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 14th March 2014
  #451
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by eb7 View Post
The funny thing is that just about everyone posting on this topic agrees that, so far, this is all hype and a big publicity stunt. But some seem to think that's a good thing, as it may indirectly push forward something they believe in.

Does the end justify the means, or do the means condition the end?
Speaking for myself, I do not agree that this is all hype and a publicity stunt.
I believe this thread has turned in to a conversation about what actually is the threshold of high quality audio.
Some people say 44.1 is all you need, some think differently.
Since we are all using our ears and our mind to decide this, I say that it is highly subjective, at best.
But some very condesending people here say that they have the answer, and they are right and everyone else is not only wrong, but don't know what they are talking about.
Many people here are ragging on a product they have never heard, and isn't even in production yet.
But to them, it sucks, it's a scam, every single one of those artists endorsing it is a huckster, and any one who buys into the hype are foolish.
Some people want to take the word of some very successful artists that the product (that the artists actually DID hear), is a giant leap forward in audio quality.
Isn't it amazing how two people can look at a video and see something completely different depending on their perception and beliefs?

Last edited by CarmenC; 14th March 2014 at 07:39 PM.. Reason: Spelllling...
Old 14th March 2014
  #452
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Yes. And my experience. If it sounded that much better to them. Something was done bigger than a resolution shift.

And stop it with the facepalm. If I'm not worthy of having a discussion with, don't direct questions at me.

And yes. You're already on my ignore list. But I can still view each post one at a time. It's just a good reminder of who I'm dealing with. Especially in the future.
You know that your imagination and reality could possibly be different, right?
Old 14th March 2014
  #453
Lives for gear
 
Silver Sonya's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Many people here are ragging on a product they have never heard, and isn't even in production yet.
Word.

Hilariously, some of those very same people who feel perfectly comfortable bypassing empirical experience also do so in the name of science.

- c
Old 14th March 2014
  #454
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Some people say 44.1 is all you need, some think differently.
Since we are all using our ears and our mind to decide this, I say that it is highly subjective, at best.
That is why we need to resort to double blind tests. Then suddenly the differences tend to vanish...

Quote:
Some people want to take the word of some very successful artists that the product (that the artists actually DID hear), is a giant leap forward in audio quality.
We don't actually know what they listened to. We don't even know that they were listening to the Pono device.

Alistair
Old 14th March 2014
  #455
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
Here's what I would have written...

Dear People who care about music fidelity,

We are a group of ‘senior’ music artists, engineers and producers who have been fortunate enough to make a pretty decent living through writing, recording and playing music.

None of this would have been possible without your direct financial support and for this we sincerely thank you.

In view of your ongoing investment in us and sponsorship of our artistic work over the years, something we have always tried to honour and respect, one aspect of our partnership that has consistently bothered us, especially recently, is the unwillingness of our greedy and blinkered record companies - who have ripped us off as much as they have you - to allow you to hear our music at the same sort of quality that we recorded it at in the studio. As professionals we work hard in the studio to achieve high artistic and technological standards and we feel these have always been compromised by men in suits with no grasp of artistic intent or recording fidelity.

So we’ve decided it’s time to take matters into our own hands and give something back to you - or more accurately, give you what you originally paid for when you purchased our albums.

We’ve teamed up with the Gearslutz community to start releasing all our old multi-tracks and master tapes to interested members of the Forum, with the objective of inviting them to create a whole bank of available masters for you to listen to at any quality or resolution you choose.

We have created a website for you to upload your work - as artists we will listen to all of them and then endorse the version that we feel best represents the sound of our original recording. Your master will then be available from our site as the official version of our album until such time as someone else creates a version that to our ears is an improvement. If people send in an original CD, cassette or vinyl version of the album they won't have to pay for the download because they've already purchased the music (and our thanks for that), but otherwise there will be a modest fee for first-time buyers. Just to reiterate, it matters not one whit to us what format you deliver your work in - WAV, FLAC, MP3, 1000khz/64-bit - all that matters to us is that if it sounds good to our ears it will become the definitive, officially-endorsed album version of our work.

(Of course, how others choose to listen to music is something over which we have never had control and have no wish to have now - the main point is that everyone will have a totally free choice, instead of being restricted to one proprietary format or piece of equipment.)

