Neil Young Files For Trademark on New Digital Audio Format

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
As someone said, we've already got FLAC (and MP3) - what more do we need?

not we, but seems someone have not enough money and has dreaming to implement something to receive royalties for it.
 
The whole high res thing reminds me of the tablet wars currently going on. Lots of solutions in search of a problem. The mentality seems to be throw out everything that R&D comes up with and hope that something sticks. Like I said I am all for high quality audio on well resolving systems. In all fairness, what Young seems to be proposing doesn't seem to be a new format so much as a new streaming service. I guess it remains to be seen if that will include a new format and/or equipment. But if the target for these studio masters is an iWhateverhaveyou I guess I am missing the point. Even with a 300 dollar pair of headphones on the subway most of the quality my CD flac files supply gets lost in the environmental noise. And going a bit further with this, let's say they did the righteous thing and released studio quality with little compression. Imagine what kind of volume you would need to hear the nuances in the recording. Not that I'm all for this compressed crap on iTunes--but it does beg a point. It may be fatiguing to my ears on my system at home, but on the subway, bus, or busy city street? Makes some sense to compress so that the music can be heard even if they sound like crap in a quiet room on a good system. These same quality files make PERFECT sense at home however on a highly revealing system. I don't believe that the quality of portable audio products at this point will provide something more satisfactory from sources that are better than CD quality. Most of these products have legal limitations placed on their volume levels so we don't go deaf. If we get uncompressed studio masters, the fact is there would be NO WAY to hear the darn music without a separate headphone amp.

BTW If I am not mistaken don't most of the newer iWhatchamacallits play 24 bit audio already? I think it tops out at 24/48 but that certainly seems like it would be more than enough in noisy environment. I can play 24/96 flac files though they seem to be resampled as per above. What is telling is that they're uncompressed compared to most music--ie turning up iDevice all the way results in barely heard music. So I am very curious as to what the average consumer gets out of this? A bunch of great sounding files that are unfortunately lost due to the medium on which they are to be played? I so get this for a proper AVR, Receiver, home system. It's the portability thing that escapes me.
Ok let the abuse begin!
 
The thing is to sell us better quality recordings in the first place. From there we can convert to MP3 or other file format if need be depending on want/needs and devices. As it is, folks are paying the same old CD price's for MP3, but getting less than CD quality. In most cases, it's cheaper to buy a new or used CD and simply convert to MP3, if that's what one wants. What would be better is provide all the formats one needs for the same price for one title, as we've got better things to do. Work on getting new music out there. Preserve old recordings. That would be a good business model.

Folks have proven an interest in DVD-A/SACD, once they know about it and are able to hear the difference on whatever system they own. The formats are still useful and very much alive today. BR is here now as well. There really is nowhere for the music industry to go now but sell quality formats. But there is no one format to rule them all, so the Music Industry in addition to supplying content, must also be able to supply different formats for customer's needs. That is also their job now. To re-think and scrap the old business models of the past and invent new ones. If they don't do it, someone else will as the technology is already there for anyone to invent or use.

All this we already know, but the Music Industry of old still clings to an era when records, then CD sales were all the rage and still tries to go back to that business model of controlling all media instead of trying to invent better one's that could make more money in fact. Why no online stores by the record companies to buy directly from them? It's 2012. It was fun buying from yourmusic.com and getting a SACD monthly for $6.99 or another price. We seem to be going backwards by not having that site anymore.

At this point, if one is a new artist, we really don't need the music industry anymore except for the vintage recordings still sitting there in the vaults. Those recordings we still want and need, if for nothing else historical reasons. But there are a lot of great recordings just sitting there, doing nothing except collecting dust.
 
Totally agree with you OQG. But the patents he is applying for are for streaming high resolution studio files to portable devices. In the cloud. I don't believe he is selling something for you to purchase as in own. As far as the wording is at the moment it mentions nothing about buying music. It is a rental service he is proposing at the moment.
This says nothing new but it seems to clarify he is not selling a format.

http://www.audiostream.com/content/neil-young-offer-high-resolution-downloadservice
 
The thing is to sell us better quality recordings in the first place. From there we can convert to MP3 or other file format if need be depending on want/needs and devices. As it is, folks are paying the same old CD price's for MP3, but getting less than CD quality.

This. This. This. This. This.

Forget surround. Forget everything. If you want to know why the industry, in 2012, is in the shitter, and why no one is happy, this.
 
This. This. This. This. This.

Forget surround. Forget everything. If you want to know why the industry, in 2012, is in the shitter, and why no one is happy, this.

