There is no doubt that the move from vinyl to CD and now MP3 has compressed and degraded the quality of music we listen to on a daily basis. Neil Young is hoping to change this. In an interview at the D: Dive Into Media conference yesterday, Young was quite vocal and realistic about where the music industry is and where he’d like it to go. The singer/songwriter claims that MP3s only offer about 5 percent of the true sound bands and artists like him make when recording in the studio. CDs aren’t much better either, as he claims they only reproduce about 15 percent of the true sound of a record.
“My goal is to try to rescue the art form that I’ve been practicing for the past 50 years,” said Young. “We live in the digital age and, unfortunately, it’s degrading our music, not improving it … It’s not that digital is bad or inferior, it’s that the way it’s being used isn’t doing justice to the art. The MP3 only has 5 percent of the data present in the original recording. … The convenience of the digital age has forced people to choose between quality and convenience, but they shouldn’t have to make that choice.”
His plan is to try and get “some rich guy” or a music/tech company to develop a new audio format and device that can deliver audio files that are about 20 times more accurate than today’s digital music. Unfortunately, he admits that the process is difficult, as it would take about 30 minutes to download a single hi-fidelity song in his format, and a top device may only be able to hold 30 albums (360 or so songs), but he’s got a solution for that too: download while you sleep.
“Sleep well,” said Young. “Wake up in the morning. Play some real music and listen to the joy of 100 percent of the sound of music.”
At one point in the interview, Walt Mossberg and colleagues did argue that even in the golden age of vinyl, many people were still listening to his music on crappy stereo equipment and through crappy headphones, which he admitted was true, but countered by saying that we’ve had a lot of innovation in headphones and such, but things like Beats can only do so much to enhance audio that is inherently of low quality.
High quality audio recordings could actually help curb piracy by offering something of better quality than the pirated versions available, said Young, though he has no real problem with piracy as it exists. “I look at the Internet as the new radio,” he explained. “I look at radio as gone … Piracy is the new radio, that’s how music gets around.”
So how does a device like this get made? Young said he was working with the late Steve Jobs: “I talked to Steve about it. We were working on it.” Unfortunately, not much has happened, he admits, since the Apple co-founder’s death in October. Still, that isn’t stopping Young.
“Steve Jobs was a pioneer of digital music and his legacy is tremendous, but when he went home he listened to vinyl,” said Young. “You’ve got to believe that if he would have lived long enough he would have eventually done what I’m trying to do.”
The full video interview is below.
(Images via)
A question for audiophiles in our audience, any reason why FLAC wasn’t brought up in this interview?

that 5% of quality provided by digital formats is so that we can’t hear how crappy some of the artists really are today!
This mostly pretentious nonsense.
MP3 at 320kbps is good enough.
Anything higher than that is beyond the range of human hearing.
So people are just PRETENDING they can hear something which they can’t.
I think there are some newer compression technologies that work better than MP3, but mostly, I agree. It sounds at least as good as a CD. But I think Young is arguing that even CDs just aren’t as good as vinyl and master recordings. In some ways they’re not, but I think you have to be a certain type of individual to really hear the difference.
Will any hi res music survive or be successful? NO. If you answered yes, then I have a bunch of SACD and DVD-A media that you can purchase from me. The truth of the matter is that audiophiles and myself are in a very small minority. I have to force myself to find time to sit and listen to hi resolution music. Personally speaking, I need to sit, close my eyes, have absolutely no distractions, and immerse myself with music. I don’t think this is possible with most headphones, listening in a car, at work, etc. The majority of the population want to obtain their music fast and cheap (or free), which does’t happen for hi resolution music, or even multi-channel analog. How is Neil Diamond going to convince “some rich guy” to invest in a product that very little consumers will have interest in purchasing? Oh wait a minute, that’s me! I’ll just put it right next to my SACDs!
Wrong Neil, my apologies to Mr. Young and Mr. Diamond.
Neil young is right. I have downloaded Hi res music and FLAC tracks and they do sound betteron the very good high end speakers and sound system. And I’m one of those listeners that is disappointed in the lack of quality of the sound that you get from CD and MP3 tracks. I have music from my halfspeed masters that sound much better. I know some people that are working on the type of equipment that he is decribing and I wish I could get them together so they could work on that type of product. I ‘am a listerner with very special taste and I’m not satisfied with what I get from downloaded music so I look for other resources to find Hi Res Music instead.
Listening habits are a big factor. I actually just did some codec research to prepare for my new Windows Phone. WMA Lossless sounded great but I didn’t have the room for files that large. I settled on WMA VBR with the quality set to one below Best. The files are nice and small, and on my desktop speakers, headphones and car stereo, everything sounds the same as before. I suppose if I had a really nice home stereo with big, heavy speakers, I’d want the lossless codec, but for me the lower quality sounds great, and it allows me to use my phone as a media player.
How does WMA VBR compare to MP3 at 192kbps?
I ran some tests and I could not hear any difference. I know the VBR files will vary the bitrate as needed depending on the track, so I think for people with really keen ears they will like the VBR files better.
Are you using stock ear buds? What are you using for headphones?
At work I use a cheap pair of Panasonic headphones (the kind that fit over the ear, not inside). At home I use a set of Creative Labs Gigaworks T20 Series II speakers, which sound really good, especially having cost only 50 dollars.
You definitely need a nice pair of headphones, you have no idea what you are missing! :)
I thought I read a while back about a large audiophile magazine of some sort doing a double-blind listening test to compare uncompressed audio to various levels of mp3 compression. If I recall, the results were that no one in the test could tell any difference between the original uncompressed audio from the cd and 256 kbit (and higher) mp3 compression. I have no idea if this is actually true, but I’d love to see some real world, double-blind listening tests like this. I completely understand the *measured* differences between uncompressed and compressed formats, but laboratory audio measurements are often quite different than real world listening tests.
That being said, I am indeed a fan of lossless codecs, and I am curious why Neil Young would be pushing so hard for a new codec when there are so many lossless codecs already available (such as FLAC or Apple’s lossless codec).
Yeah I agree, that’s weird that he would push for a new codec. FLAC should be good enough if he wants something neutral and lossless.
i call it mlp lossless