As a bare minimum recompense, you will receive a phone call from the original artist saying thank you, but we have already pooled our substantial means to create an endowment fund and each month money will be released to reward restoration/remastering work from the Gearslut community that we feel is honourable and deserving.

Best regards, and thank you again for helping us fight back against the men in suits,

Neil, Marc, David, John, David, Gillian, Logan, Mike, Lukas, Norah, Eddie, Stephen, Rick, Duane, Todd, Tom, Sting, Jack, Jeremy, Wil, Win, Flea, James, Dave, Elvis, Taylor, Mike, Chris, Elton, Bruce, Jackson, Emylou, Dave, Sarah, Jim, Bo, Charlie, Jim, Jack, Patti, Rob, Anthony, Bruce, T-Bone, Don, Kid, Reggie, Marcus, Ted, Ben, Beck, Joey, Falkner, Justin, Mo, etc


PS Don’t worry about copyright issues - we’ve lawyered up and stand ready to fight the record companies in the courts with protracted legal battles lasting decades until we regain control of our material, it goes out of copyright, or they go bust, whichever comes sooner. All funds collected from the 'first-time-buyer' downloads will be channeled into this.
It'll never happen, but I'd love it. To get a high quality digital file to replace all those cassettes and CDs moldering away in the back room! That'd kill.
Old 14th March 2014
  #456
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
That is why we need to resort to double blind tests. Then suddenly the differences tend to vanish...



We don't actually know what they listened to. We don't even know that they were listening to the Pono device.

Alistair
In the video, Sting specifically said he listened to PONO.
Are you suggesting that all these artists did not listen to PONO, and then allowed a video of themselves to be released endorsing a product that they DIDN'T hear?
Old 14th March 2014
  #457
eb7
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Speaking for myself, I do not agree that this is all hype and a publicity stunt...

Many people here are ragging on a product they have never heard, and isn't even in production yet.
To the best of my knowledge, no one who is participating in this thread has heard the device in question.

Quote:
Isn't it amazing how two people can look at a video and see something completely different depending on their perception and beliefs?
It is.


Quote:
Was that for me, or did you make it part of your signature to save time?
Old 14th March 2014
  #458
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
Word.

Hilariously, some of those very same people who feel perfectly comfortable bypassing empirical experience also do so in the name of science.

- c
Why would I wait to see for myself, when I can judge from an internet video everything I'd ever need to know about this product?

Old 14th March 2014
  #459
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZangTumblyTumble View Post
That Boston Audio Society one is also interesting for its final section, which looks at why the commercial SACDs often sounded subjectively better to the participants –*they were simply mastered differently to the CD versions.
Yes, that's interesting. I wonder why the sacd's would be mastered differently? Different buyers maybe.
Old 14th March 2014
  #460
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Convenience and peace of mind.

A&R guy - "Hey Kenny. Remember that record you mixed a few years ago. We want to re-release it for the Pono Music store at 192kHz. Do you happen to have a way to do that?

Me - "Why yes. I mixed it at that freq. The mastering engineer already has all the files."
Convenience for who??? Only for the guy that wants to re-re-release something. None of my clients could or would pay for this.
Old 14th March 2014
  #461
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by eb7 View Post
To the best of my knowledge, no one who is participating in this thread has heard the device in question.



It is.




Was that for me, or did you make it part of your signature to save time?
1. Correct
2. Yes, it is.
3. Yes
Old 14th March 2014
  #462
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Some people say 44.1 is all you need, some think differently.
Since we are all using our ears and our mind to decide this, I say that it is highly subjective, at best.
That's what blind listening tests are for. "Thinking differently" often translates as "ignores empirical evidence and fact-based theory."
Old 14th March 2014
  #463
Lives for gear
 
