PunBB

sean.bonner Wrote:I buy vinyl and I am also addicted to Spotify.

Spotify does not have 'everything' I'd like, but the library they do have is truly amazing. I don't think most artists should not (or do not) see Spotify as a major revenue generator, however I do think it is the best place currently to gain exposure.

I have discovered so much music on Spotify I would never have heard otherwise, and if I like your album enough, I will track down a vinyl copy (just ordered Colony House... can't wait for it to arrive)!

I agree with the love of the discovery aspect of the app. I think that, as much as the convenience, is what has sold me on Spotify. I'm discovering a cool new artist every week through playlists and recommendations. This week it's Dead Man Winter and his new album "Furnace". Fantastic folk-rock from Minnesota.

arewhyehen Wrote:I am not big on YouTube or iTunes or any of that because of the poor quality of music. A few years back Neil Young started the Kickstarter campaign for his high definition music player (Pono) and download service. This got me really excited and I backed it.. I think it brought in about 6 million??? This really started the release of A lot of HD audio. I started gathering all my music in FLAC.

I, too, backed pono on Kickstarter. I couldn't live without it. Not kidding. I'm lucky to be able to listen to music daily at work so I use my pono approx. 4-6 hours/day, every day. If my house was burning down I would save my family first, then my pono.

In combination with some top-notch Shure in-ear monitors I splurged on last year, and any HD FLAC (Pearl Jam, Neil Young, Iron Maiden, Van Halen, Doors, Tom Petty, Nirvana), I believe my pono provides the best f u c k ing sound possible, bar none.

Over the past decade I've only bought Hip, PJ, & Matt Mays cds, but since I acquired my pono I've spent wayyy too much on HD FLACs & 24 bit music from ProStudioMasters & HDTracks. After listening to the 24 bit version of Van Halen - Van Halen I was hooked. It was as if it were the first time listening to it; even though I'd listened to it 10s of thousands of times on cassette & cd.

I really, really, really wonder why more bands/record companies don't release everything in 24bit/96Hz or 192Hz?

Please excuse me whilst I go buy Ryan Adams' Prisoner 24bit/96Hz for $14 on ProStudioMasters!!

ikky99 Wrote:

arewhyehen Wrote:I am not big on YouTube or iTunes or any of that because of the poor quality of music. A few years back Neil Young started the Kickstarter campaign for his high definition music player (Pono) and download service. This got me really excited and I backed it.. I think it brought in about 6 million??? This really started the release of A lot of HD audio. I started gathering all my music in FLAC.

I, too, backed pono on Kickstarter. I couldn't live without it. Not kidding. I'm lucky to be able to listen to music daily at work so I use my pono approx. 4-6 hours/day, every day. If my house was burning down I would save my family first, then my pono.

In combination with some top-notch Shure in-ear monitors I splurged on last year, and any HD FLAC (Pearl Jam, Neil Young, Iron Maiden, Van Halen, Doors, Tom Petty, Nirvana), I believe my pono provides the best f u c k ing sound possible, bar none.

Over the past decade I've only bought Hip, PJ, & Matt Mays cds, but since I acquired my pono I've spent wayyy too much on HD FLACs & 24 bit music from ProStudioMasters & HDTracks. After listening to the 24 bit version of Van Halen - Van Halen I was hooked. It was as if it were the first time listening to it; even though I'd listened to it 10s of thousands of times on cassette & cd.

I really, really, really wonder why more bands/record companies don't release everything in 24bit/96Hz or 192Hz?

Please excuse me whilst I go buy Ryan Adams' Prisoner 24bit/96Hz for $14 on ProStudioMasters!!

Would love the opportunity to listen to a Pono at some point to see what I'm missing out on. I read recently that Neil is trying to bring Pono sound to streaming and phones. I have no idea how he would do this since it would seem sound quality would be limited to the device the music was being played on. However, if he turns his attention from churning out half-baked albums and concentrates on coming up with a solution to this problem, I have faith that Uncle Neil will get it done.

From Rolling Stone (December 12, 2016):

The Future of Pono
Young is hoping to pivot his high-res music company – which had been focused on its Toblerone-shaped player and a download store – toward a hi-res streaming service. "We're pushing towards getting a presence in phones," says Young (though iPhones' internal chips are not currently compatible with higher-than-CD-quality sound). He's working with a Singaporean company on a method to "maintain our quality level when we go to streaming."

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/neil-young-on-his-new-album-trump-pono-dakota-pipeline-w455237">http://www.rollingstone.com/music/featu ... ne-w455237</a><!-- m -->

ikky99 Wrote:I really, really, really wonder why more bands/record companies don't release everything in 24bit/96Hz or 192Hz?

because the vast majority of people don't care and i'd put myself in that number. i honestly can't hear the difference between a FLAC file and a high-bit rate MP3.

ikky99 Wrote:

arewhyehen Wrote:I am not big on YouTube or iTunes or any of that because of the poor quality of music. A few years back Neil Young started the Kickstarter campaign for his high definition music player (Pono) and download service. This got me really excited and I backed it.. I think it brought in about 6 million??? This really started the release of A lot of HD audio. I started gathering all my music in FLAC.

I, too, backed pono on Kickstarter. I couldn't live without it. Not kidding. I'm lucky to be able to listen to music daily at work so I use my pono approx. 4-6 hours/day, every day. If my house was burning down I would save my family first, then my pono.

In combination with some top-notch Shure in-ear monitors I splurged on last year, and any HD FLAC (Pearl Jam, Neil Young, Iron Maiden, Van Halen, Doors, Tom Petty, Nirvana), I believe my pono provides the best f u c k ing sound possible, bar none.

Over the past decade I've only bought Hip, PJ, & Matt Mays cds, but since I acquired my pono I've spent wayyy too much on HD FLACs & 24 bit music from ProStudioMasters & HDTracks. After listening to the 24 bit version of Van Halen - Van Halen I was hooked. It was as if it were the first time listening to it; even though I'd listened to it 10s of thousands of times on cassette & cd.

I really, really, really wonder why more bands/record companies don't release everything in 24bit/96Hz or 192Hz?

Please excuse me whilst I go buy Ryan Adams' Prisoner 24bit/96Hz for $14 on ProStudioMasters!!

I am with you here. When I first got the Pono player and a nice pair of in ear headphones, it was just so much better than any other listening experience I have ever had. I didn't really know how to explain it. It almost felt "3D" if that makes sense. Like if you close your eyes, it felt like the music was all around you and different instruments were coming from different areas of the room. It is just amazing. With something that is compressed like an MP3, it's a lot more flat so you don't get that same experience with the 3D effect. I got myself a pair of Sennheiser IE 60 in ear monitors. They retail for $450 at my local shop, but I got them for $119+tax at a boxing day sale a few years back.

I would be super interested in hooking up and comparing what we have for music. I have about 23,500 songs that I have tagged with info and artwork over the past few years. Most of it is only 16 bit 44khz (CD) but I do have a bunch of 24bit 192khz and 96khz. It got to the point where I had pretty much my entire collection in FLAC, now I have started to get random shit...so I am always interested in finding new music.

It is a shame that more bands don't release their audio in 24bit format. A bunch of Neil's has been released as so. I know other bands like NIN offer a free download of the album when you purchase a CD or Vinyl. Trent almost always releases 24bit audio which is kick ass. I agree with that. I only buy vinyl now days and I do not think I should have to purchase another copy of the album just to get a digital copy to listen on the go...

Anyways..Going to send you a PM.

mark Wrote:

ikky99 Wrote:I really, really, really wonder why more bands/record companies don't release everything in 24bit/96Hz or 192Hz?

because the vast majority of people don't care and i'd put myself in that number. i honestly can't hear the difference between a FLAC file and a high-bit rate MP3.

Thats probably because you are listening on cheap laptop speakers or $20 earbuds. They are not capable of playing the quality of music that 24bit offers.

There ABSOLUTELY is a difference and it is a whole different experience. It's like watching a DVD vs BluRay. Everything is more sharp. The blacks are dark and crisp and not all pixelated like on a dvd. People just buy into that more because its something you can see the difference. It's a much easier sell. We have gone from tube TVs to 720p to 1080p and now 4K. I was watching a 4K TV yesterday and it was unreal. Why are we still stuck on POS quality music when the visuals are progressing forward so much? People are just so used to Youtube and the radio and streaming services and don't want to pay for music.

If you had the proper equipment to listen to a shitty mp3 vs 24bit FLAC and hear the difference, you would change your mind.

mark Wrote:

ikky99 Wrote:I really, really, really wonder why more bands/record companies don't release everything in 24bit/96Hz or 192Hz?

because the vast majority of people don't care and i'd put myself in that number. i honestly can't hear the difference between a FLAC file and a high-bit rate MP3.

Neither can I, and I've got a pretty good system at home with decent headphones. But that's likely due to my hearing more than anything. When I was younger I played in bands for a number of years, performing shows and attending numerous concerts without using earplugs of any kind (I was young, careless, and naive). I'm quite certain all that stuff damaged my hearing to an extent.

arewhyehen Wrote:

mark Wrote:

ikky99 Wrote:I really, really, really wonder why more bands/record companies don't release everything in 24bit/96Hz or 192Hz?

because the vast majority of people don't care and i'd put myself in that number. i honestly can't hear the difference between a FLAC file and a high-bit rate MP3.

Thats probably because you are listening on cheap laptop speakers or $20 earbuds. They are not capable of playing the quality of music that 24bit offers.

yup. just like the majority of people i referred to. Audiophiles represent a very small percentage of the population.

mark Wrote:

arewhyehen Wrote:

mark Wrote:because the vast majority of people don't care and i'd put myself in that number. i honestly can't hear the difference between a FLAC file and a high-bit rate MP3.

Thats probably because you are listening on cheap laptop speakers or $20 earbuds. They are not capable of playing the quality of music that 24bit offers.

yup. just like the majority of people i referred to. Audiophiles represent a very small percentage of the population.

Exactly. Even a half way decent stereo system wont show off the different sound quality. You need to spend thousands on equipment before even the most fine tuned ear will be able to tell the difference. The general public doesn't care.
Regarding vinyl I find quality is extremely hit and miss these days too. I've purchased many brand new 180gm vinyl that sounds way worse than the old stuff. I upgraded my setup and it's improved quite a lot, but some albums are mastered so poorly it makes no difference. Quite a bummer when you spend 3-4 grand on a system and some albums still sound worse than a cd.

Regarding cds, I've pretty much stopped buying them. For my top artists I'll buy a cd or vinyl when their new stuff comes out, but generally it's pirate bay these days. 90% of the time I only listen to music in the car so no need for top quality. That being said, there is nothing more satisfying than playing a real cd or vinyl.

sonichka11 Wrote:

mark Wrote:

arewhyehen Wrote:yup. just like the majority of people i referred to. Audiophiles represent a very small percentage of the population.

Exactly. Even a half way decent stereo system wont show off the different sound quality. You need to spend thousands on equipment before even the most fine tuned ear will be able to tell the difference. The general public doesn't care.
Regarding vinyl I find quality is extremely hit and miss these days too. I've purchased many brand new 180gm vinyl that sounds way worse than the old stuff. I upgraded my setup and it's improved quite a lot, but some albums are mastered so poorly it makes no difference. Quite a bummer when you spend 3-4 grand on a system and some albums still sound worse than a cd.

Regarding cds, I've pretty much stopped buying them. For my top artists I'll buy a cd or vinyl when their new stuff comes out, but generally it's pirate bay these days. 90% of the time I only listen to music in the car so no need for top quality. That being said, there is nothing more satisfying than playing a real cd or vinyl.

I love vinyl, but my collection is fairly small. Mostly because it's expensive as hell and I can't always afford to blow $30 or $35 on a record. If it's one of my favorite artists, then I'll definitely try and splurge for the vinyl. But more often than not I'll go for the cheaper CD if I want a physical copy. And if not that, I'll just go iTunes.

It's funny, I can remember back in the early 90s when cassettes and vinyl were dying off. The hardcore audiophiles were creaming themselves over the sound quality of CDs and getting rid of their vinyl collections. Now here we are almost 30 years later and people are swearing off CDs and going back to vinyl. Interesting how it's all come full circle. Hard to tell yet if this vinyl resurgence will last, or if it's just another passing fad/nostalgia thing. Personally I hope it sticks around.

I'll bet it's just a passing fad. Equipment is expensive and cumbersome and as mentioned you need to spend a decent amount of cash to get the best quality out of your vinyl. Records are also way too expensive and only good for use in a dedicated space in your home. No portability. Digital is the logical step in technology that we've been moving towards and the vast majority won't go backwards to vinyl.

sonichka11 Wrote:I'll bet it's just a passing fad. Equipment is expensive and cumbersome and as mentioned you need to spend a decent amount of cash to get the best quality out of your vinyl. Records are also way too expensive and only good for use in a dedicated space in your home. No portability. Digital is the logical step in technology that we've been moving towards and the vast majority won't go backwards to vinyl.

Yeah, makes sense, since records have only lasted as a source of music for over 100 years, while others such as 8 tracks and cassettes and CD's have all become pretty obsolete. All while the overall sales of music has declined, and vinyl sales continue to rise.

Comments like these and some of the above frustrate me. There is something beautiful about a record. Not only the quality of the record, but the fact that it almost forces a listener to listen to an album front to back and IN ORDER. Not only in the quality an artist intended, but the way they intended with track listing.

An artist carefully picks the track listing order to enhance your listening experience of an album and how you progress through it. It is just as important to creating an album as anything else. Listening to an album and skipping back and forth to your favourite tracks only is not how an artist intends for you to listen to it.

And as far as the quality goes on music (specifically digital). An artist spends months and month (if not years) on writing music for an album and then recording it over and over until it's perfect in studio. They record at the highest quality so that you get the exact feeling they intend. So many times there are subtle things added to enhance the song that might not be heard on a compressed file, yet people insist on listening to shit streaming services or watching on youtube. I find that insulting to the artist. The excuse that equipment is too much money is bullshit...people just don't care.

But trying to have this conversation with some people is like trying to have a conversation with a Trump supporter... :nooooo

arewhyehen Wrote:

sonichka11 Wrote:I'll bet it's just a passing fad. Equipment is expensive and cumbersome and as mentioned you need to spend a decent amount of cash to get the best quality out of your vinyl. Records are also way too expensive and only good for use in a dedicated space in your home. No portability. Digital is the logical step in technology that we've been moving towards and the vast majority won't go backwards to vinyl.

Yeah, makes sense, since records have only lasted as a source of music for over 100 years, while others such as 8 tracks and cassettes and CD's have all become pretty obsolete. All while the overall sales of music has declined, and vinyl sales continue to rise.

Comments like these and some of the above frustrate me. There is something beautiful about a record. Not only the quality of the record, but the fact that it almost forces a listener to listen to an album front to back and IN ORDER. Not only in the quality an artist intended, but the way they intended with track listing.

An artist carefully picks the track listing order to enhance your listening experience of an album and how you progress through it. It is just as important to creating an album as anything else. Listening to an album and skipping back and forth to your favourite tracks only is not how an artist intends for you to listen to it.

And as far as the quality goes on music (specifically digital). An artist spends months and month (if not years) on writing music for an album and then recording it over and over until it's perfect in studio. They record at the highest quality so that you get the exact feeling they intend. So many times there are subtle things added to enhance the song that might not be heard on a compressed file, yet people insist on listening to shit streaming services or watching on youtube. I find that insulting to the artist. The excuse that equipment is too much money is bullshit...people just don't care.

But trying to have this conversation with some people is like trying to have a conversation with a Trump supporter... :nooooo

I think records are here to stay again and even though I don't buy them, I love the fact that other people do. I like the idea that tangible music exists, for some of the reasons you list above. When Jimmy Fallon introduces a musical guest on the Tonight Show, I think it's great that he holds up the band's latest record.

When this vinyl resurgence started a number of years ago I thought it would quickly reach a plateau. I thought there would only be a limited number of individuals willing to invest in the equipment and be willing to pay MORE for their music than if buying digitally. My own personal reasons for not getting into vinyl have nothing to do with this cost, but more with the extra effort that's involved in listening to vinyl, and the lack of portability as sonichka11 pointed out. Everyone enjoys music differently and I perceive listening to vinyl as being a more active and engaged process. I used to have time to actively listen to music, but for me it is now mainly a passive (although no less enjoyable) experience. It's on as I work on my computer, it's on while I work in the yard, it's on while I'm driving, all digital. Vinyl just doesn't fit into my lifestyle.

As time has gone on, I've been proven wrong on my assumptions about vinyl sales plateauing. In the UK this past year (I'm not sure about Canadian numbers) vinyl had it's best year since 1991. Sales increased 53% over 2015 and, for the first time ever, vinyl sales outstripped digital downloads. That is an amazing fact. Who would have thought this 10 years ago, but it is digital downloads that are going to die (thanks to being made redundant by streaming) and vinyl is going to live on. It now seems unlikely that digital downloads will ever beat vinyl again.

As for streaming services being shit, I think this is honestly the future of the music industry, for better or worse. I personally love this option as I don't have the ears to be able to discern the difference between good vinyl and a digital file over a good stereo system. Similar to direwolf74, I abused the shit out of my hearing in my youth and now I have tinnitus and a 20% hearing loss on my left side. Hell, cassette tapes would probably sound good to me now!

arewhyehen Wrote:There is something beautiful about a record. Not only the quality of the record, but the fact that it almost forces a listener to listen to an album front to back and IN ORDER. Not only in the quality an artist intended, but the way they intended with track listing

I agree to both points. Even when an album is a bit worn and scratchy, there is just a "warmth" to the sound that you can not get from any other source. CD's at times to me just sound too crisp and, surprise, surprise, digital in sound. Perhaps a crisp clear sound where you can pick up every last nuance is great for some music, but to me I'd take that warm sound that comes from an album any day.

And same with listening to an album back to front. I know I'll sound old by saying it, but kids these days have no idea what it was like opening an album for the first time, throwing on head phones, hopping on the bed and closing your eyes to take in the album. Nowadays, its hop online, grab a song from this artist, or that artist, pop it onto your player and that's that.

But kids don't look at an album (or CD) as telling a story, they all seem to suffer from what I call music ADD and don't have to patience to soak it all in. Heck, some don't even have the patience to listen to a full song before hitting "next" anymore. Even if they do, their ipods are always just on shuffle or random, so on to the next artist, on to the next, on to the next.

Gone are the days of the idea of a concept album because of this. Anyone ever try to listen to a Pink Floyd album on random??? No matter how great the song is, half the albums brilliance just disappears when you don't listen to it front to back.

Enough of my old man ranting, I need to go chase those neighbors kids off my front lawn.

cochise Wrote:

arewhyehen Wrote:There is something beautiful about a record. Not only the quality of the record, but the fact that it almost forces a listener to listen to an album front to back and IN ORDER. Not only in the quality an artist intended, but the way they intended with track listing

I agree to both points. Even when an album is a bit worn and scratchy, there is just a "warmth" to the sound that you can not get from any other source. CD's at times to me just sound too crisp and, surprise, surprise, digital in sound. Perhaps a crisp clear sound where you can pick up every last nuance is great for some music, but to me I'd take that warm sound that comes from an album any day.

And same with listening to an album back to front. I know I'll sound old by saying it, but kids these days have no idea what it was like opening an album for the first time, throwing on head phones, hopping on the bed and closing your eyes to take in the album. Nowadays, its hop online, grab a song from this artist, or that artist, pop it onto your player and that's that.

But kids don't look at an album (or CD) as telling a story, they all seem to suffer from what I call music ADD and don't have to patience to soak it all in. Heck, some don't even have the patience to listen to a full song before hitting "next" anymore. Even if they do, their ipods are always just on shuffle or random, so on to the next artist, on to the next, on to the next.

Gone are the days of the idea of a concept album because of this. Anyone ever try to listen to a Pink Floyd album on random??? No matter how great the song is, half the albums brilliance just disappears when you don't listen to it front to back.

Enough of my old man ranting, I need to go chase those neighbors kids off my front lawn.

:lol:

i think it is more that people don't buy "albums" anymore, they buy "songs". they (myself included) are buying 1 or 2 songs from the album and that's it. that is the big advantage to buying digital.

for someone like me, i don't want to sit in front my stereo and listen to an album. i want to listen in the kitchen while i make dinner, in the car on the way to work or at my desk while i'm working.