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 8th February 2015
  #5161
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
Since you own a Pono can you help us get to the bottom of whether this device actually outputs a 192 kHz signal or not? Assuming you have a 24/192 converter. If not, anything above 48 kHz would be helpful.

I've attached FLAC files for the test inside a zip container. Just send them line out into your converters. If there's a signal, it's legit. If there isn't a signal, something is either wrong with the Pono or with your converter. :-)
Of course its d/a outputs 24/192kHz. In use the d/a is a very high quality one designed by Ayre.

I am curious as to what you are talking about?

Has there been some chatter here that PONO is defrauding the customer?

Sorry--I don't take in files sent by an anon. enquirer.

Last edited by Plush; 8th February 2015 at 03:49 PM..
Old 8th February 2015
  #5162
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I am curious as to what you are talking about?
There's no doubt that the DAC in Pono supports 24bit/192k, but the OS on it is Android 2, and Android's default behaviour is to bit reduce and down sample FLAC above 16bit/44k.

So it's possible that either Pono uses vanilla Android and down samples, or that it somehow works around the default behaviour. The Android documentation shows downsampling, so the question is if and how Pono works around it, and if there's any valid technical documentation that indicates how it does it.

Fraudulent behaviour does not seem that far fetched, given the false information by the Pono store: "over 2 million high resolution tracks", when less than 10% of the tracks are actually higher resolution than 16bit/44k.
(If they actually view 16bit/44k as 'high resolution', that would also legitimise downsampling. And if a better sounding master was produced for higher resolutions, this new master would still sound better when down sampled.)

Last edited by stratology; 8th February 2015 at 08:17 PM..
Old 9th February 2015
  #5163
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
There's no doubt that the DAC in Pono supports 24bit/192k, but the OS on it is Android 2, and Android's default behaviour is to bit reduce and down sample FLAC above 16bit/44k.

So it's possible that either Pono uses vanilla Android and down samples, or that it somehow works around the default behaviour. The Android documentation shows downsampling, so the question is if and how Pono works around it, and if there's any valid technical documentation that indicates how it does it.
Are you really, truly, seriously going to go there, knowing that Pono forked an old version of Android for the purpose of embedding it in the device?

Do you know how simple and trivial it would be to rewrite the drivers, thus (a) making it impossible to just run the current version by default and (b) feeding whatever you wanted to the DAC? We're talking about set hardware built by the people who're forking the OS for the purpose of driving that hardware.

I feel this is getting silly. I am disappoint, son.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5164
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Are you really, truly, seriously going to go there, knowing that Pono forked an old version of Android for the purpose of embedding it in the device?

Do you know how simple and trivial it would be to rewrite the drivers, thus (a) making it impossible to just run the current version by default and (b) feeding whatever you wanted to the DAC? We're talking about set hardware built by the people who're forking the OS for the purpose of driving that hardware.

I feel this is getting silly. I am disappoint, son.
I'm not your son, dude. You keep posting your assumptions as if there were facts. Again, don't hesitate to post a link that confirms that the Pono version of Android was indeed forked.



Posting actual links to back up what you're saying works like this:

The Arstechnica review states that the OS is Android 2.3, no mention of a fork. One of the user comments from a Pono owner states it's Android 2.2 API 10, again no mention of a fork.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5165
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I'd add this caveat: if it's averaging, you'll be able to get frequencies over 20K but less than 96K out of it (at a 192K sampling rate) but everything above 30K or so will be attenuated, kind of like 'warm' sounding analog gear. I don't think you're going to get analytical playback of supersonic content like 50K test tones, and I don't think you're supposed to. You can't hear them and one of the few things Monty was right about is that accurate production of drastically supersonic content stresses everything in the playback chain.

It's just that there are good and bad ways of dealing with this, and an infinite-slope brickwall filter with pre-ring at just outside the ear's main passband is a terrible way.

If you get tones out of it but they're not as strong as audio-band tones, it suggests Pono's doing the averaging thing and as a whole system it is offering a much better way of dealing with the problem of supersonic energy (averaging is a really good-sounding rolloff, with exemplary time domain behavior and some frequency quirks that make it a pathologically weird 'lowpass filter'. The frequency quirks closely parallel interference from acoustic reflections off physical surfaces, which is why we can hear through them so easily: we evolved to do so, our hardware decodes it.

If Plush doesn't run your tones by the time my Pono arrives, I will do it. Then if it doesn't roll off (but still play) the extreme supersonic tones, which it will, I swear I'll bug them until they firmware update it to do what I said. You guys (some of you) are liable to crow that it's broken and not actually playing 192K content as promised, but anyone familiar with High End digital will know this is a better way to do the filter, and there are other advantages to word length from doing it that 'quirky' way. It's absolutely brilliant.

