Very amusing. I had the chance to see one of the deafening performances of Neil Young in the 80s. Worst sound qualitiy on a concert ever, but extremely loud ! No high definition equipment would help in that case. I felt sorry for those damn good songs to be mistreated that way.
Could there a political reason behind his plan? Attack capitalism or some other conspiration theory, maybe ? LOL helplessly

It is true that digital music y worse than analog music. The best music that I've ever heard is live music without any sound amplifier, any speaker, any microphone, etc. Although, I know there is special electronic equipment that uses bulbs instead of transistors, an the sound that comes from it doesn´t have losses (In digital world, there are a lot of losses).

I think Neil Young has a good goal, but I think he ought to make it possible through analog devices. That would be very difficult.

Neil Young is one of the great iconoclasts of the music industry. It only seems natural for him to "Know a better way".

He is right in one respect. When playing high quality, digital recordings on $10,000 a pair, studio reference monitors, everything falls short of the full band-width recording. But since most people today either listen in their car, use ear-buds, or computer speakers, it is hard to tell the difference.

I make my living knowing when something sounds good, and yes, I can hear the difference between MP3 and anything else (Its true. MP3 sucks anytime, anywhere). But the iTunes format through an average set of speakers, is hard, if not impossible, to distinguish from a full band-width CD.

"putting on a headphone and listening to an MP3 is like hell" Maybe it's not the MP3 format but it's his latest music.

Putting on headphones and listening to Neil Young's voice is like hell.

Mr. Young's hearing is almost certainly damaged from the monstrous noise of his concerts. I doubt if he can tell the difference between an MP3 and an M80.

brilliant, someone else has seen the light !
I (and prolly millions of others, just ive not read anything) thought about this being a way forward for physical media/music industry several years ago when Bluray/HD-DVD were announced.
Let the masses have free mp3's off the net and sell hi-def surround sound dvd's with extras (live stuff etc, artwork). Hardly anyone is going to download Bluray size files- the industry makes money, the customer gets better quality (resolution) music/product. It would also shake up the music/studio industry and push the boundaries of production, as well as reviving physical media distribution.

Stereo music @ 44khz, 16 bit ?

Its time to move forward.

The MP3 format isn't really because of sound quality, but more because of file size. If his entire album is recorded to Blu-Ray, that means 50GB per CD? Ouch! And for Neil Young to think that millions of people are dying while they listen to MP3s, well, that's somewhat delusional. Sounds like he just wants some way to make royalties for himself, or make it impossible for the rest of us to enjoy our music DRM free... like millions a year isn't enough for him....

Young Neil is a musical genius. His music is timeless as is he. MP3 is over 15 years old. When everybody was on dial up and a 20GB hard drive was considered large, compression was a necessary evil. With broadband distribution and 1TB drives costing 200$ it is time to start phasing out lossy music formats. AAC is head and shoulders above MP3, but it is still lossy. Id love to see the ITMS at least start offering apple lossless downloads.

Bash him if you want ( most of the posters here- by their response- seem very ignorant with regard to sound quality), but he is right. The sound quality of the music from iTunes is awful.... the public puts up with it, because they do not know any better.... they don't know how they are being cheated. You do not need to spend $10,000 on speakers to hear the difference.... it is very obvious if you listen with VERY modest headphones, even....

The sound quality of the laptops sucks (it is embarrassing to play the speaker on my MacBook Pro next to my Windows based laptops)

The sound quality of my iPhone sucks.... there is no arguing this point.

Steve Jobs could care less about sound quality... he just cares about the cash.

Having said this, there is no stronger Apple supporter here, than I am. I am an Apple nut and more than a little of my portfolio contains aapl.

I wish the competition comes along and forces Steve Jobs to address sound quality in the way it deserves to be.

Who cares what Neil Young thinks? The generation that owns the MOST ipods doesn't know who he is and the future generations of ipod owners wont either.
AAC/M4A is the way to go Mr. Old.

The age old debate... sound quality versus size and convenience, the same thing with video is happening, it will always be there.

Bottom line: The Market speaks louder than words from an artist descending into shame and reptitive music with lack of creativity or any of our comments: people want their music on the go on their computer, on their stereo... that's where you got iPod/iPhone, Macs and Airport Express/Apple TV - Thank God Neil Young isn't Steve Jobs is all I can say.