Again--Totally agree. But what is proposed here isn't selling anything but a cloud subscription. The music wouldn't belong to you anymore than the music on MOG or Spotify or whatever the kids use these days. That's my only objection. Give me the files and let me do with the file what I like. This is all about not selling you music but purchasing the rights to listen to that music. Big difference. One gets you at least something tangible even if it's only a sector on a HDD. The other gets you access to that file with an active internet connection, compatible portable playback device, and up to date payments. And the file sits on a server somewhere. Anyway I am all for something I can own, back up, convert, share, archive, delete, or destroy if the mood strikes me. This offering by Mr. Young does not seem to be what either of you are suggesting. If he were selling something tangible either to download or own I think we would all be in agreement. BTW this is my major objection to the cloud offering by Apple as well. If it doesn't belong to me...well, it doesn't belong to me!
 
Try arguing with the cloud when it denies you access. Shades of Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey. If I have a piece of software, it's always usable, so long as there is something to read it. Call me old fashioned.
 
Someday, when all of the music is in the "cloud", the regular people will seek out the old archaic CDs, LPs, and tapes, as they will be the only way to actually own the music they hear. Eventually, iTunes and all will become not downloads, but live streams on demand, whenever you want them. This will give the PTB the power and control they've been dreaming of forever.

When it works
 
Again--Totally agree. But what is proposed here isn't selling anything but a cloud subscription. The music wouldn't belong to you anymore than the music on MOG or Spotify or whatever the kids use these days. That's my only objection. Give me the files and let me do with the file what I like. This is all about not selling you music but purchasing the rights to listen to that music. Big difference. One gets you at least something tangible even if it's only a sector on a HDD. The other gets you access to that file with an active internet connection, compatible portable playback device, and up to date payments. And the file sits on a server somewhere. Anyway I am all for something I can own, back up, convert, share, archive, delete, or destroy if the mood strikes me. This offering by Mr. Young does not seem to be what either of you are suggesting. If he were selling something tangible either to download or own I think we would all be in agreement. BTW this is my major objection to the cloud offering by Apple as well. If it doesn't belong to me...well, it doesn't belong to me!

I somewhat agree but, I'll put it to you this way, I would have agreed even more with you ten years ago, when these sorts of services looked like, say, Rhapsody. I pay my $9.99 monthly for Spotify and find it absolutely worth it. I can legally play a very good chunk of anything I want anywhere I want at, no, not lossless quality but, at 320mbps which, Otto-forbid, is as about as good as mp3 quality gets. Want to sample something? I can legally do so. Want to buy? I can still do that. These services are a fantastic use of modern technology. The only drawback, to me, become the data charges when I'm using too much of the 4G and not the WiFi.

"Owning" is still best, but the need to "own" becomes less and less.

So if this was some sort of cloud-based way to distribute hi-rez music, I say "so what?" It's still a step in the right direction, even if its not the step all would want to take.

As an aside, and I say this constructively, I do think the putting down of newer technology (i.e. "what the kids use," "Iwhatchamacalit") somewhat hurts your argument. It's not "the kids" that are using Spotify (judging from my Spotify sidebar, it's a pretty wide age group) and, honestly, so what if a younger person is utilizing something you are not. This is where we are at and, while there are things that I certainly miss about how music was distributed 10 or 20, or even 30, years ago, I have no desire to swap places with back then. There are great things about today's technology that make the delivery of music better than it's been, in many ways. The issue is more how and what is being distributed.
 
Different music options for what folks want and need. Better costomer service is needed, not just "One" thing anymore. Vinyl records are still being made. Experiencing streaming not at home is different than playing a SACD/DVD-A at home. One is not necessarily "better" than another, just different as is playing a record or 8 track on vintage equipment. Some folks like the streaming thing, others want physical media and others perhaps both. So someone come up with a business model that can offer all of that at a reasonable price. Why should not the price of a title include Streaming, Flac, MP3, 24/96 .Wav, DVD-A .ISO and anything else not mentioned. The record company or artist should offer a "music service" in addition to the music title to give one many options. That way, the music also has some sort of quality control as well by the content provider. After all, "How Many More Times" do I have to buy Led Zeppelin 1?

Neil Young's trademarks if you read them again carefully seem to offer many options, that is, if they make it happen as described:

International Class: 009
Class Status: Active
Audio and video recordings featuring music and artistic performances; high resolution music downloadable from the internet; high resolutions discs featuring music and video of music and artistic performances; pre-recorded digital media containing audio and video recordings featuring music and artistic performances for storage and playback
Basis: 1(b)
First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)

International Class: 035
Class Status: Active
Online and retail store services featuring music and artistic performances, high resolution music downloadable from the internet, high resolutions discs featuring music and video, and pre-recorded digital media featuring audio and video recordings for storage and playback
Basis: 1(b)
First Use Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Use in Commerce Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
 
Back
Top