I could probably tell you where to look for 'nodes' in the response where there's a steep notch (that is well out of human hearing range). Try a test signal of white noise and it ought to produce an interesting roll-off with some funny cancellation notches, but a gentle and natural transition band. Heck, introduce one acoustic surface and re-mic the noise and the 'pathological' filter behavior would LITERALLY be shown to be a natural transition band…
You left some very interesting information here. I'll take your word for it that a gentle roll off will sound better than incorporating the ultrasonic noise. I'm apart of the camp of folks that believes that these high res files are a waste of space and bandwidth anyway. I do hope you run some tests because I'm very curious and Plush doesn't seem interested in it. All of us would appreciate it very much so thank you in advance.

It's too bad these tech sites haven't run a simple test like this...who employs these people? They run benchmark tests all the time on other forms of hardware but not the Pono?

Last edited by doom64; 9th February 2015 at 05:09 AM..
Old 9th February 2015
  #5166
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
I'm not your son, dude. You keep posting your assumptions as if there were facts. Again, don't hesitate to post a link that confirms that the Pono version of Android was indeed forked.

Posting actual links to back up what you're saying works like this:

The Arstechnica review states that the OS is Android 2.3, no mention of a fork. One of the user comments from a Pono owner states it's Android 2.2 API 10, again no mention of a fork.
It's an internet saying: part of a meme that goes with a thick-necked Marine type looking disapproving. The caption usually is "SON I AM DISAPPOINT". Have you not ever seen this? I referenced it because I am, indeed, disappoint.

If you are backing up your statements by saying Ars Technica and an internet commenter dictate exactly what Pono's version of Android can or cannot do, to the point where you're seriously arguing the device plays 44.1/16 and nobody has noticed, then which conclusive truth is the real one? That it is Android 2.3, or that it is Android 2.2 API 10?

I develop software. The version string observed by a user (assuming they can get access to the internal files: I'll be digging into this with much enthusiasm when mine arrives) is a text file that's part of the OS code. I made my version strings for Airwindows plugins report not only a creation date, but a time of day, when I made 'em 64 bit addressing: that's the test for whether your Airwindows plugin is 32 bit or 32/64/PPC.

A version string claiming 2.2 or 2.3 is no evidence for or against a fork of the code, and says absolutely nothing about whether drivers have been changed to handle a high-resolution DAC. I promise. I'm a programmer and in a position to assure you that the driver feeding the DAC does not know what the version string is, or what it says, and that changing or not changing the version string doesn't affect the DAC driver in any way.

The thing to watch out for is not whether the whole thing is an unaccountable mockery feeding 16/44, but whether the embedded system is some kind of auto-updating deal which could delete the intended audio drivers and replace them with mobile-phone drivers. In that light, it's reassuring that it's not billed as 'latest Android'. This fixation on Pono's OS feeding mobile-grade audio to a very fancy DAC is paranoid fantasy ("and the FOOLS never knew the difference! ahahaha!")

When I do show you high-resolution output (my Focusrite may not itself be 192K but it'll suffice for this because at 96K sampling it will record any tone up to 48K with decent accuracy), I trust that the argument will not become, everybody else's Pono runs on moble-grade audio but mine.

Also, you might try Embedded Android to see that choosing Android for embedded systems is reasonable, but best done the way Pono is doing it, not by chasing current versions. From this book's publically available sample pages:
Quote:
The worst side effect of Google’s approach is that you have absolutely no way to get inside information about the platform decisions being made by the Android develop? ment team. If new features are added within the AOSP, for example, or if modifications are made to core components, you will find out how such changes are made and how they impact changes you might have made to a previous version only by analyzing the next code dump. Furthermore, you will have no way to learn about the underlying requirement, restriction, or issue that justified the modification or inclusion. Had this been a true open source project, a public mailing list archive would exist where all this information, or pointers to it, would be available.
In that light, you'd have to be nuts to ship a device with custom drivers while trying to stay current on Android versions, in my somewhat-professional opinion.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5167
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
It's very clear that naysayers are in over their heads.

It is delusional to believe that the full capabilities of the SABRE chip in the PONO are not fully utilized.

After all, the hi-res playback was why the device was developed in the first place.

Monty is a charlatan. Who else will back him and join him on the clown cart?
Old 9th February 2015
  #5168
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Yes, there sure is a lot of guesswork going on in this thread.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5169
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Monty is a charlatan. Who else will back him and join him on the clown cart?
You are aware that the file format used by the Pono store is FLAC, and that FLAC was developed by the charlatans in the clown cart at xiph.org, right?
Old 9th February 2015
  #5170
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
Stratology--what you wrote is not correct. XIPH administers FLAC but it was developed before they came on board.

