Skip to main content

Topic: Neil Young’s new audio format (Read 78356 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • db1989
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #125
It's a different world - though I don't believe people like Cookie Marenco go into it to become rich.
Yeah, I should stop assuming they all do. But what real justification can there be for charging such exorbitant prices? To fund the equally overpriced hardware they think they need for producing such recordings? Either way, money is wasted, and myths are propagated.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #126
Plus, isn't DSD technically inferior to PCM given the same number of bits?

Assuming you're talking about bit-depth, the answer is no.  DSD is only one bit.  It is about the sample rate.
  • Last Edit: 11 September, 2013, 12:58:51 PM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #127
Cookie Marenco

NEWS FLASH:
Sound "Engineer" Is Clueless about Digital Sampling and Reconstruction
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #128
Plus, isn't DSD technically inferior to PCM given the same number of bits?

Assuming you're talking about bit-depth, the answer is no.  DSD is only one bit.  It is about the sample rate.

I think he was referring to bit rate, which is a combination of bit depth and sample rate (but then you already knew that).

Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #129
The answer is actually no.  DSD is only one bit.  It is about the sample rate.

I was actually talking about bitrate.  Sorry that I wasn't clear about that.  Wikipedia suggests that 2.8224 MHz DSD (2.8224 Mbps) is approximately equal with respects to sound fidelity to 20 bit/96 kHz PCM, which is 1.92 Mbps.  Is this true?
EDIT: Or what PDQ said while I took way too long to type this reply. (End edit)
And yes, I should have been more clear about what the $5/song, $50/album was referring to.
  • Last Edit: 11 September, 2013, 01:07:10 PM by binaryhermit

Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #130
Cookie Marenco

NEWS FLASH:
Sound "Engineer" Is Clueless about Digital Sampling and Reconstruction


I would make a different conclusion from the article:
Quote
Marenco charged $5 a song and $50 [...] Thousands of people came to download.
[...]  This year she says she started making more money from her online music sales than she does from her work as a recording engineer.


Customers are clueless, and Morenco like money.
  • Last Edit: 11 September, 2013, 01:07:19 PM by extrabigmehdi

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #131
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #132
Wikipedia suggests that 2.8224 MHz DSD (2.8224 Mbps) is approximately equal with respects to sound fidelity to 20 bit/96 kHz PCM, which is 1.92 Mbps.  Is this true?

IIRC (and someone please correct me if I am wrong), 2.8224 Mbps, which is twice the normal bitrate for CD, encodes two channels of DSD. The reason for storing twice as many bits as standard CD is otherwise it would have been inferior in sound quality to the format it was trying to replace.
  • Last Edit: 11 September, 2013, 01:15:47 PM by pdq

Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #133
I just realized that my figures forgot to include the number of channels for each format.  So stereo SACD is actually 4x the bitrate of CDs*.

*SACD apparently uses lossless compression of the DSD stream to increase the amount of audio it can hold and therefore the bitrate wouldn't be 4x when actually on the disc.

EDIT: Upon further review, I wasn't quite correct.  Stereo can use this compression scheme, multichannel must use this compression scheme.
  • Last Edit: 11 September, 2013, 01:35:24 PM by binaryhermit

  • TomasPin
  • [*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #134
You know, I would love to see or hear some artist telling the truth about this Hi-rez bull, being honest with their fanbase. Unfortunately, at most they say nothing about it, or are led to believe the whole thing like (we assume) poor Neil here.
  • Last Edit: 11 September, 2013, 06:07:57 PM by TomasPin
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/

Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #135
I encourage everyone to contact NPR about that fluff piece. Ask why there is no mention of Meyer and Moran and point to the Chris Montgomery videos.


You can let them know what you think here. I did.

Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #136
I would love to see or hear some artist telling the truth about this Hi-rez bull

Like the record companies, artists are glad to sell you their same titles all over again.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

  • Mach-X
  • [*][*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #137
You know, I would love to see or hear some artist telling the truth about this Hi-rez bull, being honest with their fanbase. Unfortunately, at most they say nothing about it, or are led to believe the whole thing like (we assume) poor Neil here.


There are electronic drum and bass artists who should know better because they are very familiar with creating digital music, but they still tout the 'lossy compression removes bass' flag to sell you more expensive flac files.

  • uart
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #138
I know it's already been said, but we all know that the new format is not going to contribute in any meaningful way to better sound. So if anything it has to be down to different mastering. Whether or not Neil understands this we don't know, but you can bet that those surrounding him and working with the technical details certainly will.

The primary reasons for the new format are clear. One to help keep it propriety, two for marketing differentiation, and last but not least to increase the placebo potential.
  • Last Edit: 14 September, 2013, 02:21:16 PM by uart

  • jkauff
  • [*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #139
The mastering quality of Neil's own releases isn't very consistent. I'm not sure I'd want him deciding what the "best possible mastering" would be.

  • TomasPin
  • [*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #140
@Ethan & Mach-X: That's true, in the end business is business. Maybe I'm a bit naive... Thanks for your replies.
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #141
Sorry for the thread resurrection, but an interview with Cookie Marenco of Blue Coast Records has shown up on the BBC website...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27161894
...given this is the BBC, the "Hear the difference for yourself here" link looks amazingly like advertising to me! Though I'm sure her description of mp3's "small sound" will annoy more people here  I suspect her description of music executives being deaf (she used more diplomatic language), and their secretaries having better ears, is spot on.

Interesting to see the microphone placement - it's not purist/minimalist.

If you grab the "for BBC vistors" free samples: http://edu.bluecoastrecords.com/bbc and compare them to the previous free samples: http://edu.bluecoastrecords.com/ you will see that the new samples don't have a 5.6MHz DSD option, only a 2.8MHz DSD option, and the mp3 option has been reduced from 320kbps to 192kbps.

They're nice recordings.

(I have no connection with this - I just like people making nice recordings, even if they do make technical claims which I doubt)

Cheers,
David.

  • Juha
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #142
...

the mp3 option has been reduced from 320kbps to 192kbps.

...


Hmm... is that reduction meaningful at all when claims like this exists?
  • Last Edit: 01 May, 2014, 06:49:30 AM by Juha

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #143
...

the mp3 option has been reduced from 320kbps to 192kbps.

...


Hmm... is that reduction meaningful at all when claims like this exists?
More meaningful than 5.6MHz vs 2.8MHz DSD!!!

At least 192kbps mp3 sometimes does sound audibly inferior.

btw, I picked the 320kbps one over the 128kbps one in that link pretty easily. In the minority though apparently.

Cheers,
David.

Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #144
Thanks for the link.
Pity to find amongst the FLAC 96 disadvantages: "compromise of quality for ease of use."
I've sent them an email 

  • 2Bdecided
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #145
Thanks for the link.
Pity to find amongst the FLAC 96 disadvantages: "compromise of quality for ease of use."
I've sent them an email 
I think that's a waste of electrons. I'm sure she's done plenty of sighted DSD vs 24/96 tests and believes what she says.

Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #146
I think that's a waste of electrons.
You're kidding aren't you ? One email compared to DSD downloads ? Now who is wasting electrons ?

I got a quick, kind and long reply from Blue Coast Records, just in time to add it to this post:
Quote
Unfortunately, we have done numerous blindfold tests using FLAC and comparing to the original wav files.  The audio is very slightly compromised in the FLAC... not enough that most people will prefer FLAC over WAV for the metadata (which is the reason we have begun delivering FLAC files recently... most people want metadata over sound.)
  • Last Edit: 01 May, 2014, 01:34:04 PM by Kees de Visser

  • Wombat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #147
High datarate craze!
Archimago just offers a simple listening test running 24/96 against 16/96 and uses samples from 2L for that. The recording was done at DXD rates and one listener when i read it correctly can't tell the 96kHz verions from each other because 96kHz is already way to bad sounding against the DXD version...
  • Last Edit: 01 May, 2014, 02:37:26 PM by Wombat
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #148
I got a quick, kind and long reply from Blue Coast Records, just in time to add it to this post:
Quote
Unfortunately, we have done numerous blindfold tests using FLAC and comparing to the original wav files.  The audio is very slightly compromised in the FLAC... not enough that most people will prefer FLAC over WAV for the metadata (which is the reason we have begun delivering FLAC files recently... most people want metadata over sound.)




'blindfold tests'?  I call bullshit.  I'd bet they've never set up a single legitimate DBT.

Did you ask them to provide any more details?
  • Last Edit: 01 May, 2014, 11:25:10 PM by krabapple

  • Maurits
  • [*][*][*][*]
Neil Young’s new audio format
Reply #149
I got a quick, kind and long reply from Blue Coast Records, just in time to add it to this post:
Quote
Unfortunately, we have done numerous blindfold tests using FLAC and comparing to the original wav files.  The audio is very slightly compromised in the FLAC... not enough that most people will prefer FLAC over WAV for the metadata (which is the reason we have begun delivering FLAC files recently... most people want metadata over sound.)


'blindfold tests'?  I call bullshit.  I'd bet they've never set up a single legitimate DBT.

Did you ask them to provide any more details?

"OK, first you need to put on this blindfold. Then we are going to play you a FLAC file, followed by a WAV file. Please tell us which one sounds better."
  • Last Edit: 02 May, 2014, 05:32:35 AM by Maurits
There is a hidden message in the song at approximately 4:32. If played at half speed, Waters can be heard to say, "That was pretty avant-garde, wasn't it?"