Neil Young comments on analog and digital

I am a musician and I am an audiophile. I have the best equipment that I can afford. In fact I probably put a higher percentage of my annual income into audiophile products than 99.99% of the people on here.

 

Goldenboy'


"Oddly similar to vinyl advocates who 'blow off' double blind tests"

That's funny. Are you now advocating that CD and LP playback are indistinguishable in double blind tests? At least get the "objectivist" dogma straight.

As for your preference for CDs over LPs played back on crappy direct drive turntables, I agree. Even CDs sound better than LPs played that way. Get back to us on your opinion when you actually listen to a good turntable. Oh I forgot, you think they all sound the same. Ever done a double blind test to prove it? Oh, and ask Grant, a CD advocate, what he thinks of the idea that double blind tests proving there is no audible difference between cables.

As for my opinion of people who actually listen to state of the art LP playback and state of the art CD playback, I haven't met one. Everyone I know who has actually listened has prefered the LP. But if I do run across some one who prefers CD to Lp playback after actually spending time listening to state of the art playback I would never try to discredit them as a listener. I respect the fact that we choose what colorations offend us the most and which ones we can live with. that much is subjective. The irony still remains that the people who try to discredit the experience of others who prefer the sound of LP playback over CD playback still have yet never listened to state of the art turntable much less a decent turntable.

 

Grant

I too have never had any experience with illegal drugs or even so much as a sip of an alcoholic beveredge or a puff of tobacco. I think you know my preference to LPs.

 

I'm not advocating double-blind tests proving a similarity of vinyl and CD, I'm pointing out the fact that vinyl advocates 'blow off' these tests that show CD to e more accurate. And as for that whole debate, I'm not even going to bother to get back into that one, but I will clarify one thing, since you decided to bring it up and imply something about me: your opinion of what is a 'crappy' TT and what isn't is just that - opinion. If you want to discredit my TT fine, but don't imply that I haven't heard some of what you might claim is a 'high-end' TT. If you want to know some of the so called 'high-end' TT's that I have heard, then I suggest you go back and check that other thread - I'm not going to re-state anything, I don't feel like being bothered with that whole debate anymore. Bored now.

 

Goldenboy

It seems you don't understand my position on specs by your post so I'll explain it to you. Specs do matter repeat specs do matter, but what matters MOST ( most is a word discribing a reletive proportion and not an absolute) to me is what I hear. If my ears tell me something is better and the specs tell me something different, I go with what my ears tell me. It is no consolation to read about great specs while listening to crap sound. I have pointed out the 16 bit 44k sampling rate to the people who insist that specs alone are the only way to judge sound quality tend to conveniently ignore that one particular spec. If you are going to live by the specs you must accept ALL the specs. I have also pointed out the fact that the different mediums have different kinds of shortcommings. The obvious shortcomming of CD being the limmited amount of info due to the format. I actually look at the specs and investigate the design concepts and implimentations of turntables quite carefully. I do the same for CD players on the rare ocassions that I audition them. Hopefully this will allow you to understand my true position on specs and prevent any further misrepresentations of my position.

 

And what am I taking out of context?

 

Hi Richard:

That's interesting. I am aware of his children and their difficulties - very sad. But I don't think that's a reason to buy into the Lionel company. I hope I don't come across as slamming Neil. I'm a huge fan of his music - even if I don't always like his latest album, I appreciate the fact that he is "keepin' it real". I am just pointing out that his love of vinyl could be partially a result of his love for the "good old days". We are all sentimental about the old days, and this feeling can color opinions. That's all I'm saying.

 

Mike

i suppose it could be nostalgia that drives Neil Youngs preference however at best that is an assumption that is totally unsupported by what Neil is actually saying. when he talks about the issue he hardly sounds nostalgic. His comments are quite specific about sound quality. The fact that he likes DVD also is a strong indicator that nostalgia has nothing to do with it. I don't think he grew up with DVD.