Your agenda here is being unmasked before your very eyes.

Why the conspiracy theories? Why accuse PONO of lying? Why side with 16 bit audio?

I am a recording scientist and rhetorician who knows better than to swallow the loudest talker's talk talk.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5171
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Monty is a charlatan. Who else will back him and join him on the clown cart?
Wow.

Alistair
Old 9th February 2015
  #5172
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post

Monty is a charlatan. Who else will back him and join him on the clown cart?
Wow.

Alistair

LOL
Old 9th February 2015
  #5173
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I am a recording scientist
Says the guy who calls Monty a charlatan. Monty's research is well-documented; how about posting some links to yours? Then we can decide who the charlatan is.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5174
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
A charlatan of the first order. A flat earther. A cd is "all ya need" chirper.

His pronouncements simply do not hold up in ANY studio where high detail, high dynamic range monitoring is available.

Listen exclusively to hi-res material at your studio for one week. Then go back to Monty's standard. The differences are astounding.

That test is why I say what I do about him. He has a relentless transparent agenda.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5175
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Well, at least that's one thing transparent about this astroturfy wave of 'science'. I do wonder what's paying for it all but if you look closely it's little blogs and things. People get so cranked up about this stuff.

Can we tone it down a notch? I think Monty's seriously, gravely misguided, and am very annoyed that he's tirelessly struggling to make the world a worse-sounding place for me. I had enough of that with the advent of CDs.

But he is not a charlatan, because he believes this stuff implicitly. If there's malice, it's in the determination to conquer and suppress opposing viewpoints, not in any insincerity on his part.

I am just a bit cross with you, Plush, because I don't have my Pono yet and can't test stuff out and see what happens in practice. I'd like to see a noise spectrum of simple 192K white noise, and see if it's got a 'node' up beyond human hearing (and a substantial and gentle-sloped rolloff) in line with what averaging would do. I remain convinced that's the really clever implementation detail, specifically because loud supersonics don't sound good anyway, and our perception of midrange resolution is way, way more acute than our ability to determine specifics about content like 30K. I figure we sense it but only as a component of larger waves, if that, and you don't have to be nearly as careful with it as midrange.

Anyone who's worked with the guts of lossy coding (myself included) knows THAT.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5176
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
A charlatan of the first order. A flat earther. A cd is "all ya need" chirper.

His pronouncements simply do not hold up in ANY studio where high detail, high dynamic range monitoring is available.

Listen exclusively to hi-res material at your studio for one week. Then go back to Monty's standard. The differences are astounding.

That test is why I say what I do about him. He has a relentless transparent agenda.
So let's get this straight: the guy employing the time-tested tools of mathematics and scientific methodology is the flat earther, while the guy who only trusts his senses is the scientist?

Madness.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5177
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Well, at least that's one thing transparent about this astroturfy wave of 'science'. I do wonder what's paying for it all but if you look closely it's little blogs and things. People get so cranked up about this stuff.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but if you want to follow the money, the "hi res" side has far more to gain from convincing the average joe that CDs aren't good enough. There's no profit motive in telling people that CDs are as good as it gets.

Quote:
But he is not a charlatan, because he believes this stuff implicitly. If there's malice, it's in the determination to conquer and suppress opposing viewpoints, not in any insincerity on his part.
On the contrary, Monty speaks the language of science where rational discourse is a mandate and evidence trumps all. I've seen him participate in several forum exchanges and never seen any hint of suppression or bullying. Care to point out examples of this malice?
Old 9th February 2015
  #5178
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Old 9th February 2015
  #5179
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
heh
Old 9th February 2015
  #5180
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I think Monty's seriously, gravely misguided, and am very annoyed that he's tirelessly struggling to make the world a worse-sounding place for me.
Why do you think this? It has become clear through my research that 'Monty's position' on the utility of high bit depths and sample rates for audio playback pretty well matches the consensus among those who have investigated the topic scientifically.

This consensus may be incorrect, but 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is becoming increasingly appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
A charlatan of the first order. A flat earther. A cd is "all ya need" chirper.

His pronouncements simply do not hold up in ANY studio where high detail, high dynamic range monitoring is available.

Listen exclusively to hi-res material at your studio for one week. Then go back to Monty's standard. The differences are astounding.
If that test was done in such a way that the listeners did not know which week(s) they were hearing 'high res' and which they were not, it would be useful.

If not, then unfortunately it is not solid enough evidence either way, no matter what the result might be.

