Typical of that "Northern Man" to be such an idiot about technology. That's probably why his total album career sales are not even close to others in his generation. He has no voice for singing, so he is making a stand against technology. I hope he remembers, we don't need him around anyhow!

That's just the thing - to people raised on CDs and MP3s, the whole argument is moot. You demonstrate this by using CDs and 320 kbps MP3s as the listening test benchmark ...

To people who have a basis of comparison, striving for a digital format that better represents the frequency range we can hear is necessary. Engineers initially decided 44.1KHz was a sufficient sampling rate to represent our hearing range and we have been stuck with it ever since. It is important to realise that their decision was not without its compromises, and there is no doubt a different sampling rate and bit depth would be chosen if the decision were made today considering the technology we currently have available.

When professional audio interfaces start at 192 KHz and go up from there, you realise there is so much more musical information that studios are trying to capture. As a result, many studios still use Analogue tape in the recording process - be it for tracking or mixdown.

The fact that the majority of people don't know any better is no reason not to strive for something better.

Pretty hilarious. Apple must be going into panic mode...

It's particularly ironic as Neil Young lives in Woodside, sandwiched between Silicon Valley and San Francisco, the twin towers of all things technological.

Hey'

E Floyd said "When it comes to quality or quantity, Quantity will always win because there's more of it !"

There could be a choice for both.

No one over the age of 20 uses the term "hates on", which explains why the author of this article doesn't have a clue in regards to sound quality. MP3 is to sound what Windows is to operating systems, just good enough for people who don't know any better.

"He’s the kind of dude that still prefers vinyl records to CDs, and records his modern albums on analog gear even though modern, high end digital recording gear offers dead-on sound quality."

With all due respect, that's a wildly inaccurate statement. I know that you young whipper snappers that were raised on CD's feel that the quality is just as good, but that's just because most of you have likely never done a comparison of the same musical source in both formats. Take it from the old gents that witnessed the transformation (and the drop in sound quality), it doesn't take the ear of an audiophile to tell the difference between vinyl and a CD. As Lachlan pointed out, there's a reason studios still use analog, which is neither more convenient nor cheaper.

Ouch. Let's not look too deeply into my choice of internet slang words; they're never meant to be taken seriously. That said, it's probably safe to up your age generalization by maybe 10 years (plenty of people in their 20's use the term "hates on").

Anyway, I'd love to see you take a blind sound test with a high quality MP3 and whatever fancy lossless codec you prefer, or regular CD, and see how many times you can properly tell them apart.

Generalizing all MP3s (and worse, comparing them to Windows!!) makes as much sense as generalizing all JPEGs, as they widely vary in quality depending on how you convert them. I make sure my MP3s are generally in the 230 kbps + range, and that's usually fine for my ears, whether I'm using my iPod headphones or my $700 home studio set up. Maybe there's a tiny, tiny loss of quality, but it beats lugging my CD collection around, or downloading massive lossless music files.

@Daniel: Oh there's a difference between analog and digital, no doubt. Analog recording methods tend to add extra "noise" to a recording and also attenuate the high end of the audio spectrum, which is why people characterize the analog sound as being "warm". Whether this "warm" analog sound truly is "better" than digital really depends on what you are used to and what your ears prefer.

Older people raised on analog recordings generally prefer them to the "harsh" but more accurate digital sounds of today. That said, with today's technology and analog modeling options, you can make digital recordings that are virtually indistinguishable from analog. Sure studios still use analog, but that's more out of tradition and this idea of analog sounding "warmer". It's a matter of taste, but a lot of mastering engineers and studio producers will tell you that digital technology has reached a point to where it can be virtually indistinguishable from analog.

Don't look for that difference in a 128 kbps MP3 though. That's what you should be telling the young whipper snappers.

THE answer a Blu-Ray disc system? And we'll all be wearing Flock of Seagulls hair too.

Increasing the quality is a fine idea, but unless it is universally adopted I don't think it will have an impact. I certainly don't think most people will pay for it, except a niche market of audiophiles. I know I won't.

And do we really want to go back to a physical medium that is inconvenient to carry around and forces us to buy entire albums when half the songs on the album suck? Blu-Ray music disks? Never happen. Good luck, Neil! (Even my 63-year-old Mom has embraced modern technology, albeit a 2nd generation iMac).

Lachlan said:

"Engineers initially decided 44.1KHz was a sufficient sampling rate to represent our hearing range"

They didn't just "decide" this - it's a fact that the majority of humans don't hear anything above 20kHz. According to Nyquist (someone much smarter than you and Daniel and Neil Young) the minimum sample rate required to accurately represent a 20kHz signal is twice that frequency - hence, 40kHz is just enough to do the trick. However, to ease smoothing filter requirements, rates slightly higher are chosen - which is why we have 44.1kHz as the standard sample rate for uncompressed digital music. No matter how much you claim to be able to hear - these facts are indisputable. Anyone who claims vinyl is better is simply ignorant of these facts and/or a fool.

@ David Dahlquist

Digital also adds extra "noise" into recordings - switching noise in the AD conversion process - engineers decided to put this into an 'inaudible' frequency band ...

Theoretically our hearing range extends from 20 - 20,000 Hz, and a CD covers to 22.05 KHz so you'd think it would be okay right?

The trouble is music is comprised of notes AND harmonics- so to give you an example - a tone of 440Hz has its first overtone at 880Hz, the second at 1320Hz and the third at 1760Hz. A tone at 7.5 KHz has its first overtone at 15KHz, second at 22.5KHz, third at 30KHz - already you can see the limitations a CD places on that 7.5 KHz tone - we lose the second and third overtones respectively.

Now you may not be able to hear those overtones directly, but depending on your ear, you may be able to hear the influence they have on the notes below them - the colouration they provide ...

Stick a whole lot of switching noise in there to muck up those overtones and it's no wonder anyone who experienced music prior to CDs and MP3s is aware of something being different/worse - the switching noise is not musical and actually detracts from the sound as it is not connected to the source tones like a harmonic is.

re. listening tests with CDs and High Quality MP3s - the real test would be a pristine record versus a CD/ high quality MP3, but only if you're prepared to be shocked at what we've lost.

We don't listen with only our ears. Our whole bodies listen. That's why listening to music live not only sounds better, but "feels" better than a recording.

Analog recording is better at retaining this "ambience" because of its continuous state. Digital recording, because of its on/off states, excludes the highs and lows that we don't hear with our ears, but feel in our bodies.

So digital is not "more accurate", it just sounds clearer because it doesn't have what you call that ambient "noise" (that you don't really hear anyway), and thus lacks the warmth and depth of analog recording.

That said, most of my music collection is digital, mostly for convenience. But I'll never give up my vinyl collection and turntable, or going to concerts.

A.

"As heated as the debate over MP3 and CD / Vinyl sound quality may get, when it comes down to it, only the most hard core “audiophile” (one of the most pretentious terms ever, by the way), equipped with a high end sound system would be able to note the extremely subtle differences in quality between a CD and, say, a 320 kbps MP3."

Tell me... where can I get these 320kbps files on iTunes?

What Lachlan said is spot on and the biggest problem with digital sound. Being only 32 and owning 5 iPods I have truly embraced the digital "revolution" but I too grew up and LP's and still cherries them. Being a professional violinist I've spent my whole adult life trying to wring more overtones out of my instrument and when listening to CD released version of recording I also own on LP's the difference is mindblowing! Also, to claim that you have to be an audiohile to hear the difference between even a high bit rate MP3 and the CD is just silly - anyone can hear that! I still use the MP3 format a lot for it's convenience, but I will never ever sell my record player.

I just spent 3 months at the Banff Centre in Canada where I recorded string backing for some indy bands with some of the worlds finest engineers and producers. There's a reason that even in a top modern studio, they prefer analog tape and vintage tube mics (but that's a different discussion).

Young was a big proponent of DVD-A, a higher resolution format that failed. SACD lives on with classical content and sounds better than most comparable CD's in my system. LP's sounded wonderful back in the day but the surface noise, maintenance and wear always bothered me.

CD has limitations but some recent recordings are quite good. Biggest problem is over-compression during digital mastering; this behavior is more difficult when mastering LP or SACD.