themaidsroom's Avatar
 

I think it is great that Neil Young is using his profile to bring attention to the horrible state of audio in 2014. While I am sure many disagree, I still find 2" 16 track
and 2" 8 track the best ways for me to capture audio that I really appreciate. I love vinyl. While ten years ago, I might not have said I love cd's, I have come to really appreciate them relative to all forms of easily downloaded music. To be candid, I have never downloaded hi resolution files. I work in 96k in digital. I have worked
and appreciated 192. I make no claims to be a scientist of any sort. My conclusions are purely based on what pleases me at the time. I am in LA most of the time right now as I have a seven year old daughter here. Yesterday, while my old car was at the shop, I took a rental - a new Ford Fusion - and I spent the day circulating as I do
here from the valley into Hollywood, as far west as Culver City - picking my daughter at her school in Laurel Canyon. The radio was so informative. I wanted to hear what ford was offering in its new standard car as I may need to trade my old ford in sometime soon. The radio sounded pretty horrible. FM radio sounded better in the 70's and 80's than it does now. I don't understand why. Perhaps there are other radios that sound better. Sirius - while having programming that I love - sounds
almost unlistenably wretched. I had one CD with me - "bad" by Michael Jackson - not my favorite MJ record, but one from the box i had bought last year in London for £9.99 (five MJ cds for £9.99 - $16). It sounded great. The standard ford Fusion's audio system was pretty hi fi when there was a CD in the player. I would imagine having a PONO in the car would have put that audio system through its paces. I would venture to say the standard Ford Audio system would demonstrate the limitations of 16 bit audio.

While 192 is not perhaps "better" than 96, I believe the site will also offer titles in 96k. If it brings a couple thousand people into the fold of appreciating hi quality
audio, that will be great. It is my opinion that people were more aware and concerned with high fidelity in 1978 when I was in fifth grade. The malaise that I feel in the audio communities in nyc, london and los angeles is quite palpable. It is really hard to witness the industry you have been obsessed with and been passionate about disappear. Watching the clip of Ray Charles in "20 feet from stardom", I was so floored by that level of playing on television. That just doesn't seem to exist anymore. The strive for excellence seems far away.....I am perhaps too old - 47 - to truly appreciate all that digital audio has brought to the equation. I know my friend Danny Fields has told me that
in the old days - even if he couldn't sign a band - if he loved them he could find a way to skim $5000 or $7500 to funnel their way to help them eat or pay rent.
When the numbers were bigger, that money just wasn't missed......I am still puzzled as to why Apple Itunes hasn't invested 100 million dollars in the music communities in nyc and la and nashville........in my experience musicians need time more than anything else.........in my experience the least functional people
tend to make the best music too........they need help and nurturing..............anyway......as I am now fully rambling, I need to stop.

I think this is a good thing.
I am sure it will be 85% baby boomers.
But it will help demonstrate the stark contrast that is MP3........
I don't think it threatens anyone who loves high quality audio in any way........

be well

- Jack
Old 14th March 2014
  #464
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
No. I do everything 24 bit. But I'm capturing raw audio and processing it in the DAW. Things that do sound better.

I can't hear the difference between my mix and the 16 bit file I output.

Although I do send a 24 bit version to the mastering engineer.

I'm not being sarcastic, but really? You really can't hear the difference between 24bit version to the 16bit output file?

I record at 48/24, but when I dither it out to 44.1/16 even my wife who is a graphic designer can hear a clear difference.

We can pick it out with our eyes closed every single time.
Old 14th March 2014
  #465
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpedrum View Post
Really? Is there one member of Gearslutz who can't hear the difference when mastering from 24 bit to a 16 bit CD? I think you can argue whether or not a 192 sample rate is needed. But limiting the sound of recordings to 16/44.1 was an arbitrary decision made in one brief moment of history. I think the biggest possible benefit of Pono is steering young listeners away from MP3s. MP3s were invented to deal with limited storage space and bandwidth, and both of those problems have been solved.
Yea, a good thing with this PONO thing and media interest is that it puts quality of audio in focus.
I don't know if I or any other gearslutz member is able to hear the difference between 24 and 16 bit files. The test I wrote about sais we propably don't but I have not verified it for myself in any way.
Old 14th March 2014
  #466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

If you go to this page:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...iscovers-music

There's a video right there full of horse sh*t testimonials. Snake oil.
It seems you have some kind of large axe to grind. I for one welcome any initiative that attempts to move the music industry back to a better sounding product. I also thought that the musicians' reactions to hearing the Pono comparisons were pretty honestly enthusiastic.
Old 14th March 2014
  #467
Lives for gear
 

I can't tell between 24 bit and 16 bit but I sure can tell a 320 mp3 from a 44.1 file?
Old 14th March 2014
  #468
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spurratic View Post
Theres always been debate about what makes the bigger difference.....24bit to 16 bit, or 192khz to 44.1khz
for me:

24bit to 16 bit I can clearly hear the difference.

