[vdubreeze]

Conversations about Young and his recent interview about the medium
have me thinking back to something he did in the early days of digital
tracking, mostly just to point out to people that he (or his staff)
didn't start thinking about better quality digital yesterday, but now
I can't find reference to what I'm thinking about, so maybe someone
can help me out. I have a strong recollection of an article (RS?
SPIN?) from the early days of digital tracking (as opposed to just
transferring or mastering) which focused on a project he was doing at
his ranch with Crazy Horse where he brought in higher technology than
was commercially available at the time (again, recreating a memory
here). It may not have been groundbreaking for recording on the whole
but it hadn't been done for a major label, major rock recording. But
I can't remember the particulars, and searches are failing me. 24bt
instead of 16? Higher than 44.1 during tracking? Some other higher
definition angle?

I'm sure it was something where in a year it didn't seem like so much
of a big deal, but even so it was a project where the technology
played a big part (not thinking about Trans style technology).

Does this ring a bell to anyone? A link to info would be great. Or
am I totally misremembering it? : )

Thanks : )

v

[geoff]

vdubreeze wrote:
Conversations about Young and his recent interview about the medium
have me thinking back to something he did in the early days of digital
tracking, mostly just to point out to people that he (or his staff)
didn't start thinking about better quality digital yesterday, but now


I read Neil's religous assertions.

The only thing that is clear is that Neil has little understanding of
'digital', and indiscriminately lumps it all in with MP3/AAC (etc)
data-reduction.

geoff

[geoff]

Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
I read Neil's religous assertions.

The only thing that is clear is that Neil has little understanding of
'digital', and indiscriminately lumps it all in with MP3/AAC (etc)
data-reduction.

Neil made his distaste for digital known (and his ignorance of it, at
least at that time) *long* before MP3, AAC etc. were even invented.
He still seems to think 16/44 LPCM is inadequate for maintaining
fidelity of old 2 track 7.5ips live concert tape recordings from the late
60's, early 70's:-)


He probably finds digital deporessing....

geoff

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
He probably finds digital deporessing....

Whatever that is, why?

Trevor.

[geoff]

Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
He probably finds digital deporessing....

Whatever that is, why?

Trevor.

'Depressing' sorry.

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Trevor wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
He probably finds digital deporessing....

Whatever that is, why?

Dr. Diamond knows ...

Trevor

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
wrote in message
...
He probably finds digital deporessing....

Whatever that is, why?

Trevor.



"I got the digital blues. My soul is just a number.
....
I got the digital blues. My soul is just another number.
Three forty-four point six, is that really me
Three forty-four point six, you're kidding me
How did we get into the shape we're in
I check it out, I'm one again." - JJ Cale, Digital Blues.

--
Les Cargill

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/2/2012 7:28 PM, geoff wrote:

The only thing that is clear is that Neil has little understanding of
'digital', and indiscriminately lumps it all in with MP3/AAC (etc)
data-reduction.

Is there some reason why his opinion is important to anyone?
His name comes up often enough as a non-fan of digital
audio that it's practically entered netlore. Analog or
digital, I still don't like the sound of his voice so I
don't listen to his music. And I don't care if he listens to
mine.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/2/2012 7:28 PM, geoff wrote:

The only thing that is clear is that Neil has little understanding of
'digital', and indiscriminately lumps it all in with MP3/AAC (etc)
data-reduction.

Is there some reason why his opinion is important to anyone?

Yeah, cos people lap up the disinformation, embellish it, and pass it on.
Just not great for the human condition.

geoff

[vdubreeze]

On Feb 3, 6:12*pm, "geoff" wrote:

Is there some reason why his opinion is important to anyone?

Yeah, cos people lap up the disinformation, embellish it, and pass it on.
Just not great for the human condition.

geoff

Right, which is why I only asked if anyone remembered the facts about
the early digital hi def sort of tracking that happened at The Ranch
several decades ago. No content about recent interview
included ; )

[Trevor]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
He probably finds digital deporessing....

Whatever that is, why?

}'Depressing' sorry.

Dr. Diamond knows ...

Allowing for the typo, I'm still puzzled as to why?

Trevor.

[geoff]

Trevor wrote:
"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
Trevor wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
He probably finds digital deporessing....

Whatever that is, why?

}'Depressing' sorry.

Dr. Diamond knows ...

Allowing for the typo, I'm still puzzled as to why?

Trevor.

Neil is famous for his deep dark depressions over the decades.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

vdubreeze wrote:
Conversations about Young and his recent interview about the medium
have me thinking back to something he did in the early days of digital
tracking, mostly just to point out to people that he (or his staff)
didn't start thinking about better quality digital yesterday, but now
I can't find reference to what I'm thinking about, so maybe someone
can help me out. I have a strong recollection of an article (RS?
SPIN?) from the early days of digital tracking (as opposed to just
transferring or mastering) which focused on a project he was doing at
his ranch with Crazy Horse where he brought in higher technology than
was commercially available at the time (again, recreating a memory
here). It may not have been groundbreaking for recording on the whole
but it hadn't been done for a major label, major rock recording. But
I can't remember the particulars, and searches are failing me. 24bt
instead of 16? Higher than 44.1 during tracking? Some other higher
definition angle?

