Seeking Alpha
Seeking Alpha Portfolio App for iPad
Finance
(1)
Market Currents

A rather grumpy Neil Young isn't giving up on the idea (video) that a new music player can be...

  • Tuesday, February 7, 2012, 12:44 PM ET
    A rather grumpy Neil Young isn't giving up on the idea (video) that a new music player can be created that cuts into the sub-optimal way of listening to music that Apple (AAPL), Pandora (P), and Amazon (AMZN) has pushed the masses toward. He notes that MP3s and streaming music lose 95% of the data originally recorded in the studio and contends that a market exists for a higher-end device that allows listeners to hear music the way they artist intended. His answer to who will make the player: "Some rich guy."
Track new comments on this story

This news story has 42 comments:

  • Recording Engineer here, iPods already can play WAV and AIFF files which are CD quality Lossless files. ruffly 25 to 50 mb per song on average. What Neil Young wants is something even better than CD quality. I agree with him, the closer we can get the digital signal to sound like analog the better. Hard drive sizes are cheap enough and large enough now to support this format. Just wanted to give this information to the Wall Street guys and home gamers here on Seeking Alpha.
    7 Feb 2012, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • I'd like a player with OGG (lossy compression) and FLAC (lossless compression) support. This is what much of my music is already stored in and hits all the checkmarks in this article to the best of my knowledge.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • Could someone tell me what speakers can actually replicate studio sound above 95% anyway? Seems to me the speakers are the issue, not the MP3s, granted, a 128-160kps VBR MP3 is awful. Get a good VBR mp3 and it's your speakers that are the limitation.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • sure, go to guitar center and buy any pair of studio monitors, well not any pair. most people are buying KRK they are the yellow ones, they are not expensive but not the best. they sound great though and can handle WAV no problem. If you want decent studio monitors even just for casual listening around the house you might be spending around $1000, a pair of KRK's will run you about $500 bucks.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • You got it backwards. He said 95% is LOST. Speakers have little to do with that.

    As an audiophile, I still listen to CD's for detail and brightness, and to vinyl for warmth and presence. Steve Jobs still listened to vinyl at home, not his iPod, and that is good enough for me.
    7 Feb 2012, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • What does it matter, when 99% of consumers can't tell the difference anyway?

    And of the 1% that can tell the difference, 99% of them don't actually care about quality losses in 99% of use case scenarios.

    Such a product would be for a niche industry, not for the masses.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • Niche high quality players already exist. I think you might be missing the point, which is his wanting someone to compete with the widespread move towards lower quality by offering higher quality *to that 99%*.

    (I hate the 1%-ers term in every sense - and I'm not even close to it)
    7 Feb 2012, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • He can want that all day long, but there's no market there. It doesn't add value.

    It would be like making soda cans out of thick steel instead of thin aluminum -- so that the cans could survive being driven over by a car, just in case some consumers want that. And these new cans are much heavier, a lot more expensive, and almost impossible to open.

    Coincidentally, 99.99% of consumers have no need or desire for their soda cans to survive being run over by cars -- they just want the can to hold their soda in their hand or on a shelf, and the thin aluminum works fine for that.

    Similarly 99.99% of consumers have no desire to hear lossless audio, especially when it's 10x the size of compressed audio, takes 10x as long to stream, would probably be 10x as expensive, and sounds exactly the same to them.

    It doesn't add value.

    And as we all know, the only way to make money by not adding value is to be a large financial institution. :)
    7 Feb 2012, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • 99% of people are idiots. the music today in mp3 128 kbps compared to CD is like watching a movie in vhs compared to blu ray. MP3 quality and even the 256 kbps AAC files in the itunes store are God awful. It won't be niche, you don't have to charge more for better audio files. Just replace the iTunes store with CD quality WAV files or better. 99 cents for a cd quality WAV file would be a step in the right direction. But we can go higher than wav. I think if it was easily available people would download the higher quality track every time. We only squashed the quality to begin with because of smaller hard drive sizes 10 years ago.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • higher quality tracks will not be any more expensive. you can download them just like other tracks and they are already being mixed at the higher quality in pro tools in the studio. there is no need to raise the cost it just needs to be made available
    7 Feb 2012, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • I don't think you'll find an MP3 retailer that would dare sell anything at 128 kbps today. Anything above 192 kbps will suit most people just fine.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • if 192 is fine then why does apple sell 256 and then why are cd's at 1400?
    7 Feb 2012, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • You may know audio, but let's look at some data about computers and the internet. :)

    1) Bandwidth isn't free for users, especially mobile bandwidth. There's a reason there are caps on data plans.