 

Has Neil Young said that the LP is the most accurate sonic reproduction of the master tape..or that he likes the LP better than the CD? Two different issues there. In the first case, if the answer is yes, I'd of course also want to know under what conditions (including, in his case, state of chemical alteration) he compared them. That's because it's highly unlikely that an LP sounds more like the analog master tape than a CD, *assuming* the CD is a competently done flat transfer.

If he *likes* the sound of LP transfers over flat CD transfer, regardless of their fidity to the master tape, then of course there's no issue of accuracy.

(Though one might also want to check Neil Young's hearing for sensitivity to anything over, say, 12kHz)

 

Everything you wrote echoes my thoughts exactly!

 

Krabbapple

"Has Neil Young said that the LP is most accurate sonic reproduction of the master tape... or that he likes the Lp more than the CD?"

Neil Youngs exact words have appeared more than once on this thread. I think it is fair to say he likes the LP sound better and he thinks it is more accurate. He compares the LP sound to a reflection of the original and he compares the CD sound to a toy robot. Read his words and draw your own conclusions.

"That's because it is highly unlikely that an LP sounds more like an analog master than a CD 'assuming' that the CD is a completely done flat transfer"

Interesting. How do you know this? What listening tests have been done that have made this conclusion, blind double blind or otherwise? I know the tests James Boyk did at Cal Tech have consistantly shown quite the oppossite of what you assume to be true. He uses his own original masters, his own LPs and his own CDs for these tests with high resolution equipment and his science students. Do you know of any other tests comparing analog master tapes with direct flat transfers to CD and LP? I don't. Are you now only accepting blind listening test results that suit your assumptions?

"I'd of course would also want to know what conditions (including, in this case, chemical alteration) he compared them"


Again the lowest form of arguement, the personal attack, rears it's ugly head. I find this just plain pathetic.

 

Goldenboy

"I'm pointing out that vinyl advocates 'blow off' these tests that show CD to be more accurate"

What tests are you talking about? As I stated in my reply to Krabbapple the only tests I know of where direct comparisons between an original master tape a direct transfer to CD and a direct transfer to LP were conducted at Cal Tech by James Boyk. Guess what? The CD lost in those comparisons by a huge margin.

Yes you have named two tables you have listened to and yes I think they are crappy and yes that is my opinion. I don't say that to flame your equipment or to be arguementative. It is my honest opinion. It is still my opinion that you have no experience with listening to a state of the art turntable are even a decent high end turntable which renders your opinion uninformed in my opinion. You want to get over that hurdle with me go listen to a good turntable. If not you are welcome to argue from a position of zero experience. By the way I am not implying you haven't heard a decent highend turntable let alone a state of the art one. I am saying it directly. Until you can site some listening experience that proves otherwise I will keep on saying it.

 

Well, I'm not going to get into this debate again. I stated 3 TT's that I eithr own or have listened to. But, as I said in that OTHER thread, it doesn't really matter what TT's I have heard or haven't heard, because there is really no way to compare the comparative quality or, if you will, 'high-endedness' of 2 completely different technologies. In the end, you have and will dismiss whatever TT I have heard and dismiss my opinion because you need to prove your point somehow. If you don't think a $20,000 TT is high end, then you must be Bill Gates in disguise and you know what, most people would consider $500 TT that I PERSONALLY own as pretty pricey or maybe even 'high-end' for a technology that was invented in the 19th century. So, you keep your opinion, and keep on saying whatever you like, because, at the end of the day, it all has no bearing on anything to me whatsoever. That's all I have to say on this matter, and I REALLY mean it this time. Bored now.

 

Goldenboy

Im sorry I forgot about the ELP table you mentioned. It sells for a lot less than 20,000 now. I confess I have never heard this table so for all I know it may sound good although all acounts I have heard from friends who have listened to it were negative. At any rate it is expensive because it is a novel and complicated desig but not what I was talking about in terms of conventional highend tables. Your assumption that I will dismiss any turntable you have listened to is nonsense. If you had named any one of a number of state of the art tables or even any one of an ever larger number of good to decent high end tables I wouldn't have claimed you argue out of zero experience. Don't blame me for what is true and then base false assumptions about me on it.

