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 22nd March 2014
  #1561
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post

Buffoons like you and CarmenC think it is clever and amusing to cite flaws in science, or proffer dippy Einstein quotes to support a mindless position. But you are like a snot-nosed child critiquing Paganini's bow technique. You are too ignorant to realize how ignorant you are.
If they are 'buffoons' then you can surely set them straight without abusing them personally.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1562
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbob1 View Post
4. Monetizing all the old music one more time, so the record companies don't have to move into the 21st century, but can continue their old model of selling records. This sucks! I already bought my music on vinyl, then cassette, then CD, now I'm going to buy it again for $25, more than I've paid for an album, ever? Gigantic FAIL!
It's not monetized until someone buys it.
What made you buy the same music on vinyl and cassette?

Vinyl sounds damn good to me. You could have stuck with vinyl as that isn't a dead product. You can stick your LP on now and still enjoy it.
You bought cassette and CD because it was more convenient. You paid again for an evolution….. to something more convenient and portable.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1563
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by orenradio View Post

whats hard for me to understand is how going from 44.1 to 96 to 192 only applies to frequency range, and has nothing to do with the resolution of the analog signal. its hard for my brain to grasp it, perhaps i just need to read more and more and more until it "clicks" like some of you all are saying.

in any case, if the original master was archived at 192/24 or 96/24 (or 44.1/24), then either of those are scientifically better than 44.1/16 - that my friends was undisputed about 20 pages ago, unless the collective scientific community took a step backwards.
I think I can help with this. When you reconstruct the digitized file into an analog output, you're seeing little stair-steps in your mind's eye-each sample being a discrete 16 or 15 or 14 bit tall block, right? Are you familiar with a fuzz effect for guitar? That's adding partials or harmonic overtones to your basic signal, and as you turn up the fuzz, the picture of your guitar note goes from a sine wave to a square wave, right? So, the leading and following edges of a square wave are formed by the highest frequency harmonics. When you filter out everything above 20k (which the "reconstruction filter" in your DA convertor does) you take out those very high harmonics that change the sine into a square wave. In fact, at 20k, you take out ALL the partials and all you can get is a sine wave. At 10k you can get a sine wave with a little dip in it from the 20k harmonic, and that's it. So the filter is what takes that bar graph like thing and turns it into a nice smooth 20k sine wave. And sampling at 48 or 96 or 192 doesn't change the fact that you're filtering things so that 20k tone turns back into a sine wave.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1564
Lives for gear
Oh, and I'm stuck in hotel room but why are all of you guys one here with nothing better to do than argue on a Friday night?
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1565
It's Saturday afternoon and I'm taking mini breaks from editing drums - recorded in 96khz/24 bit.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1566
Lives for gear
 
Hyder boy's Avatar
 

As the dog returns to the vomit, so does the fool to the folly.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1567
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Really? ISP's are charging netflix a premium because the movie files are too big.
that is an argument against your premise. Netflix and the ISPs are in it together vs the consumer. When the ISP charges Netflix more, you don't seriously believe Netflix absorbs that cost, do you?

Quote:
It's in the tech lobby's financial interest to persuade people that content delivered in smaller packages is 'good enough'
It's the exact opposite.


They make more money by selling you more of something you already have enough of. Sound familiar?


Persuading you that your audio is NOT "good enough" is how they sell you pricier downloads. Downloads you maybe don't really need. Downloads of the same thing you bought once before but now in a bigger bucket. Besides, your file sharing guy is hardly the ally of the tech lobby!

Perhaps in Australia the bottleneck is such that the companies feel their network is strained and overloaded. Like the electric utility begging you please to not turn your air conditioners up. But I can assure you, here in North America, where Pono is being launched, building backbone is a growth industry. Perhaps the growth industry. They WANT you to "want more". And use more. And they are running around like crazy build more and bigger pipelines to get more of it to you. And inventing more stuff for you to "need" via those pipelines around and around. Like railroads building hotels, they need more stuff to fill those pipelines and your pitiful little 44.1k files won't do. They don't want to merely Meet the Demand. They want to exceed the Demand and then create more demand. HDTV? Old hat! You need 4k! You can see it everywhere, this is how it works.

