The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 21st April 2014
  #3541
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Ok, well I really planned on going through this thread and copying all the reasons given why any difference in formats I notice must be because:

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K

But quite frankly I just don't have time.

A thousand things that would have caused me to hear something different between two different schemes for recording and playing back music. EVERYTHING you can think of except the possibility that THEY ACTUALLY SOUND DIFFERENT.

Proving that digital 44.1/16 recording is the ultimate way to record music, and will NEVER be bested is like a religion to you guys. The zeal with which you support this contention is complete lunacy.
I for one hope they continue in their zeal. There are many who have never, and will never take a blind test, because they "know what they hear". Finally if forced into a blind test, they do poorly or are surprised that they can't ace it. Then they either question their previous beliefs, or they vehemently discount the vailidity of blind testing at all. Has Neil Young ever tested blind?

Last edited by walter88; 21st April 2014 at 02:57 PM.. Reason: grammar
Old 21st April 2014
  #3542
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Not for blind people.

You're really stretching initially questionable data way, way too far, even before one accounts for plasticity of cognition in blind people.

Seems to me that you're trying to bend the data to a point that it doesn't make, here.
Considering I've been forced to come back to that tread I was ignoring, because someone sent me a PM with a "threatening" title "Big Mistake"... telling me if you say I'm wrong, I'm wrong, because you are a sort of God.. so gods don't make mistakes..

Well.. I'm writing this post just to tell you that I OBVIOUSLY wasn't talking about blind people, obviously for blind people there's no difference between having eyes opened or closed.. that thing stands only for people who can see.. that have their optical nerve functioning..

So.. to close as you closed.. seems to me you are not trying to understand a thing of what I wrote, but when you read you try to find the weak spots.. so you can "fight the opponent" and that's a sport I don't like and I think that kind of sport should be banned from GS because it is against communication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
Its so ironic that many of these experts have jobs recording music that sounds as "great" as possible.
Incredible that the "experts" I know in the field don't use 44.1 or 48 anymore, unless they are forced, diss MP3, don't use iTunes, and stuff like that.. so ironic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
You give a big thumbs up to elan's definition of "science" but both of you keep conveniently leaving out the part where the scientist has to eliminate variables. No scientist can be so "open" that he relies SOLELY on his "experiences" and skips the part where no cheating is allowed.
Are you pissed off because usually, when there was the "unlike" option, it was you scrutinizing every my post and putting a "down thumb" on each of them?

And you keep not understanding a thing so I would be careful taking anything you say for real.. "Conveniently leaving out"? I don't see where is the convenience considering no one is paying me to write on a public forum and I'm actually throwing away time.. And most importantly I'm not leaving out anything, it is just you that really don't understand. How many times I've said I understand the importance of shoot outs and I do shoot outs every day when I need to check stuff? I was talking about PUBLIC shoot outs, which is a totally different thing. Which will lead necessarily to a random result, so no scientist would consider them.

But yeah I don't even know why I'm replying to you considering you won't understand a thing again and you'll start calling me "magic believer" and you'll send me a flat earth trained by turtles.. because you really seem to me to have a plot that you replicate every time in these threads. Using your dictionary, should I call you troll? I don't know.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3543
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Old 21st April 2014
  #3544
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Everything imparts a flavour.
Generation? If the CD recording process gives you a perfect, identical replay, as contended, (actually screamed from the top of the highest mountain), how can this be a generation?



Same master? If I copy a record, the record is the master. Comparing master to CD copy. They should sound 100% identical, right?
Are you really arguing that you can copy the sound of a vinyl record to a CD perfectly? While the process of converting to 44.1/16 is theoretically able to capture everything you're getting thru your speakers on vinyl, most AD/DA converters available on the low end don't produce completely transparent results. In other words, the CD rip sounds different from the vinyl, not because it was captured at 44.1/16 but because it was captured inaccurately! And most CDs in the store were mastered differently for vinyl than for CD (if you want really good evidence of this, check out the first three ZZTop albums and the absolute dreck they made of them porting them to CD).

Here's what you could do that might make this more accurate:
1. Rip one of your albums to digital audio at 44.1/16 and at 192/24.
2. Store both on a USB or player that can reproduce both, or play from your computer.
3. Play em both back on the same system.