Neil Young has done so many crazy things over the years it's hard to
point any one of them in particular. He has never been satisfied with
his sound and often willing to try various crazy technologies.

This is fine, and it's a good thing for musicians to be that way. When
we stop striving for better performance, we're dead.

However, I do blame Mr. Young for having spread an outrageous amount of
pretty bizarre misinformation about technology over the years, and I
often have to explain to customers that just because Neil Young said that
there is stairstepping in waveforms coming out of the DAC does not mean
it actually happens...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
However, I do blame Mr. Young for having spread an outrageous amount
of pretty bizarre misinformation about technology over the years, and
I often have to explain to customers that just because Neil Young
said that there is stairstepping in waveforms coming out of the DAC
does not mean it actually happens...
--scott

In his grungy periods the music often sounds that way at the best of times !


geoff

[Mr Soul]

Is there some reason why his opinion is important to anyone?
He has been consistently outspoken about getting better fidelity in
the digital realm. Does his opinion matter - I guess not, but if he
wasn't bringing up the issue, who would be? Whether or not you like
his music is a separate matter - right?

Mike

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr Soul wrote:
Is there some reason why his opinion is important to anyone?

He has been consistently outspoken about getting better fidelity in
the digital realm. Does his opinion matter - I guess not, but if he
wasn't bringing up the issue, who would be? Whether or not you like
his music is a separate matter - right?

I am in favor of anyone pushing for higher quality reproduction, in any form,
in any format.

However, I think that spouting a lot of pseudoscience in the process just
harms his own position (and mine).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/7/2012 9:01 AM, Mr Soul wrote:

He has been consistently outspoken about getting better fidelity in
the digital realm. Does his opinion matter - I guess not, but if he
wasn't bringing up the issue, who would be?

I don't think it's an issue that any individual can bring up
as just an issue. If he were to say "Don't buy my latest CD
because I don't care for how it sounds." that would make an
impact. Or if all listeners would simply not listen to
anything that wasn't up to Mr. Young's standards, that would
make an impact. But that just isn't going to happen. There
are still plenty of people for whom lower fidelity serves
the purpose for which they buy, beg, or steal music. It's
not a big problem.

He should put his efforts into solving the unemployment
problem in the US. Hire people to hawk his CDs.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Mr Soul]

However, I think that spouting a lot of pseudoscience in the process just
harms his own position (and mine).
Agreed but remember Neil is a musician not a scientist so he is going
to talk about these issues in the way he knows how, i.e., non-
scientific. Can you be specific about his pseudo-science?

Mike

[Mr Soul]

I don't think it's an issue that any individual can bring up
as just an issue. If he were to say "Don't buy my latest CD
because I don't care for how it sounds." that would make an
impact.
Why not - isn't he entitled to his opinion just like anyone else?

He has finally endorsed the audio quality on his Blue Ray versions on
his Anthologies which is the reason he waited until now to release
them.

make an impact. But that just isn't going to happen. There
are still plenty of people for whom lower fidelity serves
the purpose for which they buy, beg, or steal music. It's
not a big problem.
Then let them have their MP3s.

He should put his efforts into solving the unemployment
problem in the US.
He has been doing that. He owns Lionel Trains which employs people.
He's been building a fuel efficient car - that's employed a few more.
The people that work on his tours

I am glad Neil has raised the fidelity issue.

Mike

[Scott Dorsey]

Mr Soul wrote:
However, I think that spouting a lot of pseudoscience in the process just
harms his own position (and mine).

Agreed but remember Neil is a musician not a scientist so he is going
to talk about these issues in the way he knows how, i.e., non-
scientific. Can you be specific about his pseudo-science?

Well, I mentioned the stairstepping.
If he'd just say, "I don't like this, I demand something better" that
would seem more reasonable. Hell, for a long time in the eighties,
nobody knew why any of the stuff sounded so bad. Now that we do, we
can fix it and have fixed most of it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

Mr Soul wrote:
Is there some reason why his opinion is important to anyone?
He has been consistently outspoken about getting better fidelity in
the digital realm. Does his opinion matter - I guess not, but if he
wasn't bringing up the issue, who would be? Whether or not you like
his music is a separate matter - right?


Love some of his music, ambivalent about some, and loath some.

Problem as I see it is when his totally flawed views re audio get prominent
media coverage, and he is accortded the status of an authority on the
subject.

geoff

[Mr Soul]

Love some of his music, ambivalent about some, and loath some.
Right - he's done some pretty awful stuff but some stuff is genius.
Ever listen to his 1st album? It's got some of the nicest arranged &
produced songs of his entire career. That's because Ry Cooder did the
production & they had some good studio musicians on it.
Unfortunately, the album bombed & Neil very rarely mentions it.

Problem as I see it is when his totally flawed views re audio get prominent
media coverage, and he is accortded the status of an authority on the
subject.
Right - the media likes to annoint celebrities instead of authorities.

Mike