 

His (in)famous LP vs CD 'live feed' tests were done 20 yrs ago -- has he repeated them more recently?

 

Krabbapple,

I don't know. Has CDs sound (no audible distortion according to the specs) gotten better since then?

 

Even Mr. Boyk (as well as Steve H here) has indicated that only the highest quality mastering will yield an LP *master disc* that sounds like the master tape. Whether that in turn results in production LPs that sound like the master tape, is yet another twist.

Further re: Mr. Boyk (if you have time, always read the enitre thread to get the context)


http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&[email protected]

apparently there has also been some quite lively debate with Mr. Boyk on rec.audio.professional, particualrly between him and Arny Kruger, who has performed hundreds of ABX tests.

Suggesting that *Neil Young* might occasionally listen while under the influence? SHAME ON ME. ;>

(btw, I love most of the guy's music..esp Tonight's the Night)

 

That would be an interesting experiment now. I don't know how much vinyl has improved over the last 20 years. As far as CD goes, is it mainly the D/A converters which have (greatly) improved?

 

Krabbapple

I find it interesting that Mr. Kruger's critisism of James Boyk amounts to claiming he just isn't up to date on digital technology when all you have to do is visit Boyk's website to see him proclaiming he has finally found a high resolution recorder that he can recomend. Maybe it's Mr. Kruger who isn't totally up to date. I see no legitmate critism for any of the work Boyk has been doing at Cal Tech anywhere. The critique that his analog mastered CD and digital mastered CD has been EQed to sound different is just BS. Boyk is liar if that is true. The guy who makes that claim bases it on his bias that the differences he is hearing are impossible under the circumstances. He did no real investigation he just made inflamitory assumptions based on his dogmatic beliefs. As for level differences so what? Are we to expect digital and analog masters to have exactly the same level? Just match the levels and listen.

So tell me, has CD sound improved in the past twenty years? If so why was the "objectivist camp" proclaiming it's superiority 20 years ago? How do you improve a technology that tests on the bench below audible distortion that has been established by double blind listening tests? Does it sound the same but better now?

 

Krabbapple you didn't suggest that Neil Young occasionally induges in the herb you infered that if he thought that LPs were less acurate than CDs it was possibly drug induced dellusion. That is a cheap shot at best.

 

Boy, am I anxious to hear the response to this one! It measured perfect 20 years ago and it sounds a lot better today than it did then.

Must be those damn recording engineers who hadn't a clue how to record up until recently

Or maybe what was on those early CD's did measure perfectly but it was perfect garbage. Either way, if it sounds like crap I don't give a rats behind how it measures.

 

The claim of 'Perfect Sound Forever' was a marketing slogan, and not one embraced universally by audiophiles with engineering backgrounds
(cf http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g...=&[email protected]
for testimony to this effect)

CD sound has certainly improved in the last 20 years, primarily in the way the 'brickwall' filtering and anti-aliasing have been implemented. CD sounds has also improved due to more careful mastering (i.e., not an inherent problem in digital itself). Realizing this isn't as definitive an answer as you'd like, I'm going to try to do some more in-depth research on the changes in digital since 1983, and get back to you.

But the extremely accurate frequency response between 20-20kHz, the very high S/N , wide dynamic range,the absence of medium-induced wow and flutter, the low interchannel crosstalk, higher immunity to 'pops and clicks' were all superior to LP then, and remain so now. To the vast majority to whom CD was being marketed, these were indeed manifestations of 'perfect sound' *in comparison to LP*.

 

Define 'a lot better'.

From what I recall, CD sounded 'a lot better' than LP to a lot of people back then. I sincerely doubt that the sonic improvements in CD have been as great since 1983, as they were between mass-market LP playback and mass-market CD playback back then. For most people, CD was a quantum leap in sonic quality.

OK. In the end, you have to go with what sounds good to you, right? (Btw, is this 'CD measures perfectly' claim going to be the new straw man for vinylphiles here?)