And then remember they want to charge you extra for 'high speed'. "Ultra". They are not "reluctantly" charging you more to discourage you from using up their precious bandwidth. They are interested in selling you as much bandwidth as you can afford. At a price set by them. A price I suspect is not causing them to LOSE money. If anyone wants to oversell you on the value of high-res audio, these are the guys to suspect! The revenue they get for bandwidth is the same regardless whether someone is legally or illegally downloading using that bandwidth. The tech companies make money coming and going.

Quote:
And it costs more money to create, store and distribute higher quality digital content.
It costs bupkas more to 'create'.

Hard disk space is 7¢ a Gig. Compared to the cost of studio time and personnel, it's nothing! As for mobility of the files, here in the US, I send multi- gigabyte folders back and forth every week and I am Small Potatoes. Doubling or tripling that is not even a meaningful impact on MY budgets - never mind a major label budget.

And as I said, your nemesis there is hardly the only person mentioning these facts about resolution, the human ear, blind testing, dynamic range and confirmation bias. All those other people who say the same stuff - are they now suspect? How far away from THIS GUY do you need to get before you can accept hard evidence that the audible differences are somewhere between "subtle" and "imperceptible"?
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1568
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
that is an argument against your premise. Netflix and the ISPs are in it together vs the consumer.
It's a turf war over costs and customers. Customers want content. Every tech company is falling over themselves to supply content, from Apple to Google, from Samsung to Spotify, from Netflix to iiNet and telstra (my two local ISP's who both sell online television). The content creators aren't even in the conversation.
The Tech companies are fighting artist's rights and copyright solely to gain access to the content without having to pay very much for it.

Quote:
They make more money by selling you more of something you already have enough of. Sound familiar?
Persuading you that your audio is NOT "good enough" is how they sell you pricier downloads. Downloads you maybe don't really need.
People want music and movies on their new smartphone or iPad device. They don't want to sit for hours uploading DVD's to some coding program, or dropping their favourite CD tracks into iTunes. They want to download cheap to acquire content on their latest gadget, and they want to do it fast.
Just like supermarket's with loyalty programs, all the tech companies want to become the dominant player.
No one in online music is talking about the audio not being good enough. It obviously is for millions of illegal and legal consumers.
I think that's where Pono has completely missed their mark.
People want more music for less financial outlay.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1569
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
But our understanding is!!!!
We used to only use the sun's energy to grow crops and dry cure foods. Now we use the sun's energy to also heat water and power motor vehicles. It's our understanding of what we can achieve that evolves.
This is the stupidest analogy I have ever read! No wonder this thread is so awkward...we are talking about different things.
Guess I am off to other things.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
How far away from THIS GUY do you need to get before you can accept hard evidence that the audible differences are somewhere between "subtle" and "imperceptible"?
1) I am totally unconvinced the differences are imperceptible.
2) I respect the opinion of someone who isn't writing garbage about artists and their business. He may be correct in some aspect, but I would trust it more from someone who I hadn't seen passing off biased opinion as if it's fact.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1571
Quote:
Originally Posted by blindjoni View Post
This is the stupidest analogy I have ever read! No wonder this thread is so awkward...we are talking about different things.
Guess I am off to other things.
Sorry.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Yes. But we evolve the combustion engine. It doesn't evolve itself and we just admire it.

Digital audio doesn't get better without the people who designed it making it that way.
Presumably they thought that's what they were doing when they developed 96khz, or 24 bit.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1573
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
So, I took my first stab and just let XLD convert the 24/192 Eagles masters to 16/48 lossless.

....it was anything BUT lossless played back on the big system....that said--they now fit on my phone and sound better than the masters that were there before, by way of simply being better masters and likely the 48khz to a lesser degree. So, win for the phone...big system will keep the 192 sitting on the drive for now. I may even go to 16/48 AAC and see if I can tell a diff on the phone.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1574
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
So, I took my first stab and just let XLD convert the 24/192 Eagles masters to 16/48 lossless.

....it was anything BUT lossless played back on the big system....that said--they now fit on my phone and sound better than the masters that were there before, by way of simply being better masters and likely the 48khz to a lesser degree. So, win for the phone...big system will keep the 192 sitting on the drive for now. I may even go to 16/48 AAC and see if I can tell a diff on the phone.
Did you check for in-band gain balance?
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1575
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
No, I converted them. Like anyone would with the XLD application's built in transcoding. I checked nothing...They went no where near my daw. Consumer conversion.

