist released a anthology on say 1 or 2 Blu-ray discs and had a RRP of say $50, do you think that would be worth it for an entire careers worth of work and mastered at higher quality than ever heard before?

---

established, you really have got to be kidding, are you sony public relations by any chance?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryu77:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blu-ray is already starting to become an established format. If an artist released a anthology on say 1 or 2 Blu-ray discs and had a RRP of say $50, do you think that would be worth it for an entire careers worth of work and mastered at higher quality than ever heard before

---

Yeah sure post everything on one disc so when it's damaged or lost or stolen the whoile collection is gone-poof! Plus the expense of buying the BR player and rippinng drives to attempt to back it up(Sony willprohibit such-until the hack) You think we're stupid here.

Music never sounded better played on Vinyl LP thru a tube type stereo amplifier. Real music-that todays generations have never
heard!

Edit: Long live analog music

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

---

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

Blu-ray is already starting to become an established format. If an artist released a anthology on say 1 or 2 Blu-ray discs and had a RRP of say $50, do you think that would be worth it for an entire careers worth of work and mastered at higher quality than ever heard before?

---

established, you really have got to be kidding, are you sony public relations by any chance?

---

As you can see, I clearly said starting to become established.

I would consider approx. 1000 titles available starting to become established.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/

Oh yes, I am Sony public relations that just felt the need to start two threads (links in my signature) on backing up Blu-ray discs. I just love helping people rip my own company. That's why we're so rich!

Too many people just want to argue and prove how good their opinion is by trying to make others look silly. My first post here never attempted to insult or offend anyone. I wanted to post in theme with the article and since then I feel like it's been nothing but a Childish affair.


Ok, let's turn this into something constructive (open forum)...

What would make the best next generation music format? And why?

Quote:

---

What would make the best next generation music format? And why?

---

Switching from CD to a DVD Sound with full 196 KHz/24 bit would be best, but using a standard type 5 DVD instead of Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray for just sound alone is overkill because even the most challenging HD sound track can easily fit on a type 5 disc, and a Blue Laser is not needed to play them back. This way standard DVD can be upgraded to include HD sound formats, and a type 5 will also play on Blu-Ray players. To start selling music on a Blu-RAy disc would be yet another way for the music companies to begin gauging the public by selling over priced content. I just find the notion of music discs selling for $25 each repugnant when they should be selling for about $10.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rlessmue:

---

... now keep in mind regarding ipod users:

a) What percentage of the people who listen to ipod music can:
1) hear any sounds outside the range of 20Hz to 20kHz
2) rip music to 320kbps to listen to on their ipods
3) use "studio quality" speakers to listen to their music
(when they are not listening to their ipods)
4) think that the ipod is the best audio gear that has come along

b) Of these people (above):
1) have they ever heard the difference between a live studio
recording and the finished product (cd)
2) able to understand the technical difference
(aside from hearing it, and being able to distinguish the difference)...

---

Awesome take, at least your's is on topic...

---

Alot of that is true, but I think a normal person could tell the difference between CD quality and even a compressed HD audio (with compressed HD winning). Maybe not with iPod ear buds, but hooked up to a decent stereo (like $150+) they could hear a difference. Now, I don't think the difference justifies a more than $1-3 increase in price of an album though.

DVD-Audio shot itself in the foot when it decided to not be compatible with the millions of DVD players out there. Blu-ray might have a chance, but I think they'd need to include free downloads for regular MP3 and HD versions of their product.

Hi All

I've been around for the 78's to the blue ray's and as far as Music quality goes, it has suffered, quality was at peak with LP's (with the mentioned drawbacks) then when i heard my first cda i could tell the difference between the lows and highs

any modification of the instruments or vocals
is not true music

Frank

What I don't get is that a bunch of people are complaining that Apple is ruining music. Apple provides a convenient and easy way to get music onto your portable player. I haven't seen many joggers with vinyl for optimum quality. It's all about getting what you want for it's use. For your stereo get what you want vinyl, Cd, or whatever. Realistically most people don't care, and you can't blame apple for it's popularity, they cater to portable mp3/aac players. Thats what it really comes down to.