Quote:
He has a relentless transparent agenda.
Yes he does -- one that recognises the importance of the scientific method and appropriate experimental methodology when investigating auditory perception.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
So let's get this straight: the guy employing the time-tested tools of mathematics and scientific methodology is the flat earther, while the guy who only trusts his senses is the scientist?

Madness.
Yep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Last edited by -tc-; 9th February 2015 at 08:37 PM..
Old 9th February 2015
  #5181
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
On the contrary, Monty speaks the language of science where rational discourse is a mandate and evidence trumps all. I've seen him participate in several forum exchanges and never seen any hint of suppression or bullying. Care to point out examples of this malice?
He does not have my permission to make 128K lossy compression a mandate. He would like to have the power to mandate to the world that nobody may pursue audio resolutions he sees as wasteful, and is arguing forcefully against ever doing such 'wasteful' things.

Google does not have my permission to make 128K lossy compression a mandate for audio either.

But they are doing it on YouTube. They have the power. Check the HD streams. Perhaps around the time they tried implementing 1080p60fps playback, they gutted the audio content, which I'm given to understand is true across the board, even if you're VEVO. I can upload 24 bit uncompressed audio to give them the best possible source for transcoding (as I already knew they were going to transcode everything regardless) but everybody gets turned into the same garbage audio and only relative differences remain.

They DO have the power to control their broadcast mediums and mandate what people have to put up with, and they do. It's dangerous to sit around listening to these types and offering no pushback. You'll be on 96kpbs before you know it, and the same guys will be telling you it's fine, enjoy, don't be a hater.

I am enthusiastic about Pono seeming qualitatively different from this kind of crud, especially in a world where you do not ever experience even CD quality if they have their way. I feel by all hands-on accounts it is simply excellent boutique digital at a very discount price with some nice tricks of implementation and packaging.

We both agree that excellent boutique digital is, easily, capable of meeting the production bar set back in the days of tubes and vinyl. By this point it's equal to the task (not necessarily at 16/44.1 though!) Plus, nothing exceeds like excess. Pono truly outperforms pretty much anybody's needs, if they're honest.

I am completely insulted at the idea the company should be shouted down and driven out of business just for positioning itself in that way and marketing to a mass audience like most modern companies must do, and I am damned if I'm going to sit around listening to such naysaying.

I bought one. So should you. Seems it's a mighty good sounding player, and you might want to check one out sometime… a real one, that is.

Last edited by chrisj; 9th February 2015 at 08:32 PM..
Old 9th February 2015
  #5182
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by -tc- View Post
This consensus may be incorrect, but 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' is becoming increasingly appropriate.
It's easy to claim a consensus if you categorically disallow one side of the argument.

I would say that the proposition "blind testing over repeated trials is the only true way of perceiving sensory input" is the extraordinary claim. From that, a whole universe of unsupported assumption grows.

Still not seeing a lot of comprehension of the ABX corollary: if you did infinite trials and got say a 55% confidence, that's enough (infinite) to statistically rule out chance, and you've proved a phenomenon is either only there part of the time, or that the human sensory apparatus regularly fails to be reliable and picks up the phenomenon (which exists 100% of the time) only part of the time—but predictably so.

The latter conclusion is true.

The superiority of say 192/24 is provable by measurement and instrumentation. It is literally impossible to argue that CD or mp3 is not heinously degraded by measurement standards and we know exactly, in great detail, what the damages are, where they come from, even the spectral properties of the distortions induced. We know all this with incredible thoroughness.

Human senses are fickle. We can count on them failing some of the time. ABX testing proves humans are fallible, which we already knew.

You can't take a human in their moment of relaxation and enjoyment, when they're associative and their senses are reaching out for magic and inspiration, and demand they function like a machine, 10/10 no error and hearing the same transient exactly the same each time. It is utter foolishness and contrary to the essence of what music (or any art) is.

The hilarious part is, it's so trivial to demonstrate how superior something like a Pono 192/24 format is to CD or mp3 on technical grounds. It is SO EASY to measure this. You can even throw on some compression, alter the sound and make the ugly grunge jump right out so anybody can hear it. There is NO doubt that high resolution is objectively better on several fronts. Any archivist would go for the more high-bandwidth version. Any scientist measuring things about the music would grab the better data-set without hesitation, and get cleaner results.

But when it comes to love…
Old 9th February 2015
  #5183
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
CD or mp3
Is anyone saying that those two are the same? It's a bit of a straw man argument to attach lossy data compression onto 44.1/16 wav as though they were.

Lossy compression is obviously a bad thing, but you don't get to tar lossless wav with the same brush.