I have never heard the term "in band gain balance" in my life.

Feel free to suggest a method/app/codec if you question the open source SRC.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1576
Lives for gear
 

The bad part of Pono isnt the clunky device. The device is fine and dandy if the Toblerone form factor floats your boat. The bad part is testimonials from a bunch of famous people undoing decades of good work educating musicians and the pro audio community about the facts/science of digital audio and the limitations of the human auditory system.

Those same misguided testimonials are being used to milk millions of dollars from the public via Kickstarter. It's akin to a snake oil medicine show or religious roadshow handing around the collection bucket. Does this form of testimonial marketing from famous stars not bother people here on some level?

Pono isnt the problem. False claims being used to get money is the problem. Using famous people to market a product via exaggerated testimonials is the problem. Next we'll have celebrities claiming Pono cures cancer....

Nonsense like “You are getting less than 5 percent of the original recording”, which is not only an outright lie, it also completely ignores the factual, empirically proven science behind perceptual encoding. Aside from the 5% claim being inaccurate, he assumes that we actually hear 100% of a non-encoded audio file. We don’t! And we certainly don’t hear/perceive all of the information in a 24/192kHz stream.

Young is mostly aiming at lossy encoding, which is probably useful given the world can now accommodate lossless 16/44.1 without bursting data pipes. But there is no convincing evidence that highest quality lossy encoding is insufficient - most of the bad sounding stuff is due to low quality encoding or abuse of digital techniques. In particular, until MFiT came along, many in pro audio had no idea that lossy encoding of hypercompressed -0.03dBFS (or -0.3dBFS) audio masters inevitably results in clipping when encoded/decoded via lossy encoding algorithms.

As a playback format, lossless audio (FLAC or ALAC) is a good solution for playback deliverables and it already exists irrespective of Pono. For example, Linn does quite well selling 24/96 FLAC files. There's no need for 24/192. For well-produced audio, the difference between 24/96 and 24/44.1 as a playback format is rarely audible. For well-produced audio, the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit (as a playback format) is also rarely audible, yet Young and his cohorts claim the difference is "night and day".

I'm sure Young is sincere, but his pitch is completely over the top. His sneering at what he calls "low resolution digital" seems based on prejudices held since the early days of digital, superstition/myth and expectation bias, culminating in claims that are balderdash. In the absence of understanding, people just make stuff up to fit their prejudices. This seems particularly true of stars who might be great musicians, but poor at understanding complex technical information.

Once again, there is no question that abuse of digital techniques/workflows results in poor sounding deliverables, but we dont need Young or Pono to deal with that.

That said, here's one aspect of this discussion that might be very relevant and worthy of further investigation: hearing damage.

I strongly suspect Young's hearing is badly damaged due to a lifetime of high SPL abuse. Given his age and the damage, I suspect he is very sensitive to high mid distortion/resonance. I suspect the same applies to many of the mates Young enlisted for testimonials....and it probably also applies to (for example) Bob Dylan when he declared that lossy encoded audio is mush. Anyone who has worked with loud music for a long time would have this damage, but it particualrly applies to older people who also have age-related hearing loss - it's a kind of double whammy and must be factored into their perception.

People with such damage are known to be more sensitive to resonances at the boundary of their high frequency loss - this boundary may coincide with LPF in the algorithm of the lossy encoder. Such people may also be more sensitive to clipping caused by lossy encoding of excessively loud files. In this regard, such people would be like canaries in the coalmine, detecting such distortion before it is audible to undamaged ears. That might be worthy of further study, as it might partly explain why many older people are annoyed by playback which doesn’t annoy young people. A large percentage of people over 40yo who spent decades listening to loud, distorted music will have such damage. It would be even worse for people aged over 50 or 60yo.

The above would at least provide a rational explanation for Young's misguided passion.

I've been a lifelong fan of Neil Young's work, along with other artists who have visible cracks. In 1979 I could sit around a campfire and perform from memory every song Young had ever released. I was indifferent to the Eagles and America, but I loved the ragged glory of Young, CSNY, Crazy Horse, Dylan and The Band. CSNY devolved into their doppelganger America when Young was absent, but somehow became glorious when Young's rough edges were in the mix. Despite (or perhaps because of) all his personality flaws, Young has always been a Honesty Monitor on stage and I fully respect that. I also fully respect that he cares a lot about sound. I'm taking no pleasure in criticizing Young's actions.