Analog all the way.. ever heard a sheffield direct cut lp on a Linn deck with quad11's and a stacked pair of els speakers?.. I have and will never forget the experience. It cost a lot to have anything above average for analog amplification but in the digital age the hardware quality has dropped to match the poor input quality. I believe the peak for vinyl sound quality was around 79-85, after that the plastic became too thin.. the last few vinyl lp's I have sound pretty poor.. lightly cut, lacking modulation depth due to the thin plastic.

You also have that direct link back to the performance.. what you are hearing is the actual sound made at the time, not some electronic interpretation of it, no matter how quickly sampled, it is still split up and recreated later.

Originally posted by varnull:

---

the last few vinyl lp's I have sound pretty poor.. lightly cut, lacking modulation depth due to the thin plastic..

---

I never buy anything that's less than 180 grams. Vinyl still sounds good as long as you get the 180 to 200 gram pressings:

http://www.musicdirect.com/category/15

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

once again, I will point out that the article had already mentioned Neil Youngs plan to use Blu-ray...

---

13thHouR
ok, an artist that is old and obsolete jumps on the "new buzz word format" for some free advertising just as he used the 9/11 attack to get free press before.

WTF? 13thHouR YOU sir are a complete blitering IDIOT so say that Neil Young is obsolete and to say he used 9/11 for free press is the most foul thing to come from your mouth or anyone elses. Neil Young is one of the FEW TRUE patriots we have left in this country that will stand up and sing about freedom and who stands up to the current absolutly horrid government officials we have that are ruining our lives. If you can't see that then you SIR are already a sheeple that does whatever Bush and Co say without a whimper. IDIOT.........oh and to keep this on topic, Neil's right in that today's music and how it's recorded and played back is FAR from being as good as it should be. I hear all sorts of distortion and over clipped music on my Sansa Clip and it's the way it was recorded........they try to make it LOUDER to compete with everyone else and or are too lazy or deaf to notice the end product.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Jul 2008 @ 5:34

Fiji5555

Except for some of your adjectives I am with you all the way. I've been a Neil Young fan for longer than I care to reveal, and he has always been a socially conscious person who put his money where his mouth is.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I don't recall Neil Young complaining that Sony Walkmans or even minicassette players in general were ruining music because it wasn't anywhere near the quality of reel-to-reel! :-)

---

Mini cassettes were never used for music, just voice, and most cassettes were like what you do when you rip a CD for use on your portable player. I too prefer to buy CD's and make my own content for my portable player. I know every back system known for both CD and DVD but I still prefer to have originals.

---

Ooops! Yeah, I meant to say "compact cassette"...I probably shoulda just said "cassette" to avoid any confusion. :-)

@Ryu77
I know this is off topic, but are you in some way affiliated with Sony? I seems like everytime you make a post, you are pleading blu-rays case.
As I said when I posted earlier, I don't really think its possible to get the sound quality out of solid state electronics that you can out of a quality turntable, and a tube amp. I could be wrong, and I just haven't heard anything that matches is yet.

Quote:

---

I don't really think its possible to get the sound quality out of solid state electronics that you can out of a quality turntable, and a tube amp. I could be wrong,

---

Certainly not with the warmth which used to be referred to as musicality. A class "A" discreet circuitry all Mosfet amplifier has no equal for sound quality.

@eatsushi

great vinyl link. I have about 200 pristine LPs from 60'-80'. I could only hope they were worth 30-50 bucks apiece.

I wonder what my "Little Black Sambo" double 78s with story book is worth? Alas the "Peter and The Wolf" set is missing a 78.

Originally posted by llongtheD:

---

@Ryu77
I know this is off topic, but are you in some way affiliated with Sony? I seems like everytime you make a post, you are pleading blu-rays case.

---

No I'm not affiliated with Sony at all. I do work in A/V retail though.

I just love HD and I rate quality as the most important factor for any form of home entertainment. I have said this many times before that if HD-DVD had ended up as the format of choice, I would have not hesitated in adopting this format. Actually, I bought a Blu-ray/HD-DVD combo PC drive so I could convert HD-DVD to Blu-ray. There are quite a few nice titles available on HD-DVD that are definitely worth the trouble of re-authoring.

While I'm sympathetic to Neil Young's complaint, he really should lay the blame with the music industry. They fought new technology instead of embracing and improving. In their scramble to catch up, they've had to accept the terms that the hardware manufacturer gave to them. In any case, I don't remember Neil Young complaining too hard about the audio quality of eight track and audio cassettes when he was making money off them when people were listening to his music in their crappy car stereos or jogging in their old Walkmans.

Don't cry too hard Neil. HD music is the next wave. It would oost too much money for most people except rich audiophiles, but would allow them to appear reasonable on the issue of unprotected MP3s, but also open a revenue stream for high end users and attract first adopters and with memory getting cheaper will eventually push music HD disk/format prices back to the same relatively ridiculous levels of 1998.

"instead of wasting money on a blu-ray player to play compressed glorified mp3's, why not just stick with the relatively cheap CD player that has a 24bit true multi-bit DAC & is already uncompressed sound"

Errr.... HUH?!

After reading through the entire thread, I'm under the assumption that some confusion via certain individuals is continually rehashed regarding quality related terminology.

192kHz has NO relation to 192kBit compression

CD = 44.1kHz / 16bit / 2.0
DVD-Audio allows for both 96kHz / 24bit / 5.1 or 192kHz /24bit / 2.0
Blu-ray allows for 192kHz / 24bit / 5.1


Yes, for the convenience folk, 192kHz is overkill. (thus, enjoy your i-tune purchases happily)

For the HD folk who grew up experiencing a proper vinyl pressing through a warm sounding amp and audiophile quality speakers and cabling, well... hell yeah! I'm looking forward to contemporary releases from technology obsessed production room wizards that'll take advantage of the greater spectrum of sound that's available not just in the creation phase, but now conveyable at the end point via the music fans up-to-spec hardware.
Ultra-micro-positional audio, boo-yah!!

"too much money for most people except rich audiophiles"

Umm... you can be a -poor- audiophile and still be able to enjoy semi-bleeding edge HD quality audio/video with a lack of not too many other $-sucking vices combined with smart discount hardware purchasing. (I fall into the under-poverty-line tax bracket, so I can say full-heartedly that it can be done) [addendum: living in a non-major city without skyhigh rent kinda helps too , though...]

Though for the record, Neil Young is Canadian and a 'patriot' mostly only to those that never bothered to actually fully read the lyrics to certain key songs...

Originally posted by Akashic:

---

"instead of wasting money on a blu-ray player to play compressed glorified mp3's, why not just stick with the relatively cheap CD player that has a 24bit true multi-bit DAC & is already uncompressed sound"

Errr.... HUH?!

After reading through the entire thread, I'm under the assumption that some confusion via certain individuals is continually rehashed regarding quality related terminology.

192kHz has NO relation to 192kBit compression

CD = 44.1kHz / 16bit / 2.0
DVD-Audio allows for both 96kHz / 24bit / 5.1 or 192kHz /24bit / 2.0
Blu-ray allows for 192kHz / 24bit / 5.1


Yes, for the convenience folk, 192kHz is overkill. (thus, enjoy your i-tune purchases happily)

For the HD folk who grew up experiencing a proper vinyl pressing through a warm sounding amp and audiophile quality speakers and cabling, well... hell yeah! I'm looking forward to contemporary releases from technology obsessed production room wizards that'll take advantage of the greater spectrum of sound that's available not just in the creation phase, but now conveyable at the end point via the music fans up-to-spec hardware.
Ultra-micro-positional audio, boo-yah!!

"too much money for most people except rich audiophiles"

Umm... you can be a -poor- audiophile and still be able to enjoy semi-bleeding edge HD quality audio/video with a lack of not too many other $-sucking vices combined with smart discount hardware purchasing. (I fall into the under-poverty-line tax bracket, so I can say full-heartedly that it can be done) [addendum: living in a non-major city without skyhigh rent kinda helps too , though...]

Though for the record, Neil Young is Canadian and a 'patriot' mostly only to those that never bothered to actually fully read the lyrics to certain key songs...

---

You, my friend seem to be the only person that has understood my point on this thread. :-)

"Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow "

Here is the problem, Mr. Young: 99.9% of the population are not elitist audiophiles and they think MP3s sound pretty darn good. They are also more than willing to "suffer" through low quality for cheap, convenient formats.

For better or for worse, MP3 is here to stay for a good long time. Instead of trying to kill the MP3 format (and its ilk), the music industry could have tried sculpting it into a better format. They didn't, so we'll have to live with what we've got.

iTunes is satisfactory for most of the general population. They feel it's quick, easy, relatively inexpensive, and acceptable in quality. Many also like the fact that they know for sure that it's totally legal.

