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 11th April 2014
  #2791
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
*LOL* Oh, Kenny

Probably worth checking to see if that's what they REALLY do, but no no no, marketing fail and Apple doesn't really do marketing fail
How else can you play it on your phone?

If this takes off, the next generation phones will do HD but for now, what other option do you have?
Old 11th April 2014
  #2792
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie TX View Post

There is something of a precedent for this. The iTunes Match service gives you access to your entire iTunes-based library on Apple's servers from any capable device. Even if you originally purchased 128kbps music, Match serves up 256kbps files for everything. So for $25 a year, your library of standard iTunes files is "upgraded" to a higher resolution.

Cheers,
Eddie
They did something similar with the release of non-DRM files.

Quote:
"All songs offered by the iTunes Store now come without DRM protection. These DRM-free songs, called iTunes Plus, have no usage restrictions and feature high-quality 256 kbps AAC encoding.
If you have older iTunes Store purchases that are now available as iTunes Plus downloads, you may upgrade your existing purchases. To do so, visit the iTunes Store and follow the onscreen instructions."
Old 11th April 2014
  #2793
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
How else can you play it on your phone?

If this takes off, the next generation phones will do HD but for now, what other option do you have?
Haven't got an iphone but my ancient ipod quite happily plays 24/48.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2794
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post
I had the oportunity to listen to a Pono a couple of weeks ago on some JTR speakers at 124db and it sounded better than any recording I had ever heard. I used to have some high end equipment, and had always liked vinyl over digital but this changed my mind.
Have you listened to SACD's through the system? I'm guessing not or your mind would have already been changed.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2795
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
That's cool. I never, ever, not even once, said that I could or wanted to.
How about 44.1 Khz then? You most certainly have unequivocally claimed that 44.1 Khz affects the audible high frequency range compared to higher rates. I don't believe you would pass the test between 96 (or 192 or 384 Khz) and 44.1 Khz either if the conversion and/or filtering is done with an appropriate and well designed filter.

What you so crucially seem to have missed in my post (or are wilfully ignoring) is that your test files had significant differences all the way down to below 10 Khz. In other words, the only thing you demonstrated is the ability to , and only by hi-pass filtering and pushing levels excessively creating an entirely artificial listening situation that has nothing to do with how people actually listen to music, hear in-band, below 20Khz, differences between files.

So what? No one ever disputed that.

We have already described how to test this (just down/up sample a 96/192/384 Khz source with a high-quality SRC and ABX compare to the original). Why don't you perform that simple test?

I think it is rather shocking that you, a plugin developer, even imagined your test was worth doing in regards to this discussion and can not see how badly flawed the test and test files you came up with are.

Btw, talking about flaws, you never described how you created the files. You mention your hi-pass filter. Other than that you don't really tell us anything. Did you SRC the files or just use a filter? And if so, which SRC or filter did you use? That would actually be useful info because it tells us something about those tools!

Alistair
Old 11th April 2014
  #2796
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post

It's fine to sit around in the zone of 'full scientific provability', but people are just going to continue to have the experience of 'I listened to Pono and it immediately sounded better than what I had, and it kept sounding better no matter what I did or how loud or soft I listened. It always sounded better whatever mood I was in, never bored me or seemed inadequate, so I bought one and now I listen to Pono.'
....and they won't give two ****s about the science of it after they start liking it. They'll just want to keep enjoying it. And then all this cleverdicking stuff in this thread will look pretty petty in retrospect.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2797
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
People do crank up their headphones or speakers but they do it to pleasant (to them) loud levels on full program material.

What people do not do is filter out all the low-end of their badly converted files then crank it up to gruelling and unpleasant levels to the point of blowing up their NS10's and expect to conclude anything about sample rates from such an experiment unless they lost the reality plot in favour of whimsical fantasies a long time ago...



Of course. So far it has never been demonstrated. Not even close!

Chris, you haven't even stubbed your toe accidentally in your kitchen. What you did was drop a load of bricks in the middle of your kitchen that don't belong there and then purposely and intentionally went and kicked those bricks with as much force as you could and then complained about the dangers of walking barefoot in the kitchen. It was a ridiculous experiment and it surprises me that you, as an audio plugin coder, didn't even check the files for in-band differences before even listening to the files.