I'm also a supporter of anything that improves audio for consumers and professionals, so I have no criticisms of Pono as a device.

Nonetheless, Pono would still be a worthwhile product without Young's outlandish claims and the OTT testimonials of his mates. If he used max sample rate of 96kHz instead of 192kHz the device would sound just as good. If he didnt denigrate countless excellent sounding 16 bit 44.1kHz CDs, Pono would still sound just as good.

He declares format as the enemy, when it seems to me the real enemies are poorly handled aliasing and abuse of dynamics via hypercompression and clipping. As previously mentioned, abuse of dynamics also results in clipping from intersample peaks when using lossy encoders, but this is dealt with via good initiatives such as MFiT. Full marks to Apple for basing MFiT on the scientific method.

In other words, poor techniques are the problem, not formats. Eliminate the poor decisions and you derive beautiful sounding CDs, beautiful sounding 320k MP3s and beautiful sounding 256k AAC. At least, this is my experience.

It's also interesting that Young doesnt try to make Pono sound like vinyl (for example). You know, roll off the lows and mono them so the nail doesnt jump out of the groove it's bouncing around in. Ever looked at a magnified stylus in a vinyl groove? It's UGLY down there!

Pono doesnt miraculously correct poor decisions made during recording, mixing and mastering. Pono doesnt "fix" anything.

Better education about best practice digital workflows is what actually fixes things. But of course fame doesnt guarantee technical expertise - Young and his mates seem to be propagating nonsense at least partly because they simply don’t understand the facts of digital audio and the facts of human auditory perception.

If we put aside Lavry's papers regarding optimal sample rates, AFAIK these are the only advantages applicable to 192kHz:

1. Lower latency when recording
2. When mixing and/or mastering, it reduces aliasing for processing involving non-linear algorithms
3. Statistically reduces incidence of intersample peaks exceeding 0dB when normalizing/limiting.

1 is irrelevant to playback format.
2 is useful, but already handled pretty well by oversampling algorithms within applicable nonlinear processes. This is mostly about cost vs benefit, as 192kHz consumes vast amounts of real estate and CPU cycles.
3 is also useful as long as the format remains at 192kHz, but it's already dealt with by initiatives like MFiT.

My conclusion? Pono is a useful initiative in some respects, but the associated rhetoric from Young and his proponents is very destructive.

An example: most people assume we can hear everything between 20Hz and 20kHz, because they only consider the frequency domain. What they fail to consider (or even refuse to accommodate after being informed) are the many limitations and compromises our auditory perception encounters in the time domain, such as the most obvious - temporal masking, which is exploited by lossy encoders.

We can only focus on bits at a time and we take lots of expedient shortcuts. This is an entirely subconscious process and we cannot stop it. There may be a lot of audio information between 20Hz and 20kHz, but we _never_ perceive all of that information. We certainly can't rely on our auditory structures alone - perception requires heavy data processing in the brain. We've had millions of years of evolution to build stored procedures in our subconscious which focus on what matters (from a natural selection perspective) and discard and/or interpolate information evolution has determined is less important (and can be predicted to sufficient accuracy via interpolation etc).

We drop info just like lossy encoders drop info - the entire point of lossy encoders is they discard the same info our auditory perception discards. The encoders know the tricks we use. Results vary in accordance with the algorithm of course, but some people just find it impossible to fully accept that perceptual coding works at all, just like Nigel Tufnel can't accept that his guitar amp volume knob which "goes to 11" is no different to a volume knob which "only goes to 10".

No one is claiming lossy encoders are perfect, but highest quality lossy encoding is not as bad as Young claims.

And Pono is very likely not as good as he claims.

Learning more about damaged hearing and age-related hearing loss could be a good outcome from all this palaver.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1577
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
No, I converted them. Like anyone would with the XLD application's built in transcoding. I checked nothing...They went no where near my daw. Consumer conversion.

I have never heard the term "in band gain balance" in my life.

Feel free to suggest a method/app/codec if you question the open source SRC.
Are you perhaps unaware that any SRC will have some in-band (i.e. 20-20k) gain error?

Try putting in a multitone, say 250+n*500 in frequency, for N 0:10.

Check the level out of the SRC in terms of the level into the SRC.

Since you didn't check anything, you have no idea what's happened to the gain of the converted file. While it will be close, there is no guarantee that it will be within .1dB or so.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1578
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
The bad part of Pono...
Just when I was on the point of abandoning this near train-wreck of a thread, you come along and post a very sensible summation! (10 years and all manner of wildly chaotic debates on Gearslutz and I have never felt the need to actually deploy the 'Ignore' feature until quite recently in this thread!)

I particularly applaud you for underlining that your comments pertain only to playback - nearly all of us agree that the discussion is slightly different when dealing with recording (where the benefits of 24-bits are widely accepted) but people are often careless or deliberately obfuscating in mixing up the two.

This thread is about the final delivery format of recorded music - i.e. what the consumer ends up listening to at home.

I think the only thing you haven't really addressed is the prices the record companies are charging, or intending to charge, for distributing their product online; in fact that's been theme main theme of my contributions here, for better or for worse!

I'm going to make three assumptions for myself for the moment (note: I am making assumptions for me not for anyone else):
  • Lossy mp3 does damage to the recording and needs to be phased out
  • The ability to discern meaningful differences between a well-recorded and mastered album at bit/sample rates higher than 16/44.1k under normal listening conditions falls somewhere between quite challenging and scientifically improbable, especially for those of us older than forty. There may or may not be a certain amount of program dependency factors, but in any case a proper test requires a decidedly non-cheap playback system/room and a double-blind AB/X.
  • In 5 years time music will no longer be distributed on physical media
Given that 16/44.k exists primarily as a physical medium, is not widely available to download online and will likely be gone or irrelevant in 5 years, the price major record companies intend to charge for a non-crippled version of an album in future seems set to rise from $7.99 per album to as much as $24.99 per album.

This is a 300% increase!

The drive for 'higher and even-higher res' is surely only fuelling this madness and ensures that the suits at Warner/Sony/UMG are laughing, yet again, all the way to the bank.

No amount of hype or promise of sonic nirvaneh from Neil Young or anyone else is going to get me to 'pono'-up that kind of cash for that kind of heinous but entirely predictable corporate rip-off... unless I can prove to myself that my assumptions are false. I know the first one is true and the third is highly likely, it's the second one I need to re-test properly before I call time on my own internal debate. Which is why I have invited WAV contributions to help me do that. And by the way, I am absolutely willing to admit some expectation bias in that the need to reinvest 300% more in something I already own and like a lot is going to be tough to convince myself of!

If, as has been suggested by the more sensible contributors to this thread, album prices were the same $7.99 regardless of what format you choose to listen in I suspect this entire discussion would be moot - determined folks can listen to Harvest at 384-bit/32.1Ghz, while the kids will still groove around with illegal versions of it and have no concept of (or interest in) what 'quality' they are listening to through cheap earbuds permanently glued into their cochleas. It won't matter - honest people who have paid for the album will be free to listen to it however suits them, and the people who are going to pirate it anyway will pirate it anyway at whatever quality.

But the record companies, at least those representing Neil Young and his Pono evangelists, have made it abundantly clear that this is not going to happen. The evidence to date indicates that they will be charging the honest people more, much more, to hear decent fidelity music in future.

As I've said before, this whole discussion is really only about the money.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1579
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
As I've said before, this whole discussion is really only about the money.
exactly! if this had nothing to do with the major labels, was sold as a grass roots revolution away from major label control of mainstream music, i'd be more supportive. the money loving, not music loving, business practices of the big three has stifled creativity and musical development for the mainstream audience. to them music is not art, it is a commodity. if they can repackage and sell to a gullible public, the stockholders will be happy. i would be less cynical if there was not a long history of such activity.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1580
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Seems some people got their spout deleted while I had a nice sleep.

I am feeling a little sad that I allowed myself to get sucked into this sorry mess of a thread last night after so clearly seeing it for what it was from the beginning. Time to make good and exit.

Have fun guys, just bear in mind, the direction of your energy about this counts and in the end I would like to think even the ones who are doing their best to pick holes in this would still like it to succeed and change our reality for a better one, so maybe watch in what direction you apply your energies.....all makes a difference. Help it do something good or help stamp it out. Pick one.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1581
Since this thread is naturally encouraging everyone to revisit the glories of our youths, I would say that choice (with it vs. against it) is only slightly misleading, because the phrase only slightly was our communal way to slather sarcasm around.