Is the difference "night and day" now? If you really want to be rigorous, feed the two files into one of the free ABX testing software packages and see if you can tell the difference. You still won't have eliminated the fact that many AD convertors sound better at one sampling rate than another (if they're optimized for 44/16 they won't sound as good at 192/24 or vice versa) but at least that'll be the only variable.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3545
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
So then everyone is in agreement? Pono = iPod++.
You say this like its a bad thing?
Old 21st April 2014
  #3546
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post

heh
Old 21st April 2014
  #3547
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
While the process of converting to 44.1/16 is theoretically able to capture everything you're getting thru your speakers on vinyl, most AD/DA converters available on the low end don't produce completely transparent results.
So the whole argument for 44.1/16 is based on a theoretical possibility, not actual real world results. Got it.

Keep them coming, the list of the excuses just keeps growing. heh
Old 21st April 2014
  #3548
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So the whole argument for 44.1/16 is based on a theoretical possibility, not actual real world results. Got it.

Keep them coming, the list of the excuses just keeps growing. heh
I believe they call this "moving the goal posts"...
Old 21st April 2014
  #3549
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakewalk View Post
You say this like its a bad thing?
Not at all; why would I have a problem with a better iPod? Calling the Pono iPod++ was my way of showing that it's necessarily an incremental improvement, not a revolutionizing product.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3550
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So the whole argument for 44.1/16 is based on a theoretical possibility, not actual real world results. Got it.

Keep them coming, the list of the excuses just keeps growing. heh
Exactly!

FWIW: Steve Jobs envisioned Sony as the company he most wanted to emulate beginning with his Mac "computer appliance." We in music lucked out because the real-time hack in the original Mac system that enabled the graphics Steve wanted also made for exceptional MIDI performance. Luckily Steve got fired which made hard drives, graphics and audio expansion cards a possibility. All Jobs originally wanted to do was the iPhone, iPad and iPod.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3551
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Not at all; why would I have a problem with a better iPod? Calling the Pono iPod++ was my way of showing that it's necessarily an incremental improvement, not a revolutionizing product.
To me. this is one of the most sensible posts I've seen from you.

Why are so many posters on this thread so afraid of a product that gives the listener a better listening experience?

Why be so afraid and so dogmatic to take time and insult and criticize folks who have had better listening experiences when listening to 24/96 sources? It just could have been because they were listening to great masters, through great headphones or systems! (That's been my experience personally)

Yup, some of you audio gurus are smart enough to know that there is definitely not a lot of difference between a CD and 24/96 in a listening situation.

You then spout off a bunch of test data, and just enough techno babble to keep the less technically trained guessing themselves. That's really impressive!

But its not smart......
Old 21st April 2014
  #3552
In not really sure you know what dogmatic means.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3553
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post
I do not take your response in a mean way at all. I am not an Engineer, professional musician, or any have anything to do with the Pro music industry. I went to the GTG to listen to a system, and was treated to a demo of Pono. I tried to relay what I heard in the demo. If I am not saying it correctly I am sorry. You can disregard whatever you like about what I said... I was only passing on my comments about the demo.
You're very gracious. In retrospect, I'm afraid I was far too blunt, even with the disclaimer.

Thanks for what I'm sure was a sincere and honest input from your personal experience.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
So the whole argument for 44.1/16 is based on a theoretical possibility, not actual real world results. Got it.

Keep them coming, the list of the excuses just keeps growing. heh
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakewalk View Post
I believe they call this "moving the goal posts"...
People have, repeatedly, from early on,, been pointing out the distinction between format capability and the inevitable performance variation between real world device implementations.

I seriously doubt that any of the scientifically oriented folks in this thread would have made the woefully absurd claim that ALL the cheap converters in existence sound uniformly excellent at 44.1 -- or any other sample rate.

Does that sound like something a careful person would say?

There appear to be some in this thread capable of reading such cautious stipulations and provisos over and over again and yet who apparently remain intent on ignoring them and distorting the meaning to the point of absurdity.

It is precisely this sort of repeated and seemingly willfully obtuse response that raises the frustration level in some of us.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3555
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
To me. this is one of the most sensible posts I've seen from you.

Why are so many posters on this thread so afraid of a product that gives the listener a better listening experience?