The fact that you had to go to such lengths to detect even this difference (in the audible band of the files!) tells me it is very likely that you can not at all ever, even with the levels fully cranked-up, tell the difference between 96 and 48 Khz files when properly converted. Thanks for demonstrating this.

Alistair
It may present an interesting sidelight on the issue of why some plugins are reputed to perform better at double or quad rates... the speculation in such cases is often that the coder didn't check for processes that had created out-of-band content. Sometimes people wonder how a coder could make such a mistake...
Old 11th April 2014
  #2798
>>> iTunes to offer 24bit 48k ...

http://www.audiostream.com/content/i...-bit-downloads

yoop-dee-daa!
Old 11th April 2014
  #2799
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Btw, talking about flaws, you never described how you created the files. You mention your hi-pass filter. Other than that you don't really tell us anything. Did you SRC the files or just use a filter? And if so, which SRC or filter did you use? That would actually be useful info because it tells us something about those tools!
Alistair
Hey, I never created the files at all. The ABX-blind-testing-guys created the files and insisted they were perfect until someone (me, at least) heard differences by cranking my Lavry up (no other changes). The only thing I did was add an extra pair of test files, 5, by running SlewOnly on both 4 files identically. SlewOnly's a freebie audio unit and I linked to it and explained how it works (keeps only the difference between the last sample and the current one: another poster followed up explaining what that does in terms of EQ slope. It wipes out everything but super-highs)

We have a more fundamental issue because even if we went to 48K (which I think is well beyond what I need in terms of distinguishing continuous super-highs all the time), that is still entirely in the context of double blind listening. And I've said and continue to say: that which is ABXable is not enough. It is nothing more than the proven minimum you can possibly have. We can't experimentally determine the maximum you need, only come to consensus based on general agreement in all conditions. That is NOT the same as determining the minimum under all conditions…

My hearing reaches for cool moments. There's a difference between it picking out a moment and responding 'ah, nice detail' or 'that sounds dull', and being able to do that 20 out of 20 or 1000 out of 1000, scientifically. I can establish that there is a threshold past which the files given (the 4 pair and my 5) can always be distinguished, though the only difference is they were filtered and returned to the higher 'carrier' sample rate and bit depth. I can establish it by passing the ABX test through using ears and clicking buttons to say which is which. Bottom line is it was ABX and you guys are unscientific to invalidate that rather than take it as a data point. So what if I cranked the volume? People do that every day.

The really big issue here is that everybody in the ABX camp seem to be taking a completely unwarranted illogical jump and trying to use this jump to legislate what people are allowed to have for digital delivery formats, and that's a big problem from where I'm standing, and the reason this discussion is worth having.

The logical mistake is this. You guys are getting actually worked up about any attempt to expand digital audio beyond the minimum proven to be identifiable as a 'fault'. Changes in the super-highs, in the noise floor, ANY change from what you have at 24/96 or 24/192 can and must be considered a fault. If it was not different, you wouldn't be able to tell in ABX no matter what you did. Some of the examples, I couldn't ABX no matter what I did, because to ABX is to conclusively prove beyond ambiguity, 20 out of 20 (or to get a statistical confidence. 20 out of 20 is not 100% confidence. It's just very high)

Nothing about this proves that observations below this 'confidence bar' no longer exist.

Let's consider a totally failed ABX distinguishing, say, pair 2. You guys are behaving like below a certain point, absolutely no perceptions are accurate and relevant: that it proves the listener NEVER heard any of the information they claim to hear and are testing to see if they heard. But the confidence level gradually falls off as one lessens the distinctness. It'll go from 20/20 to say 18/20 (what I had with 320K vs. lossless, on a castanet sound) to 16/20 and the confidence (a statistical measure) will steadily drop until the chances hit the noise floor of 50%/50%, and further reduction in distinctness no longer reduces confidence because it can't, random guessing takes over.