Chris
Old 9th February 2015
  #5184
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Stratology--what you wrote is not correct. XIPH administers FLAC but it was developed before they came on board.
Please go ahead and correct the Wikipedia entry that states otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Your agenda here is being unmasked before your very eyes.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA (sniff...)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
Why the conspiracy theories? Why accuse PONO of lying? Why side with 16 bit audio?
Because the Pono website declares 16bit audio as high res now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I am a recording scientist and rhetorician who knows better than to swallow the loudest talker's talk talk.
So, recording scientist, give us some science that proves that any single one of Monty's points is incorrect. Name calling does not qualify as science, btw.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5185
Lives for gear
 
stratology's Avatar
 

This is for the guys who are convinced that the Pono sounds clearly superior:

In the follow up to his double blind test, David Pogue is offering an additional test that meets your very own criteria:

"Tell you what: If my golden-eared readers can come to a consensus on exactly which gear to use and how the test should be conducted — a foolproof test protocol that won’t trigger further complaints — I’ll be happy to run it."


So, take him up on his word, decide on a test that will correctly show the Pono's superiority, and post it in the comments of the original review.
Old 9th February 2015
  #5186
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Still not seeing a lot of comprehension of the ABX corollary: if you did infinite trials and got say a 55% confidence, that's enough (infinite) to statistically rule out chance, and you've proved a phenomenon is either only there part of the time, or that the human sensory apparatus regularly fails to be reliable and picks up the phenomenon (which exists 100% of the time) only part of the time—but predictably so.
Sure, this seems to be true with precision that comes infinitely close to being True :p

The problem with infinity and probability is that the probability of it being a false positive result would become infinitely close to 0, but this is not really the same as saying that it would equal exactly 0.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

Quote:
The latter conclusion is true.
Yes, in this particular framing of the corollary.

But we cannot do infinite trials, so we cannot KNOW, no matter how many trials we do, whether or not the result is just a fluctuation during the convergence towards a very different result, or is very similar to the result converged to etc. We can only become reasonably sure. This isn't controversial afaik.

This is precisely why a single negative result does not prove the null hypothesis, but shows that it cannot be rejected, etc.

So the corollary does not refute the claim that in the absence of infinite trials, a 'statistically significant' number of 'statistically significant' negative results from accurate data suggests against rejecting the null hypothesis.

Whether or not it's true that ABX, MUSHRA, ABC/HR etc impair a subject's ability to hear as they may normally hear, and whether this corrupts the data more than perceptual biases in sighted tests would, seems rather difficult to 'prove' to me, so that's where I have to bow out and agree to disagree with you ... and I will continue thinking about it in the meantime ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
The hilarious part is, it's so trivial to demonstrate how superior something like a Pono 192/24 format is to CD or mp3 on technical grounds.
Yes, but afaik this is not the contentious point, so it shouldn't be that hilarious.

Last edited by -tc-; 9th February 2015 at 11:29 PM..
Old 10th February 2015
  #5187
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
If you guys think 16/44.1 sounds bad you should try some null tests. It's pretty eye (ear) opening. Make sure you use a good sample rate converter though. Something like Izotope SRC, Voxengo R8brain PRO or SoX. And make sure your track alignment is sample accurate. Some SRC's mess with timing and that will throw off the null test big time.

By ear opening I mean CD is a damn good format, especially consider its age. Nearly perfect for human auditory needs.
Old 10th February 2015
  #5188
Once folks experience Bluetooth or Wifi/hdmi streaming to their car or home receiver or TV, whatever they use for music listening. Plugging into an aux input will be a thing of the past.

The DAC in their system will likely equal the rest of the systems performance. No need for a top of line DAC in a stock car stereo or small bookshelf system.

My point, people will just use their phones, devices like Pono are bound for failure in the near future.
Old 10th February 2015
  #5189
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stratology View Post
This is for the guys who are convinced that the Pono sounds clearly superior:

In the follow up to his double blind test, David Pogue is offering an additional test that meets your very own criteria:

"Tell you what: If my golden-eared readers can come to a consensus on exactly which gear to use and how the test should be conducted — a foolproof test protocol that won’t trigger further complaints — I’ll be happy to run it."


So, take him up on his word, decide on a test that will correctly show the Pono's superiority, and post it in the comments of the original review.
Without claiming anything about clearly superior, have you actually heard one yet? Or do you just like to rant? What do YOU think it sounds like?
Old 10th February 2015
  #5190
Gear Maniac
 
lapsang's Avatar
 

I watched that blind test and it's obvious that people are used to iPhones and Apple Earpods, what do you expect?
Use Pono for like one month, then go back to do the blind test, what's the best?
Humans are really good to adapt.
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