Why be so afraid and so dogmatic to take time and insult and criticize folks who have had better listening experiences when listening to 24/96 sources? It just could have been because they were listening to great masters, through great headphones or systems! (That's been my experience personally)

Yup, some of you audio gurus are smart enough to know that there is definitely not a lot of difference between a CD and 24/96 in a listening situation.

You then spout off a bunch of test data, and just enough techno babble to keep the less technically trained guessing themselves. That's really impressive!

But its not smart......
Did you watch the Neil Young "underwater" video? If you did you might understand how people had a major negative reaction to this.

That was so incredibly stupid, It was an insult to my already limited intelligence. I felt complete pity for a brilliant artist in a way I can't remember feeling... Ever.

if Neil wants to build a better iPod... awesome! love it... I will check it it out.

If he is apparently trying to convince people that it will sound better because of higher sample rates... OR that it will sound more like vinyl like people say in his promo videos... Then he will get a lot of well deserved flak.

Neil young created the the need for this thread with his marketing BS.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3556
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
Why are so many posters on this thread so afraid of a product that gives the listener a better listening experience?
Is that really the impression you're getting, that the "science crowd" is afraid of Pono? That's a weird interpretation.

Quote:
Why be so afraid and so dogmatic to take time and insult and criticize folks who have had better listening experiences when listening to 24/96 sources? It just could have been because they were listening to great masters, through great headphones or systems! (That's been my experience personally)
If this were a discussion on music appreciation, then sure, we could discuss our preferred listening systems, maybe even put up a poll. But in context of the incredibly lofty expectations that Pono has aroused, don't you think that science and engineering belong in the conversation?

The "just use your ears" crowd seems to conveniently forget that without science and engineering, there is no DSD and no 24/192, no iPod and no record player. Every single tool we use has been designed and built on the foundation of mathematics and science; it's no coincidence, then, that math and science provide the best metrics for understanding our tools and their limitations.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3557
Lives for gear
A recent study by local recording studio engineers reveals that 192 kHz is inferior in sound and completely useless.

Jonathan Doe, producer of several local radio commercials, and singer in the band "deer in the light beer" explains his hands-on experience with high sample rates. We asked him how he came to his analysis.

"All my gear was expensive and can only go up to 96kHz. If they want 16 channels, I have to drop the rate to 48kHz. This rig works fine, but I'm still going to be paying it off for the next 10 years! I can't have clients asking for 192! This PONO is Bull***t!"

Source: The Onion
Old 21st April 2014
  #3558
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I seriously doubt that any of the scientifically oriented folks in this thread would have made the woefully absurd claim that ALL the cheap converters in existence sound uniformly excellent at 44.1 -- or any other sample rate.
I have heard many converters from the early 80's on. What I've found is that any differences between the cheapest of converters to the most advanced are small indeed, much smaller that the difference between 44.1/16 and any other format. This is a straw man argument.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3559
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
You then spout off a bunch of test data, and just enough techno babble to keep the less technically trained guessing themselves.
I think it is a good thing that people discuss in manner where they try to keep the talk fact based, even when it's about human perception.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3560
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

And the reason that the annoyment factor is so high is not because of those that disagree with you, but rather that they are succeeding in forcing you to question your own belief, a belief that you have put a lot of effort and years in convincing yourself of.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
I have heard many converters from the early 80's on. What I've found is that any differences between the cheapest of converters to the most advanced are small indeed, much smaller that the difference between 44.1/16 and any other format. This is a straw man argument.
That's right. You engaged in a straw man rhetorical fallacy in your post I quoted and I called you on it. I'm surprised you agreed with my assessment so easily. Or... am I misinterpreting your last comment? heh

At any rate, I can't say I agree with your observation above on differences between converters -- but the frequent failure of subjective experiences to align from person to person is precisely the reason why we have objective measurement, eh?
Old 21st April 2014
  #3562
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
but the frequent failure of subjective experiences to align from person to person is precisely the reason why we have objective measurement, eh?
To make an analogy, with the current state of video recording capability, wouldn't objective measurement show that video recoding is more complete and accurate than film based recording? Yet don't most people agree that film based movie pictures look more life like?
Old 21st April 2014
  #3563
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
To make an analogy, with the current state of video recording capability, wouldn't objective measurement show that video recoding is more complete and accurate than film based recording? Yet don't most people agree that film based movie pictures look more life like?
Let's not have these analogies.. they don't make any sense.

