Apple is Fisher-Price of sound quality, says Neil Young Over five decades Neil Young has played a variety of roles including sixties protester, folk singer, Ronald Reagan supporter, grunge rocker and film maker. Now he's donning a new hat: Apple basher. Young says Apple, with its ubiquitous iPod and iTunes, has dumbed down sound quality to "Fisher-Price toy" levels that place …
what a crotochty old fart
Meh you youngsters and your new fangled technology
Why in my day you had to turn the handle on the gramaphone
How dare you want to loose some of the top and bottom end of my music just so it can take it where you like
Everyone who cares about the audio quality that much listens to vinal any way
Dynamic range compression? What on earth has the format got to do with that? That's a musical production/mixing/mastering technique and nothing whatsoever to do with MP3s or iPods.
He was more likely talking about lossy *data* compression (MP3s etc.).
El Reg should not be confusing the two!
You reckon your average iPod-sporting Basshunter-alistening audion00b is really going to care about dynamic range compression? Bearing in mind most people nab their music from <insert P2P client of choice> where you'll be lucky to get 128kb*, it seems a little harsh to single out Apple as the real culprit.
(Mine's the one with the iPod shuffle clipped to the lapel.)
* Let the flames begin.
Pointing the finger at Apple is a little short sighted, but perhaps pointing fingers is the only way to get someone to listen and respond in a positive way.
Indeed music these days is far too often cooked, compressed dynamically and into MP3/etc formats for two questionable goals.
1) Smaller bandwidth distribution and space allocation on networks and MP3 players whose capacites are growing each year.
2) Degrade something to reduce it's desirability, value, with the hope by RIAA that you're still going to buy the CD or pay again down the road for a higher quality version.
Who can't find an audio converter app these days? Distribute it all in lossless formats then let the user decide what to do. That's the only option my consumer wallet is interested in.
I'd have to disagree about the double-blind test being entirely necessary though, quite often when listening to an MP3 I become distracted by the artifacts, reduction in treble quality, enough that it brings me out of the enjoyment /zone/ and ruins the experience. Higher quality and bitrate encoding helps quite a bit but isn't the answer since that bitrate will still be higher than some want. Recompressing again in lossy formats is a poor alternative.
The only good choice is to preserve the original quality then if someone wants dynamic or data compression, let 'em do what they want since it's their money, their player, their ears.
Hats off to you Neil, I hope other artists start speaking up.
With his history who ever thought he would have any other opinion of MP3s and the like. And you know what? He's right. MP3s suck for sound. FLAC is really the minimum standard we should all be using for archiving good quality sound.
And although compression is used in a sinful way on most productions today, that is probably not what he is talking about here.
"Most audiologists say the only real way you can tell there's a difference between one format and another is by giving the listener a double-blind test, where neither the subject nor the administrator knows which is which."
Not quite - a double-blind test is the only way you can *prove* there's a (distinguishable) difference.
Assuming that you haven't been deafened by your ipod already, most can distinguish between 128kbps and lossless on any decent pair of headphones (ie. not supplied with your player). Of course, if you have tinnitus caused by tin-can speakers I can only feel sorry...
Apart from a few hi-fi enthusiasts, nobody cares about sound quality, as long as they can hear their music. The few deeply enthusiastic (/anal) fans are free to shell out thousands of their hard-earned to satisfy their needs.
What makes me sad is that high definition video is being punted as the new standard. I'm pretty sure most people can't tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. What is ironic is that the colour reproduction in everyone's shiny new high-def LCD screens is appalling compared to their old CRTs.
Not many people have an anechoic chamber to appreciate fully the possibilities of a lossless format, not the equipment to do it justice. If you listen to music while traveling (whether in-car or using a headset) then aiming for a half-decent s.n.r. is a lost cause. Even masking out vibration from the vehicle and sound leakage from the environment takes a very good pair of earphones. At home, you still get external sounds, echoes, next-door neighbours and numerous other inputs that reduce the sound quality of even normal C.D. quality audio.
Poor quality sound isn't even new. The 60's were founded on the tinny-tranny sound of music played by A.M. stations through a crappy little radio with a speaker that sounded like someone banging on a biscuit tin. The U.S. even had some stations licensed to exceed 100% modulation (thus clipping the audio) to increase the average volume - old-fashioned compression, if you like.
So far as bashing Apple goes, promoting lossy audio formats is one of their lesser evils.
In my humble opinion, a compression at 192 kb/s rate is enough for 90% of people to not hear the difference with a better definition...
The problem lies within the earphones most of the time, I would dare to say.
