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 7th April 2014
  #2461
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
cool. They will even let you choose the material and practice with it.
They'd BETTER give you all the practice you want. :(
And learn all the interfaces until you're comfortable, and include both positive and negative controls...

Tests are not easy to run.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2462
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
Yes. A good read.

And whether it's true or not, really shouldn't matter to this discussion. It doesn't for me.

The claims in the testimonial videos is that the difference between CD quality and 192kHz is dramatic.

If you can't hear the difference in an ABX test, then for argument's sake, the difference is subtle. Or non-existant.

Either way. It's not "dramatic".

So for a consumer format, IMHO it's snake oil to represent it as "finally coming up for air" or a "veil has been lifted".

The only reason we have skilled engineers on both sides of this debate, is because it's debatable. If the difference wasn't subtle or close to insignificant (if not imaginary) then none of us would debate it. We'd work this way and support high resolution audio.

I (and many others on my side) have nothing to gain by "winning" this debate. Truth is the only thing I care about. And at this point, that burden of proof is on the other side.

Prove there's a difference. If it's not with ABX testing, do it another way. I don't care how. But it's on you to prove that it does exist because you're trying to sell it to a mostly ignorant public.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2463
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Even with very reasonable differences it's tiring doing repeated ABXes because it's an insensitive test involving continuous disruptions of your attention, but you just need key elements to be strikingly different.
Please do not repeat this false claim. Attacks on properly done ABX testing are unjustified, and are countered by mounds of evidence.

ABX is not an "insensitive test" and saying so is not a question of taste, or opinion, saying it is not an "insensitive test" is a matter of fact.

This, of course, may not include every test called an ABX test.

There are things to look for:

1) practice, training, familiarity
2) choice of appropriate test material
3) negative and positive controls
4) as much time as you want
5) rest between trials as desired
6) A and B both fixed and known. Only X randomized.
7) Feedback on test results, trial by trial

There is more to look for, but that's a start.

Merely attacking all ABX testing is nothing but muddying the waters, spreading false claims, and creating a controversy where none should exist.

Last edited by j_j; 7th April 2014 at 03:56 PM.. Reason: frikkin' autocorrect
Old 7th April 2014
  #2464
j_j
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
The claims in the testimonial videos is that the difference between CD quality and 192kHz is dramatic.

If you can't hear the difference in an ABX test, then for argument's sake, the difference is subtle. Or non-existant.
I've often thought that those two sentences were quite ironic.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2465
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Listen to the hats and cymbal crash on that '4' example, back and forth, and tell me it's not obnoxiously obvious. The whole character of the thing is different in a palpable way. Of course, I am using revealing speakers. NS10s.
Really? I tried an ABX, focusing on various points in the files, and gave up before even completing one trial. The two were indistinguishable. I tried using two different near-field speaker pairs and also through headphones; no difference in sound.

Then I listened to the other three files. Occasionally I thought I heard differences, but when I loaded them up into the ABX player and zeroed in on where I thought I heard a difference, the differences disappeared.

For what it's worth, after the ABX I loaded up Pro Tools and could clearly hear a 17.5 kHz sine peaking at -20 dBFS on all my speaker sets.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2466
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldDumsfeld View Post
^^ That's bad enough. Check this out.

Ayre, the Pono converter tech consultants, got caught red handed a couple years ago buying up $500 Oppo players and putting them back in a box with their own name on. Then charging punters $10,000 for the privilege.

Ayre? or Oppo?
I actually read the thread, and I've bought equipment that uses parts from other equipment as part of an upgrade. I've got several Joly modded Oktava mics, and an Ah Toeb modded Marantz CD player sitting a few feet from me. I can't say the CD player was a huge change, since I bought it already upgraded, but the mics I can. I paid $100 for a mic and paid $150 to have it upgraded and it was worth every penny.

So, when I look at that box and see a couple of caps in a power supply replaced by several dozen caps in parallel single ended power supplies, read about each section of the machine being opto-isolated to eliminate ground loops and noise from the digital components? I believe that some significant changes have taken place AND that they're on the analog side.

How does this relate to the Pono player? Well, it seems likely that the analog performance is going to be pretty good for a lowly portable player. Better than the Filo? Hard to say, they've used different philosophies (I assume Ayres "all discrete" comment means no op-amps, while Filo is claiming really high quality op-amps, both are fully differential). What is interesting is that Ayres is involved in such a low end piece?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2467
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
All these tests are so trivial! We need a real test, like, if you drown, that proves you weren't a witch!
But I am a witch

As for that 'rebadged Oppo', it sure looks like there's a humongous difference in analog stage, which anybody competent can tell you is the whole deal with high performance audio. It's crazy to jump up and down screaming it's the same when so much is different. It's like swearing two books are the same because both have letters.