Nothing about this PROVES a listener can't legitimately hear a detail once (correctly) in 100 wrong guesses. What it proves is that the listener can't claim to get it every time, and can't claim it is obvious. The nature of the lowering confidence more or less establishes that sometimes you legitimately hear a thing and sometimes you don't, and it's a big gray area between the two, not the flipping of a switch. Confidence is statistical. You can insist someone doesn't hear something even when they ABX it 20 out of 20, you're just almost certainly wrong in such a claim.

If the purpose of 96K (never mind 192K ) is to ensure that there is never a dull moment in your music listening then it's gotta be there however your hearing fluctuates. If your attention grabs for a telling detail at 44.1K and it's not there, that's a dull moment. It might have passed by unnoticed, probably would, but at 96K the content would be different and the moment would be different and it would be there to be heard whatever your listening condition or the state of your attention.

Passing an ABX test in which the only change is filtering everything over 10K, is listening to see which moments are 'dull'. That rolloff is super dull. It's beyond trivial and nobody would argue that all those moments are dull, and a non-rolled-off version would be superior.

Filtering over 22K? Controversy. Yet it's the same thing. Anytime you notice a moment where there should be audio content and it's not there, that is a data point. ABXing is finding the statistical point where you can conclusively say, ALL these moments are dull, every last one.

As confidence drops, you say, some of these are dull and some I can't tell anymore. A high score indicates you've got some grounds for saying, some of the time I can pick out that this is a problem. I want this problem not to be there for the times I can hear a problem in this sound.

As confidence drops further, you're saying this: I still hear a problem, every now and then. I can't prove it in the same way, but I want the quality improved until I never feel like I'm tripping over this problem that bothers me. I want NEVER a dull moment. I want even my fugitive sense that there's still something lacking, to be addressed. Because it's the same perception, same problem, same experience that told me 10K lowpassing was dull every time. It's just scaled up to where I encounter it so rarely that I'll never prove I hear it, but it's like a rattle in my car's trunk and bugs me anyway and I want it fixed. If a rattle irritates you only every few minutes, it can drive you nuts waiting for the next time your senses say 'there it is again!'

I want digital audio free of even the problems right at the threshold of loss of confidence. 100% ABX is not enough, that's the easy part. The confidence falls gently off as problems get subtler, and the area we care about is NOT the 100% proven one. We need digital audio performing at the threshold of 50%, pure guessing. Because anything in excess of that, anything at say 70% or 85% confidence, is still real. The 'guessing threshold' right where it drops to 50% confidence is where the bar should be set.

The math of this is established beyond question. I think many of the people in this thread, if they try, could beat 60% confidence over 20 trials, for the >22K filtering. If everybody consistently gets 60%, repeatably, you've proved that more fugitive problems exist in the sound that are sometimes not heard. You've established a slight statistical edge, and showed the other side of the 'bar', and proved that whatever you're doing is not always enough. Because enough would be 50% confidence, for everybody, all the time.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2800
Quote:

Probably worth checking to see if that's what they REALLY do, but no no no, marketing fail and Apple doesn't really do marketing fail
Apple III
Mac Portable
Color Classic
Performa line
Pippin game console
PowerPC (it sold but it was a strategic failure and a dead end product that really ticked off users as support drained away)
Cube
OS9
Quicktake Camera
iPod Hi Fi
iPod Socks
Ping
eWorld
hockey puck mouse
20th Anniversary Mac
iOS 6 Maps
Old 11th April 2014
  #2801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timesaver800W View Post
so what has been proved in pro audio? anyone knows that a pultec sounds great, but it hasn't been 'proved'. do you only reach for gear that comes complete with a 'white paper' proving its superior sound?

what has been proved however is that the temporal resolution in a low res file is inadequate.
First -- just what to you mean by low res file, specifically, and what is the degradation that this supposed lack of temporal resolution produces?

That said, if you simply mean that there's a direct relationship between sampling rate and maximum accurate frequency bandwidth, then I think most folks here will certainly agree.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2802
mixmixmix
Guest
The problem with this approach is the castanet sound. It is very boring sound. If you are spending time listening to this sound, you are listening to the sound which has no emotion in it. And then you take your findings and applying it to the whole of music. But music is much more complex. It can be very emotional. And when you connect with music on emotional level, technical details became less important. And suddenly, before you know it, you feel gratitude for 44.1 / 16 resolution. You don't want another player, or a new pair of headphones, or argue with other nuts on gearslutz. Because you've just heard some kind of message relevant to your life as a human being, and what you've heard is much more important than the format it was delivered to you in.