And of course, no matter the quality of earphones, there's a physical problem with any speakers... At 100 Hz, you get a wavelength of 3 meters, and since to hear sounds the best you should be at least at 1 wavelength from the source...
Big bad mean bass players that like to have their sound return your stomach and your haircut look like a l'Oreal commercial (your long hairs floating in the air in a so nice sinusoidal wave...) know it well !
Given how the quality of some of his records suffered due to stupid experimental techniques that went wrong, it is understandable how he feels.
But freakin' release your archives on CD! Sticking a low quality analogue recording from 40 years ago onto Bluray with a ludicrusly high bit rate is going to have no discernable difference. Plus I might want to listen to it in the car, at work, or somehwere else, without having to buy a portable bluray player (or even a normal bluray player, since I don't have one at all)
on ADAT, only listen to each tape once a year and only then through my behringer mixing desk and dunlavy sc-v speakers.
this guy is a ballbag. I buy cd's and download and the difference is nominal....
most people cant afford audio systems on which you could tell the difference so I would say his point is null.
wonder if he has ties with the BPI...
I'll find a similar rant from Mr Young decrying the audiophile qualities of the compact cassette (one for the oldies, run along now, youngsters). The difference being, of course, that anyone with ears could spot how shit a C90 sounded, regardless of the position of the Dolby A/B button.
For the record, he had a rant about CDs being rubbish as far back as 1995.
If I were Apple I'd be happy to be compared to Fischer-Price. I remember my Fischer-Price toys were incredibly durable and a ton of fun.
Personally I don't really care about the audio quality. My singing is so bad it really doesn't matter how good the equipment is, it still won't sound good with me singing over it. I think a lot of people listen to music for their enjoyment of singing along (or at least bopping their head) and not to hear something with pristine quality.
I guess it is why I still use an antenna instead of paying for cable/satellite/etc. All I care about is if I can see the image with no ghosting or snow, and that the audio is clear enough to understand.
Dynamic range compression is real, a pain in the ears, and it happens on CDs, so Apple have got bugger all to do with it.
If you think MP3s sound tinny, I've got some really good homeopathic cures for electrosmog to sell you, at exorbitant prices for the placebo-addicted. Anyway, Apple uses AAC, which is generally acknowledged as being a technically superior codec to MP3, though MP3 at reasonable bitrates is demonstrably good enough for people who are interested in listening to music, rather than willy-swinging about who's got the biggest woofer. Two exceptions: highly synthetic or distorted music (electro, really loud distorted guitars) and harpsichord. A few problems with hi-hats.
The one thing Apple could improve is the quality of their earbuds, but you can always buy a better pair of phones.
Not that this will convince people who've got too much ego involved with their golden ears and ludicrously expensive electronica. As for Neil Young, what I have to say (as someone who was totally blown away by "Like a Hurricane") is: he's launching a new release on Blu-Ray, so he would say that, wouldn't he.
Now kindly return to listening to music in the inaudible frequency range, but watch out for the bats. Some of them might be vampires. Hey, I can fix you up with an audiophile in garlic: not cheap, but it really transmogrifies the high frequency modulation, too.
Neil Young may have a "heart of gold", but he obviously doesn't have a golden ear.
I downloaded Nine Inch Nail's latest from their site (legally, thank you) in 24-bit, 96kHz lossless audio quality. I converted it to Apple lossless format (still 24-bit, 96kHz audio) and it plays perfectly on my AppleTV through my Harmon-Kardon amplifier and sounds brilliant.
Are the earbuds that Apple supplies rubbish? Indeed. Get a Sony in-ear kit and be done with it.
Well said. Very eloquently spoken. And a F*ck you to all the haters who seem to think that they have a right to judge! FFS, i wouldn't mind betting that all the people, that commented negatively, would give their eye teeth for the ability to provide for their family as this man can. All you have to do is concentrate and work hard. A concept lost on most of the inhabitants of this green and pleasant land!
you cant refute what he is saying IMO.
compressed audio is unnecessary with cheap mass storage, and even if you dont believe that given your sound gear/environment/ears you can discern the difference, why in hell would you compress audio to 128Kbps MP3 when you can store 250-odd albums, in CD quality, on your 160Gb player. Sure our collections tend to be >250 albums these days but shit, rotate that which is stored on your player and that which is stored on your Tb of HDD storage at home. Youre not likely to need >325 hours of audio in one outing.
anyway, to me he seems to be arguing that blu-ray is the best way on the horizon to store audio in the same format as it comes out of the recording studio. Sure we cant presently get portable 1Tb players to hold comparable amounts of data (3gb per album x 250 albums - awaiting flames) but it isnt too far off so why compromise.
please shout at me with product names because i need some kind of help with this, but I havnt been able to find a portale player yet that will decode 96000 48K WAVE files and this is an oversight by the likes of Apple etc.