Now while in 24bit, 48k sounds better than 44.1.

But 96k and 192k sounds exactly the same as 48k.
Old 14th March 2014
  #469
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
That's what blind listening tests are for. "Thinking differently" often translates as "ignores empirical evidence and fact-based theory."
Are you suggesting that if you did an A/B audio quality test on 100 people, you would get the same results 100% of the time?
Or would the test be dependent on those people's ability to hear and feel?
If all humans hear differently, ( I bet Stevie Wonder and I hear differently ) the test would be subjective at best.

Now if you drop a penny to the ground 100 times, I suspect it will hit the ground 100 times.

Neil Young is trying to think outside the box.
If he doesn't sell one device, that doesn't make him wrong.

I would submit that the greatest thinkers of our time ignore empirical evidence and fact-based theory.
How could there be any progress otherwise?
Old 14th March 2014
  #470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Convenience and peace of mind.

A&R guy - "Hey Kenny. Remember that record you mixed a few years ago. We want to re-release it for the Pono Music store at 192kHz. Do you happen to have a way to do that?

Me - "Why yes. I mixed it at that freq. The mastering engineer already has all the files."
As long as working at 192 kHz doesn't degrade capture, I guess there's no harm; and what Alistair says suggests to me that perhaps my concerns there are out of date because of modern oversampling techniques.

So, sure, if, indeed, there's no degradation in capture at the quad rate and it makes one feel sufficiently 'better' somehow to capture at that rate to put up with the large increase in processing and storage overhead, then, I suppose, why not?

But I sill have to ask: where's the benefit?

It's not going to improve human-perceived audio fidelity in any way that can be tested or even imagined, as far as I can tell. You're spending a lot of resources to process frequency bands one might normally consider filtering out of analog audio circuits to tame potential intermodulation distortion -- right tech types?

I'm always happy to revise my views -- when people offer me good, credible evidence.
Old 14th March 2014
  #471
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by themaidsroom View Post
I think it is great that Neil Young is using his profile to bring attention to the horrible state of audio in 2014. While I am sure many disagree, I still find 2" 16 track
and 2" 8 track the best ways for me to capture audio that I really appreciate. I love vinyl. While ten years ago, I might not have said I love cd's, I have come to really appreciate them relative to all forms of easily downloaded music. To be candid, I have never downloaded hi resolution files. I work in 96k in digital. I have worked
and appreciated 192. I make no claims to be a scientist of any sort. My conclusions are purely based on what pleases me at the time. I am in LA most of the time right now as I have a seven year old daughter here. Yesterday, while my old car was at the shop, I took a rental - a new Ford Fusion - and I spent the day circulating as I do
here from the valley into Hollywood, as far west as Culver City - picking my daughter at her school in Laurel Canyon. The radio was so informative. I wanted to hear what ford was offering in its new standard car as I may need to trade my old ford in sometime soon. The radio sounded pretty horrible. FM radio sounded better in the 70's and 80's than it does now. I don't understand why. Perhaps there are other radios that sound better. Sirius - while having programming that I love - sounds
almost unlistenably wretched. I had one CD with me - "bad" by Michael Jackson - not my favorite MJ record, but one from the box i had bought last year in London for £9.99 (five MJ cds for £9.99 - $16). It sounded great. The standard ford Fusion's audio system was pretty hi fi when there was a CD in the player. I would imagine having a PONO in the car would have put that audio system through its paces. I would venture to say the standard Ford Audio system would demonstrate the limitations of 16 bit audio.

While 192 is not perhaps "better" than 96, I believe the site will also offer titles in 96k. If it brings a couple thousand people into the fold of appreciating hi quality
audio, that will be great. It is my opinion that people were more aware and concerned with high fidelity in 1978 when I was in fifth grade. The malaise that I feel in the audio communities in nyc, london and los angeles is quite palpable. It is really hard to witness the industry you have been obsessed with and been passionate about disappear. Watching the clip of Ray Charles in "20 feet from stardom", I was so floored by that level of playing on television. That just doesn't seem to exist anymore. The strive for excellence seems far away.....I am perhaps too old - 47 - to truly appreciate all that digital audio has brought to the equation. I know my friend Danny Fields has told me that
in the old days - even if he couldn't sign a band - if he loved them he could find a way to skim $5000 or $7500 to funnel their way to help them eat or pay rent.
When the numbers were bigger, that money just wasn't missed......I am still puzzled as to why Apple Itunes hasn't invested 100 million dollars in the music communities in nyc and la and nashville........in my experience musicians need time more than anything else.........in my experience the least functional people
tend to make the best music too........they need help and nurturing..............anyway......as I am now fully rambling, I need to stop.