You can buy a pair of decent headphones in the $200-300 range to hear what you are missing but most don't seem toc are,

Cheers

Ronnie Van Zant:

You claim Young's sales figures are lower than his peers, yet no source is given. Supply a source for your opinion, garbage as it now stands. As to the hit on Young's voice...are you serious? Again an opinion, and one millions of Young fans and musicians all over the world would not share. As for the "we don't need him anymore" slur, somehow I wonder if this is not due to Young's political stand rubbing you the wrong way. Listening to music which pats you on the back is easy, I bet you have a real narrow collection of musical taste. Millions of us do need Young, how many really need you? I mean, would anyone notice your death beyond your family? Would a bar owner in Katmandu know your name or face, or music? Heck, your grade 10 home room teacher has forgotten you. Who have you influenced?

Do a Google search on Young, learn something today. We accept your apology in a Colbert manner.

Why are people still using MP3 (MPEG-2 layer 3) when MPEG-4 (AAC) is so much better? When you rip your CD in iTunes, make sure its in AAC format.

@David: For reasons that Lachlan has already pointed out far better than I could, I'm merely going to respectfully disagree with your statement about analog adding "extra noise". As for your statement that "Sure studios still use analog, but that's more out of tradition and this idea of analog sounding "warmer"... I have to respectfully disagree there, too. Are you truly positing that a company... any company... is going to stick with a more expensive process because of tradition and some "idea" that you clearly (and erroneously) think the industry has debunked? Really?

Here is a very recent video link of Young discussing his upcoming Blu-ray collection with the CEO of Sun. Young is thinking like a media savy person, he knows what he is talking about.

http://sun.edgeboss.net/download/sun/08d01555/08d01555_16.mp4

Although I prefer higher bit rates in ACC (anything above 256K), a lossless option on iTunes would be awesome. If we can download HD movies for the Apple TV why not higher quality music files? But for me, someone who was a roadie for heavy metal bands in high school and then spent over 15 years in aviation around jet aircraft I have to say I really can't hear the difference anyway at my age.

As an old fogie who was raised on vinyl, let me say this--vinyl sucks. Everytime the needle hits the groove, there is degradation of the sound quality. Vinyl records scratch easily, there is always hiss and pops. I threw away the last of my records last year with a loud huzzah! Digital not only provides better sound, but it sounds the same time after time. I listened to Mr. Young's music on vinyl, cassette, CD and high bit-rate mp3. I'll stick with the latter two, thank you very much.

Comments about people not knowing what they are missing are just making an assumption.

The reality is that most people just don't care. Convenience and cost are their deciding factors.

@Daniel: Analog does add extra noise, Lachlan never disagreed with that. He merely noted that digital adds noise as well. He did argue that records still provide superior sound quality than CDs, and while that may be a point worth arguing, my main point was that high quality MP3s are pretty much as good as CDs, with whatever small difference between them well worth the significant gains in convenience for the user.

And yes, many recording studios will use a more expensive process (analog) as long as they get paid for it, because that's what a lot of artists want. That "warm analog" sound is all the rage for the young hipsters as well as the old schoolers, so it's not going anywhere, and a lot of people will say this is due to the outdated stigma against the digital medium (that was once well founded, but with today's technology, isn't). Analog gear is still useful in the studio in some respect (mastering hardware, tube mics, and definitely tube guitar amps, for instance), but as far as recording onto tape, it strikes me as more gimmicky than anything. Of course there's plenty of engineers and producers who would take either side of the argument. Ultimately it's up to taste.

I never disagreed, either; I just incorporated Lachlan's response, which you've yet to address. Any rejoinder by you that starts with the premise that your main point was about mp3's v. CD (after expressly ripping on Young for using analog and vinyl and after that is the only portion of your post that I quoted and responded to) is surely the worst kind of revisionist history. Whatever your overall point was, my response was limited to vinyl v. digital, and your response clearly was in the same vein. But if you're now either conceding the point or saying there's a good argument to be made for either side, I am satisfied that your new position is a far fairer characterization of the issue and Young's stance on it.