And there you have biggest problem with scientific methods - they separate sound from emotion. It is dead end, believe me. Life is too short to argue about hi-rez audio.

Another 10 -15 years of arguing and our ears will be low-passing incoming audio at 16 kHz. Who cares about Pono at this point. So make sure that you listen to emotion, and not to sound only, like a sound of a lonely castanet.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2803
Quote:
Nothing about this PROVES a listener can't legitimately hear a detail once (correctly) in 100 wrong guesses. What it proves is that the listener can't claim to get it every time, and can't claim it is obvious.
LOL.

The fact he had 99 'wrong' guesses and 1 'right' guess would seem to be somewhat suggestive that there might be something else at work in this example.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2804
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by luizdepalma View Post
>>> iTunes to offer 24bit 48k ...

iTunes to Offer 24-bit Downloads!? | AudioStream

yoop-dee-daa!

---[Quote]---

Here's Robert Hutton from his original post dated March 20, 2014:

"And the Led Zeppelin remasters in high resolution will be the kick off event - to coincide with Led Zep in hi-res, Apple will flip the switch and launch their hi-res store via iTunes - and apparently, it will be priced a buck above the typical current file prices.
That's right - Apple will launch hi-res iTunes in two months."


We've talked about this before, more than once, speculated, hoped, and wished Apple would flip their HD switch. Let's hope Mr. Hutton is right and that Apple got the Pono push it needed.

Through my own unnamed sources, who wish to remain unnamed, we're looking at a 24/48 format for Apple's high res releases. We shall see.

---[Unquote]---
Old 11th April 2014
  #2805
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
LOL.

The fact he had 99 'wrong' guesses and 1 'right' guess would seem to be somewhat suggestive that there is something else at work in this example.
I don't think you're arguing in good faith, and it's saddening me. So quick to accuse others of the same sin, and now this?

I stand behind everything I said, whether you 'LOL' or not. I'm perfectly serious. The 50% confidence threshold is the one we should be caring about for 'maximum safe resolution'.

Anytime you can statistically show through ABX testing above 50% that issues are being heard part of the time, that is worth attending to. 100% confidence is unachievable short of infinite trials, and near-100% confidence is nothing more than a stunt. Give me a break, you guys can't even accept it when someone does get nearly 100% confidence on an ABX!

ABX proves to be indeed interesting, but not in the way you're using it, as a weapon and means of belittlement. ABX means any result over 50% indicates a likelihood of SOMETIMES hearing whatever distinction's being tested for, to exact statistical confidence. If you did infinite trials and got 55% confidence you've effectively proved beyond all doubt that a difference was perceptible only some of the time (because at infinite trials, no difference will ALWAYS become 50% confidence)

Or are we going to continue to unscientifically misuse statistics to try to prove a negative?
Old 11th April 2014
  #2806
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
I don't think you're arguing in good faith, and it's saddening me. So quick to accuse others of the same sin, and now this?

I stand behind everything I said, whether you 'LOL' or not. I'm perfectly serious. The 50% confidence threshold is the one we should be caring about for 'maximum safe resolution'.

Anytime you can statistically show through ABX testing above 50% that issues are being heard part of the time, that is worth attending to. 100% confidence is unachievable short of infinite trials, and near-100% confidence is nothing more than a stunt. Give me a break, you guys can't even accept it when someone does get nearly 100% confidence on an ABX!

ABX proves to be indeed interesting, but not in the way you're using it, as a weapon and means of belittlement. ABX means any result over 50% indicates a likelihood of SOMETIMES hearing whatever distinction's being tested for, to exact statistical confidence. If you did infinite trials and got 55% confidence you've effectively proved beyond all doubt that a difference was perceptible only some of the time (because at infinite trials, no difference will ALWAYS become 50% confidence)

Or are we going to continue to unscientifically misuse statistics to try to prove a negative?
Don't be saddened, Chris. The world will catch up with this petty thread and it will be washed away like sand into the sea.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2807
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Apple are doing it now? Oh.....I smell a cultural shift coming on.