A good outcome would be for a general recognition to take hold across the land that certain "best practices" of the last twenty-odd years (some of them very odd indeed) resulted in degraded audio, and it's high time to embrace new standards to replace these.

A dubious outcome would be to blur all this and think that a new product is the answer to all our problems.

Maybe it's not too late to re-do the promotional video? Instead of everyone gushing and fawning, assign a talking point to each? Here's my script for Tom Petty: "Digital always had fantastic potential, in fact it's a blessing and a true advance in the sonic arts. It's a peculiar fact of history that delivering all that glory, well, it took until now to achieve that in a broad way." Or, that might be better for Elvis Costello...?
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1582
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
The bad part of Pono isnt the clunky device.

etc
Brilliant post.

If anyone wants to know why an engineer would have a problem with this device, go read that post.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1583
Gear Maniac
 
Traintrack's Avatar
 

There is no science for how I feel.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1584
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
[LIST][*]Lossy mp3 does damage to the recording and needs to be phased out
I agree with everything you said except for this part.

While I would also like to see 44.1kHz 16 bit become the standard again, 256k or 320k AAC files sound pretty good to me. And since 90% of the consumers won't hear a difference or just don't care, it should be an option as they won't be happy about reducing that amount of songs they can fit on their devices by 1/3 or 1/5th.

In my personal testing, I found that 192k AAC sound acceptable. Anything less and I really feel the consumer isn't hearing it properly. But that will vary per record.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1585
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul brown View Post
exactly! if this had nothing to do with the major labels, was sold as a grass roots revolution away from major label control of mainstream music, i'd be more supportive. the money loving, not music loving, business practices of the big three has stifled creativity and musical development for the mainstream audience. to them music is not art, it is a commodity. if they can repackage and sell to a gullible public, the stockholders will be happy. i would be less cynical if there was not a long history of such activity.
It's a little ridiculous to expect this to change.

The people making these decisions are not on holiday. They're at work. At their job. The thing they need to keep to continue to live their lives.

But my feeling is that they'd actually do better to make this a mainstream idea.

Keep the prices down and get everyone to buy back in to purchasing music.

The ability to own your music forever in every available format and mastered how you like it is an asset.

Keep it at a fair price and everyone will buy in.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1586
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
Since this thread is naturally encouraging everyone to revisit the glories of our youths, I would say that choice (with it vs. against it) is only slightly misleading, because the phrase only slightly was our communal way to slather sarcasm around.

A good outcome would be for a general recognition to take hold across the land that certain "best practices" of the last twenty-odd years (some of them very odd indeed) resulted in degraded audio, and it's high time to embrace new standards to replace these.

A dubious outcome would be to blur all this and think that a new product is the answer to all our problems.

Maybe it's not too late to re-do the promotional video? Instead of everyone gushing and fawning, assign a talking point to each? Here's my script for Tom Petty: "Digital always had fantastic potential, in fact it's a blessing and a true advance in the sonic arts. It's a peculiar fact of history that delivering all that glory, well, it took until now to achieve that in a broad way." Or, that might be better for Elvis Costello...?
If you separate each person's testimonial, you'll notice that many of them aren't saying too much that you or I would disagree with.

But when you surround them with a few bad apples it kind of spoils the …

thing that apples come in.
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1587
Gear Addict
 

...oh, puh...again and again...and still and still.....half knowledge and myths all over the place....

facts.....

there are good reasons to produce in higher resolutions.....
but there's really no reason at all to playback at hi res.....

and, for gods sake, THERE ARE NO STAIRS after converting back to analog....

did we had this one already...?....no further questions if you saw it....

D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube

so stop the bull**** and trust in facts only......
a pono player will be a good thing for audiophiles and for serious producers because of it's converter, doin the best FOR ALL formats...
having cd quality with me anywhere is a good thing.....and even for my orchestra stuff it's doin fine....and orchestra stuff is the only thing where i actually really CAN hear a difference between mp3 and hi res....
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
... the thing that apples come in...
You mean... an apple delivery system!
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1589
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
You mean... an apple delivery system!
Old 22nd March 2014
  #1590
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
I am not hearing two different masters.
I downsampled the 24/192 files to 16/44.1 and burned them to a cd using AudioGate.
Same master.
With extra aliasing from the suboptimal AudioGate Sample Rate Converter...

Alistair
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