    2) Mobile bandwidth isn't fast enough. Average 3G speed is less than 1Mbps, so that 50MB song would take more than 6 minutes to download -- most consumers would have tuned out 10 times by then.

    3) Storage is cheap, but not necessarily so cheap that people would upgrade to 10x the amount of it. Especially the portable market. How much would a 320GB iPhone cost over a 32GB one? $200 more? $400 more? $600 more? Better hope there are no more floods in Thailand!

    4) Hosting costs go up with size. More data means more storage, more backups, more servers, more power, more heat, and of course more server-side bandwidth -- all of which cost money for hosting providers.

    There's no free lunch. :)
    7 Feb 2012, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • 1. Because CDs can hold more data.
    2. Selling songs at 256 kbps (for a premium over lower end encoded songs) allowed the music industry to extract more profit from their songs than they were getting.
    7 Feb 2012, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • there is no premium anymore, it's all 99 cents again
    7 Feb 2012, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • No they're not. The most popular songs are $1.29.
    7 Feb 2012, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • answering your "points" one by one

    1) for mobile devices on the 3G or 4G network you would just keep the streaming of audio the lower quality it is now, no need to stream high quality audio, its more for listening on your nice head phones or on your nice home stereo speakers or in the car cd player.

    2) Again no need to stream these songs on 3G on 4G it would load in a min just like your home internet line

    3) I have a 500 GB macbook and most of my audio is in WAV and all my shitty music is at 320 kbps i have 26,000 songs in my itunes library with 50 GB left over. so storage is not an issue

    4) Look, were heading into the future. Companies like Apple will inevitably have to buy more server farms like their ones in north carolina. Higher quality audio is an inevitability and as long as you can torrent lossless FLAC files for free while still having to pay a dollar for shitty 256 kbps the music industry will loose and keep loosing.

    There is a free lunch if you're willing to look for it.
    8 Feb 2012, 12:28 AM Reply Like
  • I guess we don't need any hard drive space for photos videos and games after all this
    8 Feb 2012, 07:32 AM Reply Like
  • Not to mention any space that it doesn't address drive space on iPhones, iPads, or other smartphones/tablets.
    8 Feb 2012, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • I've already got more music than any of those devices will give me. Whether it's 1/5th of my music or 1/10 makes no difference to me. I'll still have to choose which to copy over. Non-issue even if we are to ignore the ever increasing capacity of these devices as time passes.
    8 Feb 2012, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • For someone into tech, it's a non issue but for the masses, anything but.
    8 Feb 2012, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • thank you "losing paper while gaining". somebody said it
    8 Feb 2012, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • 95% of Neil youngs music is not so good either. Increasing its fidelity might be a disservice.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • All those people with those headphones stuck in their ears have 95% hearing loss anyway by the age of 30. I'm not sure which segment this product would address...
    7 Feb 2012, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • this is such an ignorant comment, you can be exposed to 125 db (rock concert volume) for about a half hour before damage starts to kick in. people don't listen to their headphones this loud. an ipod at its loudest volume is survivable for about 2-3 hours before you might be harming yourself.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • Good quality headphones especially those with noise isolation don't require the volume to be up as loud. The cheap crappy things you get with your iphone or other device should be replaced as soon as possible.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • Thanks for passing your knowledge. Thought there was a device that improved the quality of music off of mp3 players.
    7 Feb 2012, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • Better quality? Coming from one of the most raucous guitar players around? Please, talk to the classical musicians and listeners about quality. They're the ones pushing the envelope.

    As far as Neil goes, he needs to put down the maryjane and really listen to what's being passed off as music today in the pop world.