Sorry, Mr. Young. Apple didn't kill audio quality. They just profited from its death. If you and your industry cronies had played your cards right, you'd be in the driver's seat, but now the industry has "taken a complete backseat - if it even gets in the car at all."

Neil young was born in Canada but he's been an American citizen for quite a long time. One doesn't have to have been born here to be a patriot. Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton were both born in England and yet they were both patriots.

I read Neil Young's statements and he wasn't outright trashing portable formats because they were portable, he was doing it because he believed that better sound could be achieved and he's right.

This doesn't mean that he was advocating that individuals shouldn't continue to enjoy there portable players. I do every time I sit in a lobby somewhere waiting for an appointment

Quote:

---

DVD-Audio allows for both 96kHz / 24bit / 5.1 or 192kHz /24bit / 2.0

---

Regarding the differences between 44.1 KHz/16 bit and196KHz/96KHz/24 bit quality. 196KHz/96KHz/24 bit quality are just as inexpensive and easy to record and reproduce as 44.1 KHz/16, and would cost no more to purchase. Both could be stored on a standard type 5 DVD, and since most people now use their DVD players as CD players those too are inexpensive and all too common. I was advocating DVD sound or 96 KHz/24 bit. You don't have to be rich to purchase decent sound equipment; it just has to be good enough to reproduce music to its fullest. This means with good signal to noise playback, good dynamic range, and reasonably low Transient intermodulation distortions.

Listening to recorded music is about using technology to come as close as possible to reproducing the experiences of a live performances in ones living areas’. To create this illusion studio tech's use a combination of miking techniques, digital delays, wet rooms, and mix down over decent sound systems, Panning, time delay, and reverb are used to create the illusion of a sound field referred to as imaging. When music is overcompressed it is generally meant to make it playable where uncompressed music will choke.

One it is often done to improve playback on AM radios so that one can hear both high and low frequencies at about the same volume, and to eliminate phase distortion. Small players have difficulties with high levels of dynamic range because low frequencies and high frequencies get buried by the middle range. To help eliminate this problem music is compressed so that there are fewer variances between the different frequencies which also allows it to be played louder or rather sound louder. Quality sound systems don't require compression because they can play the full dynamic range of music at a volume that creates a balance between HF,MF, and LF. The loss of music content in most portable storage formats is as high as 80% or greater.

As someone stated earlier, I also prefer to own the actual CD and do my own ripping and compressing. I also stated earlier that I would like to see music move from the now dated CD to the superior 96 KHz/24 bit DVD sound which is not overkill for someone whose eardrums aren’t made of cardboard. There was a time when VHS was good enough for some, and then along came DVD and it changed. Now we have Blu-Ray, and “the beat goes on” Where itunes might not be good for the future of music is that it is killing what used to be called albums which are a collection of works on a single storage media. Can anyone here imagine what would happen to Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of The Moon” if the songs were first individually released on itunes? It would be the end of concept albums.

Originally posted by llongtheD:

---

Uh, not everyone can afford a "real tube amplifier" and an audiophile quality turntable to spin that vintage vinyl Neil. Like a couple of the other posters noted, be glad someone is keeping that dinosaur shit alive.

---

For what you pay for that over priced iPod you should get a high quality system sorry but your wrong here.

Neil hits the head square and this has been my biggest complaint with most of the flash/micro drive players. I prefer WMA lossless (variable bitrate) and the size isn't horrible but the problem is the audio player’s quality of reproduction which shouldn't be the problem since low amplifier design should have much better specs and sound quality, THD & frequency range. Its obvious that pretty and small is their ONLY concern and the average user thinks 128 is OK, what a joke, wake up please. If you could here my HiFi system you would never consider such cheap crap.

Originally posted by Akashic:

---

192kHz has NO relation to 192kBit compression

CD = 44.1kHz / 16bit / 2.0
DVD-Audio allows for both 96kHz / 24bit / 5.1 or 192kHz /24bit / 2.0
Blu-ray allows for 192kHz / 24bit / 5.1


Yes, for the convenience folk, 192kHz is overkill. (thus, enjoy your i-tune purchases happily)

For the HD folk who grew up experiencing a proper vinyl pressing through a warm sounding amp and audiophile quality speakers and cabling, well... hell yeah! I'm looking forward to contemporary releases from technology obsessed production room wizards that'll take advantage of the greater spectrum of sound that's available not just in the creation phase, but now conveyable at the end point via the music fans up-to-spec hardware.
Ultra-micro-positional audio, boo-yah!!

"too much money for most people except rich audiophiles"

Umm... you can be a -poor- audiophile and still be able to enjoy semi-bleeding edge HD quality audio/video with a lack of not too many other $-sucking vices combined with smart discount hardware purchasing. (I fall into the under-poverty-line tax bracket, so I can say full-heartedly that it can be done) [addendum: living in a non-major city without skyhigh rent kinda helps too , though...]

---

I know the difference between sample rate and compression, it appears that you have failed to understand that i was referring to the topic of using compression to enable devices to squeeze more music onto the portable players thus reducing quality. did you even read the topic or are you just replying to Ryu77 's posts to give his posts credit?

All you need a the PC you already own, a source to rip from and the flac codec, and you can have whatever quality you want streamed to any device in your home or any where in the world via a slingbox.

the problem is that manufacturers keep telling ppl that you need this or that but in reality all you need is the pc you own but the morons that corporations feed on keep getting suckered time and again by flashy marketing campaigns and the "my penis is bigger than yours" mentality of owning a certain thing.

you do realise that for it to be of any good quality there still needs to be a relatively decent dac and output.

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

---

I know the difference between sample rate and compression, it appears that you have failed to understand that i was referring to the topic of using compression to enable devices to squeeze more music onto the portable players thus reducing quality. did you even read the topic or are you just replying to Ryu77 's posts to give his posts credit?

---

13thHouR, I'm pretty sure that Akashic was directing that at lynchGOP...

Originally posted by lynchGOP:

---

Ok..........now I'm getting tired of people saying, implying, doing stupid things. In this case............THE COMMENT IS JUST STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The title of this article is "Apple has killed audio quality"

Of course 192Khz, 24bit, 8 channel lossless audio is 'good enough' but that is irrelevant of this article. SO PAY ATTENTION!

Apple doensn't offer that. It's 128Khz, 16-bit, 2 channel and you pay extra for the higher quality only RECENTLY offered, without DRM, and few in number I'm sure.

The only part of your hair-brained comment I agree with, and I'm sure every one else does too is the "quality is always of the highest importance."

---

Originally posted by 13thHouR:

---

All you need a the PC you already own, a source to rip from and the flac codec, and you can have whatever quality you want streamed to any device in your home or any where in the world via a slingbox.

the problem is that manufacturers keep telling ppl that you need this or that but in reality all you need is the pc you own but the morons that corporations feed on keep getting suckered time and again by flashy marketing campaigns and the "my penis is bigger than yours" mentality of owning a certain thing.

you do realise that for it to be of any good quality there still needs to be a relatively decent dac and output.

---

Of course you can do that with a PC. I have a Home Theatre PC myself. I think they're great.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that there are better alternatives available for digital audio now. The feeling I got from the article was that of forward movement. I was trying to convey my thoughts to the potential of Blu-ray. These being... 1) Higher resolution audio as a mandatory feature (as opposed to SACD/DVD-A being an optional feature on players) 2) Greater storage capacity per disc.

What I don't get is all the hostility towards someone who mentions Blu-ray. It almost seems like there is a fascist movement towards an "optical disc format". Do you see how silly that sounds?

Let's examine the facts pertaining only to audio as that is what the article is about...

- Does Blu-ray offer lossless audio as a standard feature?

- Does Blu-ray offer the highest capacity for an optical disc?

Isn't anybody interested in evolution towards digital media?? Don't you want to see and take advantage of developments in quality for home entertainment?

I seriously don't get it. As soon as you mention the word "Blu-ray", it's almost as if you are committing a crime and it's guaranteed that some silly person on these forums will attack you for doing so and try with all of their might to make you look like a fool for backing this format.

Are we not allowed to take advantage of better quality when it's available?

I haven't seen that much hostility toward Blu-Ray all that I've stated is that it is impractical since a standard Type 5 DVD could hold the same audio quality that would play on any DVD Player including Blu-Ray. In fact an entire musical Album could fit on a single Mini DVD with the highest quality sound. Now how's that for being portable? Sound of the highest quality alone takes up no where near the room that video does. A type 5 solution just seems to be a very sensible route that requires no extra expense by the industry or home users to take advantage of, but it will also provide the quality that those of us who will spend a little extra on equipment can also take advantage of.