They seem to be unconcerned with quality and overly concerned by hocking 2 generation-old tech like the Macbook Air and the Ipod 3G which have huge deficiencies in function and they concern themselves and their marketing with aesthetics rather than actually having a product which is cutting edge.
anyway, i strayed from the point quite a bit.
Mister Young - agreed. Multinationals are dumbing our ears down, and I hope folk like you, Porcupine Tree (who have done DVD-A for a long time) and others of your ilk can be heard loudly enough to sway opinion.
Here here - I do all my ripping in iTunes these days (great for organising stuff for my compilations) at 192, sounds better than a 320 in my book! (I like my bass, and 320 is more about higher range frequencies but still clear enough when encoded properly).
HOWEVER most of the stuff (until recently) on the itms is shite quality - I said that the first time I bought something off it, and only do so when I can't get what I want through other means.
Flames @ apple, even though I'm writing this on my ibook...
Old man, look at my life,
MP4 and there's so much more
You live alone in a paradise
Ignoring what we do.
Audio loss, such a cost?
Get Neil out of the freezer and then defrost
See his eyes, they're completely glossed
And his hands are kinda blue
Old man take a look at my life - I ain't a lot like you
I need battery life the whole day through
Ah, one look in my eyes and you can tell that's true.
Lullabies, look in your eyes,
Run around the same old town.
Old ways don't mean that much to me
They mean a lot to you.
You were first, but you won't last
Look at how the time goes past.
You think you're Iconoclast
But really full o' poo.
Old man take a look at my life - I ain't a lot like you
I need battery life the whole day through
Ah, one look in my eyes and you can tell that's true.
meh anybody with a choice between the two should choose the one without the yucky splashy cymbals.
ok so i spent £1600 10 years ago on my home cinema amp (yamaha dsp a1) and have a nice setup, but im no purist, whatever sounds good. walking down the street holding a mobile phone with some tinny crap coming out of it is really no good to anybody unless you want to prove how "hardcore" you may be.
but yeah hd is an interestring thing, i currently have a cheap projector (optoma hd65, £420) powering a 120" widescreen picture. run off a philips 5980 player (a whole 60 odd quid). I'm NOT sitting there thinking "wow wish this was high def" 99% of the time. that 1% is generally some fit bird diversting herself of clothes.
bad enough with hollywood but the beeb et al retooling yet again (after the widescreen transition a couple of years ago) just so i can see all the holes in the set or the same lame scripts but with perfect definition of somebody's spots is just bloody wrong.
we don't need technology to increase the quality of tv. spend the bloody money on decent scripts. take more chances to find something new. dump the same old bloody faces we see all the time (tennant or james nesbitt for example). don't commission stuff just because people have a PR record that can be exploited (e.g. gavin and stacey)
erm have i gone off topic? again?
I agree with Ian Ferguson up there - 99.9% of folk can't tell the difference. Us geeks know but the "general public" don't know or care.
AM radio is still popular. My mum bought a HD-Ready television, but watches VHS tapes on it. My friends can't see that YouTube video looks crap.
I used to be a real audiophile - I bought a Rega turntable, for gods' sake! - but then I realised that the music is more important than the sound quality, and the high-end audio market is just selling snake oil.
Apple's iPod and iTunes support MP3, AAC, Apple Lossless, and WAV. So 2 lossless formats, 1 better than MP3 format, and MP3. As others said, Apple didn't invent any of these other than Apple lossless, which supports everything sound quality wise any MD/DAT does. Every other portable player on the market at the least supports MP3, some even support the inferior WMA standard. And correct me if im wrong, but wasn't Microsoft the first to implement MP3 encoding into Windows, and before that was pushing WMA??
And yes, included earbuds with players usually are crap, even getting something like the relatively inexpensive yet quite reasonable Koss Porta Pro headphones will make a vast difference. So if you're still using the Apple or Creative, etc ones, change, for the sake of your hearing.
Also if he is anti-MP3, why doesn't he also target Amazon, Sony, Microsoft, etc who also have often MP3 only on-line stores?
People are forever talking about bitrates and lossy compression, but they don't often discuss the Analog D/A converters, amplifiers and transducers between the digital bits and our ears.
Perhaps that's because these things are so much harder to measure.
There is plenty of evidence on the Web that Apple is using conversion chipsets without the best audio quality
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!! One of their own, a HUGE Fringe Commie Pinko Lefty Neil Young, Brethern to the AppleTards speaks the truth about for shit Apple iPuds and craApple!