    Maybe Neil could help by addressing lurid, debasing hip-hop, and the trash music that pervades our culture. Just shake the neighbors windows, that's all about quality in our culture, right?
    7 Feb 2012, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • Reason I still buy CD's rather than poor quality mp3's off the internet. Too easy for music to end up as vapor when the device dies, at least I still have the music squirreled away. Dirnfeld - 95% of everything is crap.
    7 Feb 2012, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • Solution: Back up your mp3 files. I've got mine on my computer, backed up on my work laptop, and on a separate external hard drive, and free to re-download or stream at anytime on the cloud through Google Music. It beats lugging CDs and records around.
    7 Feb 2012, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • Yeah, I have an external hard-drive to back-up also. Still worried about the end of the world. I envision pedaling a stationary bike powering a cd player so that I can still listen to music between fighting off the zombies.
    8 Feb 2012, 06:56 AM Reply Like
  • Listen to your old LP's - that's the difference, warm, round wiiideee sound, never mind a few 'cracks'.
    And try Linn loudspeakers instead of the ones from the supermarket - enjoy
    7 Feb 2012, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • As an older audiophile, I think exposing people to how great recorded music could potentially sound is an awesome pursuit. The dynamic range (or whatever you call it today) that was experienced with LP's moved the soul to, at times, a cathartic experience, even effecting a positive mood change. I remember comparing the sound of an LP to a good CD and there was no comparison. Pursuing this effort could start a whole new music revolution, even getting kids interested. A positive thing in my view. And, surprisingly, Neil Young's guitar does sound better on an LP!
    7 Feb 2012, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • Live music is better! Bumper stickers will be issued!

    Marantz sells a lossless CD player, and there's freeware that can improve the quality of CD rips (EAC, exact audio copy is one).
    7 Feb 2012, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • definitely a niche product. the total failure of SACD and DVD-Audio shows that the market is super tiny for those demanding more fidelity than regular CD-Audio (in which 256k MP3/AAC could reproduce the super majority of what the ear can hear in a mobile setting)

    For those who demand it, you can always A/D capture your vinyls with lossless compression and listen it on your iPod Classic. But please don't waste VC money on this.
    7 Feb 2012, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • You can't just say it's a niche product. Everything is a niche project at first. it took a while for the ipod to get going but it did. You just have to educate the ignorant and make it cool
    7 Feb 2012, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • good luck asking people to shell out $500 for a dedicated lossless audio player when most people's phones come with a basic mp3 player already.

    good luck asking people with 2GB capped data plans on their phones to stream CD bit rate audio files, if not larger.

    and stop calling everyone ignorant. no one pays respect to you like that.
    7 Feb 2012, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • It doesn't need to cost anwhere near that much. I have a 8 year old iriver h340 which, with custom firmware, can play ogg and flac, as can most cheap drug store music players. It's a limitation of the firmware on most iDevices for one that means we don't get high quality codecs on devices.
    7 Feb 2012, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • iDevices have an equivalent of FLAC called "Apple Lossless" but no one really encodes in that
    8 Feb 2012, 07:31 AM Reply Like
  • Yep, I know about ALAC, but for a long time it was proprietary so there's not as much third party support.

    FLAC has a lot more non-apple support than ALAC has at this time. I already have much of my music in FLAC and none in ALAC for that reason. I didn't want to be tied to itunes which I have on only one of my five regularly used devices.
    8 Feb 2012, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • The iphone can play WAV and AIFF formats (both considered lossless CD quality) so you don't need new devices for itunes to sell lossless WAV files or play it on their current devices. What Neil Young and Steve Jobs were working on was offering something that was higher than WAV 16 bit. Steve said because the studios mix at 24bit WAV and are then converted to 16bit WAV that Apple should sell the 24bit WAV files mastered directly from the studio. However, I can settle for just the 16 bit WAV which is what gets burned onto the CD being sold in the itunes store. At a $1.29 this will prevent more piracy than ever.

    The Apple iPhone supports the following audio formats:
    AAC (16 to 320 Kbps)
    AIFF
    AAC Protected (MP4 from iTunes Store)
    MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps)
    MP3 VBR
    Audible (formats 2-4)
    Apple Lossless
    WAV
    8 Feb 2012, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Neil Young is correct. A majority of the richness of the original recording is lost in the crappy mashed-up music files of today. Maybe if the tech comes around a new player/file format would solve the problem and the Tiffany jet-set or audiophiles would jump in. As for the masses, forget about it.
    7 Feb 2012, 06:30 PM Reply Like
Other date
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)