I do NOT think the analog stage becomes worth ten thousand dollars, but I don't buy that class of high end fancypants audio, I get capable but humbler gear like my Channel Islands D100s which were never priced at 10 grand. I'd note that Pono is not being priced at 10K. It's using the same concepts that CAN merit boutique pricing, for a popularized form of mass production.

What's not to like? You could say it's got a very fancy-pants pedigree without the actual nosebleed prices.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2468
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
For what it's worth, after the ABX I loaded up Pro Tools and could clearly hear a 17.5 kHz sine peaking at -20 dBFS on all my speaker sets.
Given that the difference is a big blast of (possibly not very clean, over the NS10s) 25K and up energy at nearly equal output level to the under-20K part, you being able to hear 17.5K isn't relevant. That was there both times, and the same. You had to hear the part that wasn't the same.

It's most obvious on some of the hi-hat noises, particularly when they close with a little airy 'swish', and when the crash cymbal is smashed. Even cymbals don't blast way beyond 20K ALL of the time. You have to mic them pretty close, too, as air itself will quickly eat up the >20K content.

I can live without >20K very contentedly, pretty much all of the time. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2469
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Given that the difference is a big blast of (possibly not very clean, over the NS10s) 25K and up energy at nearly equal output level to the under-20K part, you being able to hear 17.5K isn't relevant. That was there both times, and the same. You had to hear the part that wasn't the same.
So by implication, you can hear the over-20k part?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2470
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
But I am a witch

As for that 'rebadged Oppo', it sure looks like there's a humongous difference in analog stage, which anybody competent can tell you is the whole deal with high performance audio. It's crazy to jump up and down screaming it's the same when so much is different. It's like swearing two books are the same because both have letters.

I do NOT think the analog stage becomes worth ten thousand dollars, but I don't buy that class of high end fancypants audio, I get capable but humbler gear like my Channel Islands D100s which were never priced at 10 grand. I'd note that Pono is not being priced at 10K. It's using the same concepts that CAN merit boutique pricing, for a popularized form of mass production.

What's not to like? You could say it's got a very fancy-pants pedigree without the actual nosebleed prices.
Yes. But you're missing the point. Where has anyone on this thread claimed that Pono won't sound better with these better components?

I have yet to see a debate about the sound of this unit based on anything but high resolution files.

If the unit itself just sounds better, that improvement should be heard at all sample and bit rates.

What's not to like is testimonials stating that high resolution audio is the answer.

If Pono sounds great because of it's build, no one is complaining.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2471
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldDumsfeld View Post
^^ That's bad enough. Check this out.

Ayre, the Pono converter tech consultants, got caught red handed a couple years ago buying up $500 Oppo players and putting them back in a box with their own name on. Then charging punters $10,000 for the privilege.

Ayre? or Oppo?
I don't know why Mr. Dumsfeld persists in repeating this myth -- he already posted the same accusation earlier in this thread, and I already pointed out the differences in the analog section, power supplies, etc. -- but it's all irrelevant anyway. The Pono player, as it's currently described, is a high-quality device priced in line with competing products. No ripoffs going on here, as far as I can tell. With regard to the player, that is. The content, well, that's another story. heh

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 7th April 2014
  #2472
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Please do not repeat this false claim. Attacks on properly done ABX testing are unjustified, and are countered by mounds of evidence.

ABX is not an "insensitive test" and saying so is not a question of taste, or opinion, saying it is not an "insensitive test" is a matter of fact.

This, of course, may not include every test called an ABX test.

There are things to look for:

1) practice, training, familiarity
2) choice of appropriate test material
3) negative and positive controls
4) as much time as you want
5) rest between trials as desired
6) A and B both fixed and known. Only X randomized.
7) Feedback on test results, trial by trial

There is more to look for, but that's a start.

Merely attacking all ABX testing is nothing but muddying the waters, spreading false claims, and creating a controversy where none should exist.
You've made some important points about ABX testing. Just as many folks around here have had pretty bizarre ideas about what 'double blind testing' means in scientific literature, it's clear that a lot of folks around here do not have a very good grasp on proper ABX procedure or how to tell a write up of a good test from a bad one.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2473
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Yes. But you're missing the point. Where has anyone on this thread claimed that Pono won't sound better with these better components?

I have yet to see a debate about the sound of this unit based on anything but high resolution files.

If the unit itself just sounds better, that improvement should be heard at all sample and bit rates.

What's not to like is testimonials stating that high resolution audio is the answer.

If Pono sounds great because of it's build, no one is complaining.
But think marketing for a second, Kenny. Nobody gives a crap about audio players that sound amazing. You can buy them right now, all you want, for tens of thousands of dollars, or you can get relatively amazing performance out of the humble iPhone (it doesn't have nearly the analog stage of the Pono but is darn respectable). You could easily have FLAC added to the iPhone, and nothing would really change, and nobody would really care. And the industry would remain in its death spiral, producing ringtones you can put on while you jog.

Positioning is important.

Re-establishing a mode of engaging with music is important. That's why it's good Pono isn't a comfortable form factor for jogging with. Firstly it's good to have room for the parts but secondly it's not FOR jogging with, it's for focussing on. Touting the mega high resolution aspect is also part of this. It's begging users to really pay close attention, which will be rewarded because heck, even 96K is totally adequate, and overkill hurts nobody. I think 192K will tend to be a little glossier and less midrange-warm than lower sample rates, but there's no real harm in that, it's a tradeoff and a useful one.

We are getting a distinct and new player, with a distinct and new mode of attending to it (might not be pocketable, but it sure as hell is portable and cloud-friendly. Imagine if you could shop Bandcamp from it! Bam, insta-market where you can audition stuff and then grab the super-lush version right there) and some inklings of distinct new remasterings for it. That should also come with the freedom of putting them out properly. There's a lot already out there which would be good: I think the recent Beatles remasters would play nicely on these, I seem to remember the most recent take on that subject was audiophile and not dynamically smashed.

I think you can very quickly get beyond the point of 'good enough' with digital audio if you do it right, but 16/44.1 totally is not that point. It never was, it was always compromised, it's a big step in the direction of mp3 from the start and no wonder people didn't notice what was being lost.

Pono will support the high resolution, and that will be really easy to get used to. And of course it'll sound great on losslessly ripped CDs. That's the dirty little secret they won't make a big deal about, but it should drive adoption bigtime.

Fact is, you'll be able to make FLACs of your audio CDs and use those, and it'll even be extra space-efficient to do that. And it will not sound 'perfect' and WON'T be as good as true high resolution… but it will give you every tiny bit of what the poor CD has to offer, and that will be surprisingly satisfying.

Well, some people here won't be surprised, but some are saying mp3s would suffice. The people buying Pono for the 'new' high-res stuff will be pleasantly surprised at how good all the CDs suddenly sound. They'll probably be able to hear where the CD leaves off, and the limitations of the medium, but handled right you DO get quite a lot out of it. Near to the limits of human perception is nothing to sneeze at. I just object vociferously to 'and that's all there is and all there can ever be' when I can export dithered 24 bit mixes off my little laptop all day long. WHY do I have to go 16/44.1, or mp3, in 2014? It's insane.

Enough. High resolution is selling to the tune of millions of dollars of pre-orders. Get used to the idea that people will be able to hear your mix intentions properly. That's good, right?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2474
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by camus View Post
That 808.2 CD player costs more than the converters most mastering engineers are using. I had a tough time reading on after that. Yes, I am a cynical bastard sometimes.
Yes, Meridian products are expensive -- if you think that 5-year-old model was pricey, just wait until you see the cost of the current version -- but as I understood the article, the basic idea being discussed was the use of apodising filters to reduce the pre-ringing common to LP filters. This isn't the first time I've heard of these things, and my impression is that they're not controversial subjects (I am not a DSP guru). The point being, CD playback that relies on lesser-quality filtering may in fact sound worse than hi-res audio, all other things being equal.

Interesting to note that Pono was partnering with Meridian up until some point, but the relationship broke off for some reason.

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 7th April 2014
  #2475
Gear Maniac
 

Lexicon were the real bad guys. They simply took a $500 Oppo and put it inside their own box. Didn't even xhange the backplate.

Ayre at least took the trouble to take it apart and put it back together again. With modifications.

Still 95% markup sounds extreme even for a bespoke, boutique product. $500 Oppo > $10,000 Ayre. So if we follow the same economics. The $400 Pono would be the equivalent of a $20 Modded Sansa Clip+. Which is pretty decent already.

Don't get me wrong. CD is practically obsolete and it is all wrong that the most common replacement at the moment is either MP3 or a propriety lossless format. I'm all for well tagged FLAC downloads. Just don't see why the public is being asked to believe it is their existing gear or the distribution format at fault when it's actually the content.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2476
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Really? I tried an ABX, focusing on various points in the files, and gave up before even completing one trial. The two were indistinguishable. I tried using two different near-field speaker pairs and also through headphones; no difference in sound.

Then I listened to the other three files. Occasionally I thought I heard differences, but when I loaded them up into the ABX player and zeroed in on where I thought I heard a difference, the differences disappeared.

For what it's worth, after the ABX I loaded up Pro Tools and could clearly hear a 17.5 kHz sine peaking at -20 dBFS on all my speaker sets.
I had the same experience... couldn't hear it, though I can't hear much above 14k these days.

There are a lot of people here still suggesting they can hear the difference but not doing an a/b/x test themselves.. what gives?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2477
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Sonya View Post
Uh oh, and expert with a different take? They do exist?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2478
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
I had the same experience... couldn't hear it, though I can't hear much above 14k these days.

There are a lot of people here still suggesting they can hear the difference but not doing an a/b/x test themselves.. what gives?
I don't get it either. Chrisj reports that the cymbal crash "splats horribly" in the version that was 44.1k down-converted, but I couldn't hear even the tiniest bit of difference on three sets of speakers (and I have physically healthy ears and decades of critical listening experience).

Reasonably I can only attribute the gross disparity to some factor other than sampling rate.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2479
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Uh oh, and expert with a different take? They do exist?
What different take? What do you think he said in that interview that is controversial?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2480
Old 7th April 2014
  #2481
Lives for gear
 
paul brown's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
i hope it was a press agent who wrote that. it is technically wrong, definitely misleading and one could almost say fraudulent in what it claims.

Thousands of documented Pono listens have proven that music lovers can tell the difference between what they had before with CDs and MP3s and what they can have now with Pono

where is this test? the whole thing is depressing me now.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2482
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Glad to see he's doubled down on the B.S.

Again. No mention of Pono being an exceptional hardware device.

It's all about the resolution. Snake oil.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2483
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Uh oh, and expert with a different take? They do exist?
It was a good read indeed! He's obviously smarter and more knowledgeable than I am.

I had a couple things I want to point out...

Quote:
One of the big differences between a 96kHz sound and 44kHz is that both of them are going to have pre-ringing, but the ringing frequency is inaudible in the case of 96kHz but clearly audible with 44kHz. Why? Because the filter is going to ring at something below the half-sample rate, which puts the ringing in the audioband with a 44kHz sampling rate.
If this is true that it's audible, why have people failed to pick it out in abx testing? Regarding testing, he had this to say:

Quote:
The problem with A/B switching, or blind listening tests, is that it doesn’t always eliminate things that we find to be important on a lot of time scales. Obviously you can do blind listening on long time scales, and that’s good. I don’t tend to do a lot of that, because typically what we’re trying to do is work out whether something we’re doing has made a difference rather than to prove that you can hear it.
Not a very science-ish answer is it?

It's a similar answer to the tapeop piece, but I have to ask... et again... if it's all so subtle that it can't be heard in blind testing, then can it really be that significant? I'm asking not knowing the answer... it seems intrinsically to me that it probably is NOT that important, but if I'm wrong.. WHY am I wrong? WHY are these extremely subtle things that cannot be heard in blind testing important?

AND... especially considering moving your head a few inches in either direction in a normal room will have a much much more significant impact than the difference in sample rate... how can ANYONE be so certain they are hearing something other than confirmation bias or placebo effect?

I just do not get it... maybe my brain is broken.

I also don't get how people here STILL have not done an a/b/x test on their own, yet continue to talk about how easily it is to hear the difference. Makes no sense to me.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2484
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post

I also don't get how people here STILL have not done an a/b/x test on their own, yet continue to talk about how easily it is to hear the difference. Makes no sense to me.

Where, when, how? All this talk, it is just talk. Who has actually done one of these a/b/x tests? How about we start hearing from them?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2485
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarmenC View Post
Quote:
Even if you record in analog, when you mix your songs and record them to an analog 2 track, you can copy that to the digital resolution you choose (preferably the highest) and have your listeners hear that exact recording.
Really?

Quote:
In the studio, with your brand new creations, high resolution is a great option. Resolutions are all different in their depths and textures. These can be used, and mixed together. A hook can be recorded in a higher resolution than the track it sits on, further setting it apart in your creation. So can a vocal. Resolution is a new tool for you to use. As long as you mix in the highest resolution found in your creation, or higher, everything will be captured. Especially, real echo and acoustic instruments, like drums, benefit from higher resolutions. Don’t take anyone’s word for this. Listen for yourself. Make your own decision. It’s an artistic right you have.
WTF does this mean?