I don't think most people have been able to watch film-movies for a while since most movie theaters use digital projectors..
Old 21st April 2014
  #3564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1

but the frequent failure of subjective experiences to align from person to person is precisely the reason why we have objective measurement, eh?
To make an analogy, with the current state of video recording capability, wouldn't objective measurement show that video recoding is more complete and accurate than film based recording? Yet don't most people agree that film based movie pictures look more life like?
I'm sorry, what did your attempt at analogy to film have to do with my statement about the value of objective measurement in the face of very divergent subjective experience between different individuals?

Please try to keep the focus.

Er... so to speak. heh
Old 21st April 2014
  #3565
Lives for gear
 
Dpro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
I get it.

This guy is just a rube consumer and doesn't have the training to know any better. How dare he think that its the best music recording playback he's ever heard!

Thank god we have people like you to protect the music consumer.

Get off your pedestal for one minute and just consider the possibility that the poster's experience was real to him. Maybe because it was a great master and the best playback system he's been exposed to to date?
Oh so now you are going to put words in my mouth. I never called the man a rube. All I did was state the fact that he did not have the knowledge to make an educated decision by his own admission.
Whether or not he thinks it's the best thing has ever heard is not the issue here. The issue is that the Pono people are trying to claim something scientific without actually presenting real science for the proof. In that sense, one would think they would use people trained in hearing and working with high end audio. Especially for the sake of credibility in the first place.


No pedestal standing on my part. As an audio engineer and producer I exist to make sure my clients get the best possible product I can deliver. Hence I strive to learn and grow. I do not consider myself above the general listening public. Though I do retain knowledge they don't and it's my duty to use that knowledge to help them. No pedestal more like being of service.
Stop sticking up for the poster he even admitted he did not know the processes. I am more calling out the Pono people for spouting marketing horse**** than actual facts behind their claims.

It may sound great but who is to say if you played a file at 24/48k through a Apogee Symphony or Burl converter he might have the same reaction?
Old 21st April 2014
  #3566
Gear Head
 
bandpass's Avatar
 

Found this elsewhere: 192kHz is "like taking biscuits out of a small box and putting them into a big one in the hope that there will be more biscuits"
Old 21st April 2014
  #3567
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Did you watch the Neil Young "underwater" video? If you did you might understand how people had a major negative reaction to this.

That was so incredibly stupid, It was an insult to my already limited intelligence. I felt complete pity for a brilliant artist in a way I can't remember feeling... Ever.

if Neil wants to build a better iPod... awesome! love it... I will check it it out.

If he is apparently trying to convince people that it will sound better because of higher sample rates... OR that it will sound more like vinyl like people say in his promo videos... Then he will get a lot of well deserved flak.

Neil young created the the need for this thread with his marketing BS.

You can come up with examples of over the top marketing in every segment of commerce. You cant tell me that it doesn't exists in your world of audio production equipment?

I dont disagree that its not completely truthful in saying sampling rate is why PONO is better. However, its a lot easier to say that than explain its really mastering (or remastering) at the audio production standard 24/96, carefully, and with "art" and care, that makes the big difference.

Hell, that gives you AE's the credit in the long run!

This is a dedicated forum for people who believe that the next newest piece of audio gear, or alternatively, a rare piece of old vintage gear will deliver sonic nirvana like no other! This behavior is not unlike Uncle Neil's. No? C'mon. dont tell me you guys are less influenced by marketing because your more regimented and scientific about your choices than Neil, as crazy as he is. Most AE's are actually human!

I love the Beatles vocals, but really, would they have sounded "as good" with a modern mic as they did with U48's? Of course they would (not the same, but maybe even better, if you like that modern crispiness).
Old 21st April 2014
  #3568
Lives for gear
 
Ephi82's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpro View Post
Oh so now you are going to put words in my mouth. I never called the man a rube. All I did was state the fact that he did not have the knowledge to make an educated decision by his own admission.
Whether or not he thinks it's the best thing has ever heard is not the issue here. The issue is that the Pono people are trying to claim something scientific without actually presenting real science for the proof. In that sense, one would think they would use people trained in hearing and working with high end audio. Especially for the sake of credibility in the first place.


