Seems like it's two arguments Neil is making. The first, and obvious, is the low quality mp3 claim. The second is that this leads to inferior songwriting/ recording techniques - . "I like to point that out to artists. That's why people listen to music differently today. It's all about the bottom and the beat driving everything, and that's because in the resolution of the music, there's nothing else you can really hear. The warmth and the depth at the high end is gone."

If you could have a lossless, high res file just as easily why not? To that end, it seems it's more of a storage issue, than a quality issue. You cant store as many flac files on your portable player as mp3s.

As for the argument that folks dont care about listening to a high quality recording...hogwash! Who doesnt want something that's better? Eventually, as storage issues become less relevant, I bet the prevalence of high res files grows and mp3s fade out.

What I thought was odd about that article was the opening sentence: "It's hard to argue about the digital age of music in terms of efficiency and portability. When it comes down to cycling through shelves upon shelves of old CDs versus taking one's entire library of music on the go..."  CDs have really only been around for about 30 years and most CDs are either digital recordings or digitally remastered - in other words: they are a part of "the digital age of music".  I suspect the author of that piece is less than thirty years-old if he considers CDs to be "old".  Oh, and get off my lawn, you poxy ragamuffins!

 winter wrote: 

Yep.  Are you happy with what you are listening to ?  Ultimately that is all that matters, that you, the individual listener is happy.  Listening to music is or can be a subjective experience as you said, depending on the level of passion.

Neil has always complained about digital music.  He initially complained about the 'fizz' in the background caused by the square peaks of digital as opposed to the the continous wave form of analog when CD's first came out.  Its kinda funny to me.  We have long had a format of full resolution analog audio in the form of Hi-Fi audio in VCR's.  That format provides 20 to 20k hertz range capability in analog, which is the same as a digital CD. 

Recording music for playback is all about portability and time shifting, but mostly about portability.  The source, the live ensemble, is only needed once.  Once captured, it can be played back endlessly, anywhere at any time.  We've gone from wax cylinders, to laquer platters to PVC pancakes, tape and wire, to polycarbonate and aluminum waffles, to silicone chips.  Its now down to how deep are our pockets and what we are willing to settle for.  At least we have made it past skipping and scratched vinyl for good now, if we wish to.

We've come a long way, baby !!!


And this as an option in a 1956 Chrysler ...

 winter wrote: 
I only have about 25 SACD discs compared to 1200 CD's and I would never go back to a time when I wasn't able to hook up my iPod to my car and have access to 8000+ songs instead of crappy radio.  Don't get me started on the horrible quality of satellite radio.  Compared to that the mp3's on my iPod are audiophile quality.

And after 2 years with a Kindle I prefer ebooks for their convenience and space saving qualities, though I do have a number of very nice hardbound books.

All media has its place, time and environment.  I do feel that the younger generation that has really only listened to mp3's are missing something.

 mzpro5 wrote: 



And I understand that choice.

What I find mildly annoying is the way some audiophiles want to look down on those of us who don't share their passion for sound quality. Like Islander said, I'm not listening to the sound but the song. I enjoyed "Close to the Edge" on my tape player, I enjoyed it on CD, and I enjoy it on my iPod. That may be hamburger to your SACD steak, but I'm okay with that because I like hamburger just fine: no need for a knife and fork, no worries about the right wine, just a satisfying meal I can easily enjoy.

I'm a bibliophile. I love the look and heft of a well-made hardcover. But I don't mind if people prefer disposable mass-market paperbacks. It's the same story in either form.

 winter wrote: 



That pretty much sums up the current consumer philosophy. "we are more than willing to give up quality for convenience".

Mp3 has its place but as others have said you do not need stellar expensive equipment to hear the difference. You just need to pay attention.

While working or doing something where music is the "background" mp3 is fine but when I sit down to really listen it is CD or SACD no question.

 islander wrote: 



I agree. As cool as I think it would be to have the best sound and have to constantly check if Neil Finn were performing right behind me, I'm okay with getting decent sound and high portability.

 kurtster wrote: 
I haven't had a chance to listen yet. Until I get to it, I'll trust your opinion. 

But this isn't really in the same context as my comment. 

 swell_sailor wrote: 
I dunno about that.  I've been tinkering around with music for awhile now. 

I've put this up before for critical listening.

The track is Strange Brew by Cream.  Unfortunately due to file size limits they are 320 mp3s, but, they were all ripped in studio programs.  I did this back in 2007.  My techniques have gotten better since then.  Download them and play on whatever, let me know.

A   is ripped raw from the original issue 16 bit CD before the industry got into remastering and 24 bit an this an that.

B   is ripped raw from the 24 bit industry remaster using the best of everything

C   is my effort done using A as my source done at home for shits and giggles by a rank amatuer in 16bit wave then converted using the same program for converting as in A and B so all things are equal.

I sure as hell prefer C to B.   There is a huge difference, at least to me.  Granted these are tracks sourced from 1966 recordings, but I only have access to the regular commercial issue, while the industry has the source and can do anything they want to it.

I can safely agree with Neil that we are being sandbagged by the industry.  They can make things sound a lot better if they want to. 

 swell_sailor wrote: 
True. I spend a lot of time and money building stereo gear for a bit. It was fun, but at some point I realized I was listening more to the sound than the music. I'm glad to have the variety of music available at my fingertips. More often than not, I'm not in an optimum listening environment, but I can still enjoy the music.  With technology, I can listen nearly anywhere, anytime, to whatever I want.  I'm happy with the trade off. 

 kurtster wrote: 
That's an important point. It starts at the source. Play an MP3 through a revealing system, and you'll hear with near perfect clarity how crappy the source is. But, even the most basic system sounds better with better source material. 

You can't make anything sound better than the original performance. You can only make it sound worse. If you start with crappy source material, the damage is done in the very first step.  

 swell_sailor wrote: 
That is where it still is at least a couple of times a week.  Turn almost everything off, including the TV, a little back lighting, nothing directly in the eyes and just sit and listen, actively, not passively.

Personally, I do not like headphones ... at all.  I want to feel the music.  All over me.  Can't do that with headphones.

And as for the quality of one's own listening device, no matter how good it is, it still boils down to one thing, garbage in, garbage out.

The arguments that suggest the difference can only be heard on expensive systems are without merit, in my opinion. Even my 23 year old built-by-me kit speakers reveal the difference. 

The issue is, again, in my opinion, that people don't tend to listen in a way that reveals a difference. They listen in their cars, or while they're vacuuming or preparing dinner. Or while they're entertaining friends. There's nothing wrong with this. We all do it. But what many people don't do, is to sit on the sofa, close their eyes, and let the music take them away, while listening to every nuance. When you do this, the difference becomes much more apparent. If you never do this, for whatever reason, MP3s are fine. They go great with Two Buck Chuck.  

I can tell you that even at 320 MP3 sounds like crap on electrostatic speakers and headphones. I listen to RP on cone squeakers to smooth it out some. Would be nice if RP was bit perfect so I could listen to it on my main system.

Neal Young is looking old.

Some of me agrees with Neal, some of me does not. Not everyone can afford high end sound. I think music and art should belong to everyone to enjoy. 100,000 pairs of ears can listen to the same song and hear totally different things; experience coupled with emotion invokes totally different moods, feelings, memories. Should it all be about wealth and snobbery? I think Neal is a spoiled brat. He has the wealth and position to listen to it live, or on studio gear. Not many of us are so lucky. How about the old AM radio I listened to as a kid? It had one speaker... filled with static... it was truly monotonous. But I loved it anyway.

 Lazy8 wrote: 

Music is more available, and more portable. And portable music is better quality than it used to be. I suspect Neil would agree about this. He's addressing something else, and that is that MP3s don't sound that great. And he's right. 

But as they say, ignorance is bliss. 

 islander wrote: 
That is exactly what my mixtape was about.

 OCDHG wrote: 
But we have more music in more places than ever before. People are exposed to a vast variety of styles of music and a wide array of methods to obtain it (not all good). We have kids that scroll through their parents playlists and vice versa, finding common ground. When we hear something interesting we grab our phones, shazam! it, and 30 seconds later own the music that we had never heard before, we post a link on facebook and 10 of our friends do the same.

So what if the sound quality doesn't match my ginormous speakers and perfectly balanced amplification of the system in my isobaric basement chamber.  BFD. We are spending more time listening to more MUSIC than ever before. It's not like you were really going to get fantastic quality while out jogging or commuting in traffic (probably dangerous to have it too good here), but you can still enjoy the music.Whining (hah! Neil Young whiny joke goes here!) about the quality is snobbish. 

 mzpro5 wrote: 
I agree.
And satellite radio too.