I think this is a good thing.
I am sure it will be 85% baby boomers.
But it will help demonstrate the stark contrast that is MP3........
I don't think it threatens anyone who loves high quality audio in any way........

be well

- Jack
Brilliant.
Old 14th March 2014
  #472
@themaidsroom;
what a nice read Jack, really nice.
Old 14th March 2014
  #473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Tolentino View Post
for me:

24bit to 16 bit I can clearly hear the difference.

Now while in 24bit, 48k sounds better than 44.1.

But 96k and 192k sounds exactly the same as 48k.
As has been discussed, in the real world, a given device design may produce better results at one SR than another, so such individual results -- while entirely pertinent and meaningful to the individual, we have to be careful about drawing conclusions, since a given device might work best at one sample rate and a different device might well perform better at another, with little relevance to which is higher.


EDIT: Thanks to James, below, I realized that the new truncated post display (you need to click the + button to see it all) made it look like I was comparing apples and oranges above.

But the part of Micah's post I was responding to was this:
Quote:
Now while in 24bit, 48k sounds better than 44.1.

But 96k and 192k sounds exactly the same as 48k
Sorry for the confusion. It can be tricky responding to something deep in a long post without omitting the part before it -- but there are times when you don't want to do that, either. Tricky.
Old 14th March 2014
  #474
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Tolentino View Post
24bit to 16 bit I can clearly hear the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
As has been discussed, in the real world, a given device design may produce better results at one SR than another, so such individual results -- while entirely pertinent and meaningful to the individual, we have to be careful about drawing conclusions, since a given device might work best at one sample rate and a different device might well perform better at another, with little relevance to which is higher.
But Micah is talking about bit depth not sample rate!
Old 14th March 2014
  #475
Lives for gear
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...iscovers-music

Just announced...Metallica Artist Limited Edition...
Clever.
Old 14th March 2014
  #476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Tolentino View Post
I'm not being sarcastic, but really? You really can't hear the difference between 24bit version to the 16bit output file?

I record at 48/24, but when I dither it out to 44.1/16 even my wife who is a graphic designer can hear a clear difference.

We can pick it out with our eyes closed every single time.
OF COURSE, if one turns the volume up to abnormally high levels and focuses on reverb and fade tails, it is relatively trivial to differentiate.

And, of course, it always makes sense to capture and produce at 24.

I would, in many ways, be very comfortable with a move to 20 or even 24 bit delivery formats. (That said, any such move would just about HAVE to be accompanied by widespread adoption of Replay Gain or similar level-matching indexing system. It's already pretty scary going from well-mastered classic recordings to contemporary pop -- I always try to remember to turn the volume WAY down when going from the golden age recordings I normally listen to to contemporary rock/pop but I still get some very rude transitions.)

But for properly mastered conventional material at normal listening levels, I believe most folks will find it impossible to differentiate with statistical significance in true double blind testing.
Old 14th March 2014
  #477
eb7
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Why would I wait to see for myself, when I can judge from an internet video everything I'd ever need to know about this product?
That summarizes your position nicely.
Old 14th March 2014
  #478
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
I would submit that the greatest thinkers of our time ignore empirical evidence and fact-based theory.
How could there be any progress otherwise?
That doesn't make any sense really.
Old 14th March 2014
  #479
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
But Micah is talking about bit depth not sample rate!
I looked back up at the post and, sure enough, for a second I thought I'd lost it...

... in reality, I was responding to the part of Micah's quote that the new post-snippet function had removed from sight.

I've since edited that post to show what was going on. Thanks to James for catching what looked for all the world like a dumb error on my part!

Old 14th March 2014
  #480
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Tolentino View Post
for me:

24bit to 16 bit I can clearly hear the difference.

Now while in 24bit, 48k sounds better than 44.1.

But 96k and 192k sounds exactly the same as 48k.
That's pretty much my reality, slightly depending on converter. (96 sounds 'different' to 48 , but it's win some lose some) Hence 24/48 is the preferred place here.
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