WTF is Neal Young?

Sure, that means a lot coming from a guy who's like 70. I'm sure he couldn't hear the phone ring let alone tell you what good music sounds like. And for the record: Neil Young sucks.

I buy a lot of MP3s off of iTunes and have no complaints whatsoever.

It's ironic that a guy who can barely even sing is complaining about sound quality.

Lossy is lousy.

I think Young's ambitions are good, but it's hardly fair to knock iTunes.

For day-to-day listening, iTunes is OK and the 'plus' format even more so.

It's certainly good compared to CD sound, which itself is vastly inferior to audio on DVD.

Replaying any iTunes track via a tube-amp from (for example) Roth Audio gives a warmth that comes as a bit of shock after so many years of pure-digital sound.

Sure, if you want true fidelity go to a live show, though at a rock/pop concert it's unlikely the amp equipment will be up to the job – in fact, the worst sound I ever heard was at a Dylan concert at Wembley, London.

It seems like everyone is in violent agreement.

Compressed music doesn't sound as good as uncompressed. Sometimes by a lot.

Some people aren't aware of how significant the difference can be.

Others are aware of the difference and choose the cost and convenience of compressed music in its current state.

Very few people can afford the cost and inconvenience of carrying a system around that will do justice to uncompressed music.

Mr. Young may have a decent play to allow many more people to choose uncompressed music within their standards of cost and convenience. Only time will tell, but he has the money and connections to make something happen. If he's successful, we'll all jump on it, just like cellphones, Walkman, iPod and Wii.

Some people will pay for it, and some people will steal it.

It's called "Apple Lossless" Neil. Wake up.

I love rich old hippies who are out to make more money.

Like they need any more weed or flannel shirts.

And why does the link go to the Financial Times while the picture is Rolling Stone Magazine?

IMO the real problem is over-processing and dynamic range compression at the mastering stage — even some CDs nowadays don't sound as good as they could.

Sound quality loss caused by some joker in the editing suite is much greater than the quality loss caused by AAC or even MP3 encoding.

will not improve shitty singers and crappy music be it Neil Young or some other lame act!

This is nothing new- Neil Young has hated the sound of digital since the first CD's were released. He's not some whacko, deaf, has-been. The negative comments here are embarrassing and juvenile and add nothing to the discussion. Of course sound quality matters, and we can do better. We can, we should, and we will. I'd be interested in seeing what Mr. Young has come up with- even loud rock 'n roll should have the highest fidelity possible available to us- not just classical, opera, music for "audiophiles."

... given his loss of hearing, it's nonsensical for him to make the claim that MP3s are lousy.

I mean does he even know that iTunes' default encode is AAC, and not MP3? And, that iTunes can encode in a lossless format?

I hate to diss Neil, but this smacks of just self-serving opportunism.

ever go to one of Neil Young's live concert...or listen to a recorded CD or DVD of his concerts....the worst quality sound you can imagine...especially since he stands on stage and sings like he just consumed a QUART OF VODKA...and ingested whatever to mind altering drug he could find....

Neil...dont through stones when you live in a glass house.

Why is he singling out Apple iTunes. Apparently he just doesn't care for compressed sound files. My hearing isn't that good as a senior citizen, so mp3's lower sound quality doesn't take away my enjoyment of listening to music. I grew up starting with listening to six-transistor AM radios, many subpar vinyl records, constantly played eight-track tapes and cassette tapes played using my various Sony Walkmans. I ripped a lot of my mp3s from club vinyls and tried my best to remove clicks and pops and equalize the instruments. That's good enough for me.

I didn't use the best headphones money could by. Still, I enjoyed listening to portable music all those years. Just to be able to carry around all that music was wonderful for me. I'm not sure what this guy is beefing about. Higher quality music is still available for him in the form of CDs. To each his own, I say.

I believe Apple Lossless codec inside iTunes is de solution, thanks neil young.

Anybody know what issue of Rolling Stone that is? I went to pick it up this morning and I only saw the Barack Obama cover at the newsstand (Obama '08!). To anyone who says Neil is a fossil and does not bring anything relevant to the music/political scene anymore...I say you're an ignorant fool. Nothing wrong with pushing the limits of technology...music...politics... Neil keeps on keeping on and we all should be grateful.