We're going to record different instruments with different bits and sample frequencies?

And the audience is going to hear it that way?

Pono can play them all back from within a stereo file?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2486
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Where, when, how? All this talk, it is just talk. Who has actually done one of these a/b/x tests? How about we start hearing from them?
You have been hearing from them -- many of us have performed dozens of ABX tests on ourselves. The question is, why haven't you? Start with something simple: a couple of pages ago bandpass posted a set of pairs of files recorded at 96k, with one in each pair having received down-conversion to 44.1k then up-conversion back to 96. Can you ABX a difference?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2487
Gear Head
 
bandpass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
It's most obvious on some of the hi-hat noises, particularly when they close with a little airy 'swish', and when the crash cymbal is smashed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Reasonably I can only attribute the gross disparity to some factor other than sampling rate.
Chris, what do you hear in the difference file, 4c.flac?
(I hear nothing, or noise-floor when cranked up.)
Old 7th April 2014
  #2488
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
You have been hearing from them -- many of us have performed dozens of ABX tests on ourselves. The question is, why haven't you? Start with something simple: a couple of pages ago bandpass posted a set of pairs of files recorded at 96k, with one in each pair having received down-conversion to 44.1k then up-conversion back to 96. Can you ABX a difference?
Unknown files, over the internet, played through my computer and sound card, having no idea what the files are, what parameters my computer's operating system and sound card it is capable of, into my phones?

What kind of of test is that? And how do I compare DSD?
Old 7th April 2014
  #2489
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Because blind testing is insensitive, an audio stunt, and getting familiar with the sound of a thing gives you more of the overall gestalt of it over time. You can get a sense for what kind of mood a sound puts you in, notice whether you're tuning out or getting tense, relate on many levels other than,

FIXATE ON THE MEMORY OF ONE LITTLE SNIPPET OF SOUND AND COMPARE IT TO THE INFO COMING INTO YOUR EARS TO TRY AND FIX YOUR ATTENTION AT EXACTLY THE SAME POINT AND CATCH THE SAME FEATURE TO SEE IF IT'S THE ONE SOUND OR THE OTHER SOUND, BOTH OF WHICH YOU'RE HOLDING IN YOUR HEAD WHILE LISTENING TO THE THIRD THING, DON'T MISS!

S'cuse. But that's about the experience of doing it: remember I did that successfully over the difference between 320K mp3 and 16/44.1 to greater than 95% confidence. I know what's obvious and what ain't, what's ABXable and what ain't. I repeat, I doubt I could do the classical piece even though the harpsichord offers subtly better vibe at 96K. You can catch it now and then if you just groove on the music but it would be far too hard to do in ABX, though I know people who probably could do it.

If you move your head a few inches, you can totally disrupt the fixed audio pictures you NEED to ABX, but the experience of general listening is completely unharmed. ABX is profoundly insensitive. It's a way to categorically prove two things ARE different, not at all a way to prove two things are the same.

When you're pleasure listening your attention constantly drifts and fixates on new things, and you can say the depth of how far your ear can go is limited by the resolution. If your ear's trying to grab a thousand things a second (44 thousand samples or more!) and every tenth thing is some audiophile observation like 'soundstage, X feet deep!' or 'tone color, liquid and free of grain!', and you're listening and those momentary perceptions CAN'T HAPPEN because you are listening to a myspace stream that's been resampled to 22K without conversion, you're going to be continually frustrated when your ear cannot go into the music as it wishes. Yet, if you had to categorize those perceptions every single time you might have trouble with the task, because you're not noticing it every single time or at every moment, just about one moment in ten (with many moments, many observations a second).

That's why overkill with sound quality works. The best possible overkill is a live acoustic performance. The flood of musical intention at times like that is overwhelming. Electric performances can also go a long way beyond the amount of information we get out of 16/44.1 or 320K mp3.
Old 7th April 2014
  #2490
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
Really?

WTF does this mean?

We're going to record different instruments with different bits and sample frequencies?

And the audience is going to hear it that way?

Pono can play them all back from within a stereo file?
Pono, the ultimate output format for bitcrushers and old-school Akai samplers!

Funny thing is, it's even kinda true. I wonder what some of the hiphop guys who like old gear, would do with this. I'm surprised at Neil for knowing what a bitcrusher is, or advocating their use, but he's correct. Guess he's working the crowd and going for another few million before the Kickstarter closes
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