This is just to much .... look at all the MacTard Spin on this one.
Hey MacTards hows your MobileMe??? "MobileMe, Mossberg wrote, is both sluggish and buggy ..."
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ....
I saw Neil perform an entire album solo in Santa Barbara in the early 80's using midi sequencers and the like. A techno-phobe he surely isn't. My only complaint was how bloody loud the concert was!
I agree that the MP3ing of music is doing a tremendous dis-service to anyone with discerning ears.
Perhaps I am old school, but I don't see how convenience is more important than quality. I do have a player, but have upgraded the pathetic stock earbuds and rip my CDs at the highest possible bit-rate supported by my player. I can still hear some degradation but it is tolerable considering the listening conditions. At home I stick with CDs.
As for those who evangelize super duper bit-rates etc., all you need to perfectly reconstruct the original signal is to sample at twice the highest frequency contained in it plus a little to make the reconstruction filters realizable and minimize the phase variations introduced.
Nyquist was and still is correct.
But if you want to throw your hard earned cash at voodoo, smoke and mirrors, I'm sure the vendors will tell you anything you want to hear.
I saw a company selling a gizmo that 'de-randomized the flow of electrons' in your speaker wires at the CES show in Las Vegas about 15 years ago. Charlatans thrive in that business. Buyer beware.
I was surprised by the number of comments disagreeing if an average person can tell the difference between a .mp3 and a non-lossy format such as CD. As it happens I've ripped my CDs to FLAC, a non-lossy format. This was insurance -- just in case there was a difference between non-lossy and lossy formats I didn't want to have to rip all of my CDs again again.
As an experiment I've just selected a random 10 seconds from 25 randomly selected tracks from the CD collection of a 40yo male (ie, me). I encoded these selections with LAME into MP3, a lossy audio format.
I randomly ordered the combined FLAC and MP3 selections. I did not know the order. I then played the selections through lightweight brand-name headphones in an office environment whilst having a radio on in the background. I noted if I thought the track was lossy or not. Each 10s selection was played once only.
I then compared my notes to the reality. In all 50 cases I chose the correct encoding. I conclude that even an amateur can readily distinguish mainly-1980s popular music encoded with 128Kbps MP3 from CD audio if they are listening for a difference. I also conclude that randomly-selected '80s music is 90% dreadful.
There may well be errors in my methodology, but since anyone with a computer and headphones can repeat this test I'd encourage people to design and conduct their own experiment and post the results. For your own sanity use a musical era other than the 1980s.
Mine's the lab coat.
"Apart from a few hi-fi enthusiasts, nobody cares about sound quality, as long as they can hear their music"
So you mean the frequencies lost by MP3, and the frequencies unreproducible on your earphones is letting you 'hear' the music?.
I think you need to change you statement to say 'as long as they can hear SOME of the music'.
Until you've heard ALL of the music, then you merely making an uninformed comment and are therefore stupid.
One of the last audio comparisons I saw (a proper one with metrics rather than bs) still gave mp3 (via the LAME codec) the edge on AAC. Reason given - codec more mature so the implementation is about as good as it could be whereas AAC still has room for improvement. Google mp3 vs AAC for more info. This shows that people ranting over mp3 being shit compared to AAC are talking out of their arse and probably don't know how to rip music properly. With cheap storage FLAC via EAC is a good starting point.
On Mr Young's comment I think he's referring to the fact that Apple's downloads are generally shit quality whereas they could offer lossless.
...so very very sick of clueless snobs bashing audio file compression. There is a very very big difference between dynamic range compression (the loudness wars) and sound encoding. A bat with audiofile grade sound system couldn't tell the difference between CD quality and high bitrate AAC.
The real problem people hear with the sound comes from the DAC. An ipod sized device is just not going to be able to fit in a high quality DAC. End of. Odds are your computer does not have much of a DAC either... unless you are in the sound engineering business.
...and Neil Young should know this. So why doesn't he do something useful, like throw his weight behind the "turn me up" program?
"An ipod sized device is just not going to be able to fit in a high quality DAC. End of. "
Which would be true if it weren't for the fact that it is wrong. The iPod DACs have always been good - better than most CD players. The headphones supplied by Apple have always been rubbish. The 128kB/s iTunes tracks have also been terrible. The iTunes Plus tracks are perfectly acceptable. Use a lossless format and there's no issue at all.
Mr Whiny-Voice Young is overlooking the fact that these tracks must be small enough to download over relatively slow connections, *and* that it's the record labels that restrict the bit rate and quality that they allow Apple to offer.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