I am totally lost here, of course I do not understand more than half of the things you guys are talking about but thats ok thats how we learn, but to explain to someone like myself and yes most people are like myself, what is the advantage of putting or buying music on a dvd or bluray, I just dont get it, I tought that music cd's were top dog, and yes as somebody said earlier, I also own about 300 lp's from mostly 60's and some 70's, half of them I still haven't even opened yet, bought many at the local px shops at our military bases, there were 99 cents for a new album, lp's still sound good except for an occasional hiss or pop.

I guess the bottom line is really whats convenient for most folks today, my nephew when he rides with me sometimes hookes up his mps player to my car radio, I like those little mp3's, except I dont even know how to turn one on let alone understand them, all those so called portables are nice with the on the go senerio, but when I really want to get into the nitty gritty and listen to some serious music, a lot of you gys are right, a good system, some great lp's and cd's, I like them both, cant be beat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by llongtheD:

---

Uh, not everyone can afford a "real tube amplifier" and an audiophile quality turntable to spin that vintage vinyl Neil. Like a couple of the other posters noted, be glad someone is keeping that dinosaur shit alive.

---

For what you pay for that over priced iPod you should get a high quality system sorry but your wrong here.

Neil hits the head square and this has been my biggest complaint with most of the flash/micro drive players. I prefer WMA lossless (variable bitrate) and the size isn't horrible but the problem is the audio player’s quality of reproduction which shouldn't be the problem since low amplifier design should have much better specs and sound quality, THD & frequency range. Its obvious that pretty and small is their ONLY concern and the average user thinks 128 is OK, what a joke, wake up please. If you could here my HiFi system you would never consider such cheap crap.

---

@Mr movies,
for the price you pay for an ipod, you can get a high quality system?
For the price of a high quality turntable alone, you could get 3 ipods. Check your facts bud.

Quote:

---

For the price of a high quality turntable alone, you could get 3 ipods. Check your facts bud.

---

Actually he doesn't have to. A decent turntable, my favorite were the Duals, cost about half the price of an ipod. Great tables, but then of course you have to have a decent cartridge. The sound was phenomenal and they ran virtually forever. Who knows? I never saw one die. For the money is no cost Audiophile gone nuts the Oracle table was something of a connoisseurs delight. It wasn't just something that we played records on, it was a holy cradle rocking our musical world on a disc.

So how does this relate to an iPod? There is no comparison!! An ipod has the sound quality of those digital talking dolls. You know the ones where you pull the little string on its back and it says "mama."

@Sophocles

I understand what your saying, but he was suggesting you could get an entire "system" for the price of an ipod. The turntable would just be a part. In the end its ridiculous to compare any high quality audio system with any portable music device, not just the ipod. As soon as Neil young invents a PORTABLE music system, bluray or what have you, that can stand up to even a mediocre home system, I'll buy one. Its also possible all those concerts have dulled Youngs hearing range as well.

Quote:

---

I understand what your saying, but he was suggesting you could get an entire "system" for the price of an ipod. The turntable would just be a part. In the end its ridiculous to compare any high quality audio system with any portable music device, not just the ipod. As soon as Neil young invents a PORTABLE music system, bluray or what have you, that can stand up to even a mediocre home system, I'll buy one.

---

I was just being funny and reminiscent. For $249 I purchased 5:1 surround Logitech Z-5500 powered speaker system, that has 505 watts RMS of power as well as built in surround sound decoders. Those are about the price of a lower version of iPod alone, but many times the quality.

I agree that trying to compare an ipod to a full audio component set is a bit of a stretch, but not by as much as one might think.

I agree with this article. The iPod, while high quality and easy to use, has terrible audio quality. With a nice set of earbud headphones, I can hear a distinct difference between the iPod and the Realtek HD onboard sound on my motherboard. The Realtek HD being superior.

The Soundblaster X-Fi is way ahead of both in audio quality, and I'm just using a 32W Logitech 2.1 setup. I get rich, full bass and amazing audio detail. It whacks the crap out of an iPod especially with Sennheiser HD212 headphones.

What can I say though? The iPod is a sweet little piece of technology. I love mine and I use it every day. So that has to mean something.