May I be the first to say, well done, Neil. This whole lark, however it turns out, will then yet bring sound quality of music files up in the focus of the great mass in one way or another it seems. Great stuff.

Now everyone can gt back to arguing about whether they actually sound better, soon the punters will make their own minds up.
Apple didn't /won't create the cultural shift. Neil did. Neil young is responsible for this audio equivalent of the pet rock.

Apple has always been the greatest repackager of existing technologies. If they do 24/48 ok but I will be surprised if they do 24/96. But as they say... Nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2808
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by noiseflaw View Post

Through my own unnamed sources, who wish to remain unnamed, we're looking at a 24/48 format for Apple's high res releases. We shall see.
That would actually be SMART. . Then apple could do an ad campaign that would debunk the "underwater" graph.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2809
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Apple didn't /won't create the cultural shift. Neil did. Neil young is responsible for this audio equivalent of the pet rock.

Apple has always been the greatest repackager of existing technologies. If they do 24/48 ok but I will be surprised if they do 24/96. But as they say... Nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.
Bringing 24/48 to the masses is more than happiness to me, swapping mp3's for that. I don't need 192 or such for happiness. But to actually make people en masse pay attention at ALL to the parameter 'sound quality' and how it can influence their consumption of music gets my vote every time. Go forth I say, go forth.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2810
If Sony and Philips had just gone with 18/48 in the first place, I think a lot of us would have never started kvetching. Of course, there would always be a segment of consumers as well as those in our sector who would entertain all sorts of fabulistic personal convictions, but it was clear that while 16/44.1 far surpassed the overwhelming majority of consumer playback systems in use then (which, arguably, often had higher fidelity analog elements that today's consumer playback systems), it was, in a sense, just barely enough to surpass all but the best consumer playback systems. Back then, I argued for more. And, to be sure, a higher SR would have made it easier to design high quality converters. Happily, modern converter technologies like multibit oversampling have allowed at least the digital side of consumer PB systems to get better. Unfortunately, in many cases, we've seen continued degradation of the analog parts of the consumer PB situation.

As has often been expressed in this thread, I'm sure many of us, no matter what we feel about the 'need' for various forms of HD formats, would LOVE to see a rebirth of consumer interest in good-sounding playback.

But little we've seen since the dawn of the digital age gives consumer audio market observers much hope of a reverse in the decline of consumer playback options.

Once folks realized they could hear 'big' bass and treble over their ear buds, it seemed to satisfy them.

There are a pair of college age kids who live next door. One's a former child bluegrass prodigy (he walked away) and the other seems to be the informal manager of one of his pals who is, himself, a talented beginning singer-songwriter. Back in what us old coots laughingly call 'the day,' the first thing guys like me did when moving was set up the stereo. I've yet to hear anything more than crappy boombox/table radio type sound from their place.

It's a new world.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2811
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1

LOL.

The fact he had 99 'wrong' guesses and 1 'right' guess would seem to be somewhat suggestive that there is something else at work in this example.
I don't think you're arguing in good faith, and it's saddening me. So quick to accuse others of the same sin, and now this?

I stand behind everything I said, whether you 'LOL' or not. I'm perfectly serious. The 50% confidence threshold is the one we should be caring about for 'maximum safe resolution'.

Anytime you can statistically show through ABX testing above 50% that issues are being heard part of the time, that is worth attending to. 100% confidence is unachievable short of infinite trials, and near-100% confidence is nothing more than a stunt. Give me a break, you guys can't even accept it when someone does get nearly 100% confidence on an ABX!

ABX proves to be indeed interesting, but not in the way you're using it, as a weapon and means of belittlement. ABX means any result over 50% indicates a likelihood of SOMETIMES hearing whatever distinction's being tested for, to exact statistical confidence. If you did infinite trials and got 55% confidence you've effectively proved beyond all doubt that a difference was perceptible only some of the time (because at infinite trials, no difference will ALWAYS become 50% confidence)

Or are we going to continue to unscientifically misuse statistics to try to prove a negative?
YOU don't think I am 'arguing in good faith.'

Make that LOFL.


I stopped treating your posts as worthy of serious regard when you selectively quoted me to suggest that I was saying something I most certainly was not and then would not respond to or address my rather pointed comments about the intellectual disreputability of that tactic.

So you know... LOFL.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2812
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
Apple has always been the greatest repackager of existing technologies. If they do 24/48 ok but I will be surprised if they do 24/96. But as they say... Nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the public.
I'd actually vote for 96K, though I certainly don't need it myself.

I would bet big amounts of money that there are lots of young kids who would be able to tell 48K from 96K at greater than 60% confidence. I think consistently you'd be seeing 60% to 75% confidence, probably no higher except in special cases.

That means their pickiness would have statistical validity in double-blind conditions, and the bigger the sample, the more closely you could nail down the rareness of their correct perceptions.

Definitely 50% for me, for that one _I_ don't need 96K… I don't even go for close-miked recordings anyway, as a rule.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2813
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve View Post
That would actually be SMART. . Then apple could do an ad campaign that would debunk the "underwater" graph.
Smart technically, but not good marketing. When was the last time you saw an ad trumpeting a product's lower "performance" numbers?

Apple will do whatever makes them the most cash. If there's a demand for ultra-high resolution music, they'll likely provide it. At a price, of course.

Cheers,
Eddie
Old 11th April 2014
  #2814
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

From Robbert Huttons Blog:

http://robertmusic.blogspot.no/2014/...res-audio.html

That's right - Apple will launch hi-res iTunes in two months.

And at that point, you can say goodbye to HD Tracks, Acoustic Sounds Hi-Res store, and ProStudioMasters, and probably all the other hi-res audio online stores. Apple will kill them, straight out of the box.



-----

Interesting developments afoot...

Bye bye Pono - if Apple get on this.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2815
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
YOU don't think I am 'arguing in good faith.'
Make that LOFL.
I stopped treating your posts as worthy of serious regard when you selectively quoted me to suggest that I was saying something I most certainly was not and then would not respond to or address my rather pointed comments about the intellectual disreputability of that tactic.
So you know... LOFL.
Listen to me, please. I REPHRASED you and offered it in my own words, in simpler form with less caveats. That wasn't a quote and nobody would consider you to have quoted something where the words are obviously changed! The hell? I'm sorry, and didn't realize you would flip out so thoroughly over the matter or I wouldn't have bothered trying to boil down what you've said into a simpler statement, which I then put forth to see if you'd still agree with it.

Evidently not!

Noted!

We've moved on. Honestly, it's way more fun crossing words with Kenny, because I KNOW sometimes he's just yanking my chain to get an amusing reaction, and we like each other. I even did mastering for him once, though it was a brief foolish affair that didn't last

With all the things people are accusing me of, do you think you could settle down a bit about the 'misquoted' thing? It's distressing me that this seems to have bothered you so badly. I swear I'd never, ever, have played with your words had I known you'd take it this way. I can play with Kenny instead. All day long. To the enjoyment of all
Old 11th April 2014
  #2816
Lives for gear
$950,000 dollars worth of gullible folks getting their money taken. There's a certain sort of justice in there somewhere.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2817
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by noiseflaw View Post
And at that point, you can say goodbye to HD Tracks, Acoustic Sounds Hi-Res store, and ProStudioMasters, and probably all the other hi-res audio online stores. Apple will kill them, straight out of the box.[/I]
Though, interestingly, Bandcamp ought to be fine. They're a source for FLACs too.

As for Pono, I think it'll be taken as a validation of Pono's approach, and that combined with the vast sums already raised by Pono means Pono basically takes the same approach that Apple does, further segmenting the market.

Apple does the luxury thing of well designed costly gear, including portable music players. Pono takes the luxury segment of Apple's segment of that market, which doesn't really damage Apple but is more than enough for a company Pono's size to thrive.

They are SO FAR over-funded. In order to function as a company they only had to get $800,000. And that's before the amount of publicity all this produced. I think they own their little market segment at this point, especially if the iTunes store is going to sell content that can be used on Ponos. That is a huge boost to Pono adoption.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2818
Gear Addict
 
adam_w's Avatar
Whatever happens is good news and means we'll get better consumer audio all over the place. The Apples and whatnot of the world will have to upgrade the hardware to sell the tracks, so it's all win for us. There's a huge difference between my phone and iPad audio quality even with lossy files - it can only hopefully get better. If pono's the catalyst, then cool - it's all worthwhile. As far as all the debating about is there any point and jerking off over specs, and this theory and that theory...I just don't get it. It either sounds better to you or doesn't. And yeah - looks like iTunes IS going HD later this year.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2819
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ellisr63 View Post
I had the oportunity to listen to a Pono a couple of weeks ago on some JTR speakers at 124db and it sounded better than any recording I had ever heard.
does "any recording I had ever heard" include listening to non-Pono music at 124 dB on the same JTR speakers? Like maybe just before or just after? Does that include sitting in a control room listening to the playback of the DAW at that same rate and depth? I don't suppose there was a 'blindfold' involved anywhere in this?

Quote:
had always liked vinyl over digital but this changed my mind.
It is becoming clear to me that some people's minds are more easily 'changed' than others. Usually those people are the same ones who don't even think to look for a fair or blinded comparison.

the conflation of "hi-res digital" with "vinyl" has always struck me as very very strange. They sound nothing alike. I would go so far as to say that if there is an audible difference, surely hi-resolution files would sound even less like vinyl.

the only explanations I can see are:
1. expectation caused by the mental picture of visualizing "smaller stairsteps"
2. a desire by some to FINALLY relinquish their objection to digital. Allowing oneself to "like" hi-resolution digital is a face-saving way of joining the 21st century without having to 'take back' all the things said previously.

when I win the lottery, I am going to set up an Institute for Perceptual Studies. All comers will be invited down to demonstrate their abilities. I will have a perfectly treated listening room, top equipment and some of the finest speakers in the world. I will also have a pair of JTRs.
Old 11th April 2014
  #2820
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Listen to me, please. I REPHRASED you and offered it in my own words, in simpler form with less caveats. That wasn't a quote and nobody would consider you to have quoted something where the words are obviously changed! The hell? I'm sorry, and didn't realize you would flip out so thoroughly over the matter or I wouldn't have bothered trying to boil down what you've said into a simpler statement, which I then put forth to see if you'd still agree with it.

Evidently not!

Noted!

We've moved on. Honestly, it's way more fun crossing words with Kenny, because I KNOW sometimes he's just yanking my chain to get an amusing reaction, and we like each other. I even did mastering for him once, though it was a brief foolish affair that didn't last

With all the things people are accusing me of, do you think you could settle down a bit about the 'misquoted' thing? It's distressing me that this seems to have bothered you so badly. I swear I'd never, ever, have played with your words had I known you'd take it this way. I can play with Kenny instead. All day long. To the enjoyment of all
Thank you for finally addressing that issue. Agreed that my words appeared accurately in the quote box, and, of course, my own quotes of your posts reflected that. It was the meaning that you appeared to attribute to my words stripped of the all-important qualifiers that troubled me, as well as a then-ongoing failure to address my subsequent posts about it.

Now, I raised these issues in a reasonably friendly manner in my very first post that responded to your post where, in the body of your own writing, to be sure, you had 'rephrased' [or quoted out of context or however one wants to cast it] and then suggested that we might consider that a new baseline; I rejected the notion of that new baseline and specifically noted that those omissions completely changed the meaning of what I had written.

Let me be clear: I did not mean to suggest that you were trying to say that I hadn't written what I'd written -- but rather it seemed to me that you were suggesting that your quote of it -- with those notable omissions -- was somehow still equivalent to what I'd written and could serve as a new baseline.

(And you will note that that 'rephrasing' took on a life of its own as others shot it down. At the point where I felt I had to explain my original post to Alistair, my patience was wearing thin with the situation.)

If you take a look at my linked post, you'll see that I quoted the pertinent bits to show the issues I took -- and you may also want to note that, at that point, I was still trying to maintain a friendly demeanor, use of grin-smilie, etc.

But when you repeatedly failed to address the issue, I finally decided to underline my concerns. And here we are.

At any rate, thank you for addressing that. Let's put it to rest.
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