No pedestal standing on my part. As an audio engineer and producer I exist to make sure my clients get the best possible product I can deliver. Hence I strive to learn and grow. I do not consider myself above the general listening public. Though I do retain knowledge they don't and it's my duty to use that knowledge to help them. No pedestal more like being of service.
Stop sticking up for the poster he even admitted he did not know the processes. I am more calling out the Pono people for spouting marketing horse**** than actual facts behind their claims.

It may sound great but who is to say if you played a file at 24/48k through a Apogee Symphony or Burl converter he might have the same reaction?
Didn't say you said he was a rube, but you did dismiss his experience and you treated him as an uneducated person. (=rube)

I'll make it simple. I think there is an opportunity to have consumers appreciate a higher quality portable playback system. As someone put it, an IPOD on steroids.

If it is effectively marketed to a large enough audience, (Neil's role) and the consumer decides that it sounds really good, it will create demand for music that is mastered to take advantage of the better hardware in these devices.

PONO is saying its about its DACS, they are saying its about the analog output stage, and yes, they are over emphasizing the sampling rate thing.

BUT most consumers buy and listen to CRUSHED MP3's, think CD's are for senior citizens and none of them have heard a finely re-mastered or mastered recording done at 24/96 with great dynamic range. I suspect they would be blown away whether this master was played back on a great system (ie PONO) at 24/96 or 16/44.1! "Hi Res" is an easier story to tell, no?

If I were a producer, or artist today, I would be SO bummed out that my work, my art, gets crushed down for loudness and squished into a lossy format like MP3. Then its only to heard through a very mediocre playback system like cell phones/IPODS and $10 earbuds! "sigh"
Old 21st April 2014
  #3569
Lives for gear
 
Dpro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ephi82 View Post
You can come up with examples of over the top marketing in every segment of commerce. You cant tell me that it doesn't exists in your world of audio production equipment?

I dont disagree that its not completely truthful in saying sampling rate is why PONO is better. However, its a lot easier to say that than explain its really mastering (or remastering) at the audio production standard 24/96, carefully, and with "art" and care, that makes the big difference.

Hell, that gives you AE's the credit in the long run!

This is a dedicated forum for people who believe that the next newest piece of audio gear, or alternatively, a rare piece of old vintage gear will deliver sonic nirvana like no other! This behavior is not unlike Uncle Neil's. No? .

So your argument is since they feel spelling out the truth might go over the average persons head, then dazzle them with bull****? Welcome to poor marketing 101.

Oh and by your own statement above, you have In your own words said the general public may not understand. Hmmm, weren't you trying to chastise me earlier for saying that? Ya that is rhetorical don't answer it.

Oh oh oh wait a minute I get it , it's ok for you to say it. If I say it because I am an audio engineer and ask them to use trained people? I am immediately some kind of elitist who has put himself on a pedestal.

I find it incredibly ironic to your position. It took a software coder and engineer to dig up the possible actual science behind Pono (apodizing filters). Not Pono , not any of the people who were allowed to hear Pono.
Again something that would not have possibly come out so soon if not for him.
Whether or not they actually do sound better than things that already exist has yet to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I think most of us here want to see proof and empirical evidence none of which has been completely presented to date. That combined with the plethora of science already showing that 192k is possibly completely unneeded does indeed cast a big seed of doubt.
Saying it sounds better or is the best I have heard while possibly being true to the subject without accurate information is subjective at best.
Old 21st April 2014
  #3570
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpro View Post
So your argument is since they feel spelling out the truth might go over the average persons head, then dazzle them with bull****? Welcome to poor marketing 101.

Oh and by your own statement above, you have In your own words said the general public may not understand. Hmmm, weren't you trying to chastise me earlier for saying that? Ya that is rhetorical don't answer it.

Oh oh oh wait a minute I get it , it's ok for you to say it. If I say it because I am an audio engineer and ask them to use trained people? I am immediately some kind of elitist who has put himself on a pedestal.
Judging by their Kickstarter, the amount of blogs written about this, and how many on the net are speaking, I wouldn't call their marketing "poor".
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump