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 12th April 2014
  #2851
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Apparently since the various squabbling over simple statistics is from people who won't even read the simple answer above, probably because they block all contrary input, I give up.
I always appreciate your views. I think this thread has so many sub-threads and cross-sub-threads that it's easy to loose track of dangling responses.

I usually learn a lot from your audio oriented posts -- and I read through your stats-oriented posts too, though I wasn't directly involved in that part of the dialog.

At least I hope I wasn't -- that cyber-sleepwalking can get crazy, y'know? heh
Old 12th April 2014
  #2852
Gear Nut
 

I don't have the time or energy to read this book of a thread. Who out there on this site has purchased this and what are your thoughts?
Old 12th April 2014
  #2853
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I now see that you took bandpass' files. What....

Dude, you are investing way too much time in this.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2854
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by animal eater View Post
I don't have the time or energy to read this book of a thread. Who out there on this site has purchased this and what are your thoughts?
It wouldn't matter.

You have no thoughts. Not unless those thoughts are run through a double blind ABX test...
Old 12th April 2014
  #2855
Lives for gear
 
GearAndGuitars's Avatar
 

and then there's this...

Quote:
High Definition iTunes Music Downloads May Be on the Horizon - Mac Rumors



Apple may also be planning to add high resolution audio downloads to iTunes as part of the revamp, allowing users to download lossless 24-bit audio files. According to music blogger Robert Hutton, who cites an unspecified source, Apple is going to roll out hi-res iTunes music downloads in early June, possibly at WWDC.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2856
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
It wouldn't matter.

You have no thoughts. Not unless those thoughts are run through a double blind ABX test...
I run all of my thoughts through an industrial triple blind ABX test
Old 12th April 2014
  #2857
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
It wouldn't matter.

You have no thoughts. Not unless those thoughts are run through a double blind ABX test...
I lol'd.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2858
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_j View Post
Apparently since the various squabbling over simple statistics is from people who won't even read the simple answer above, probably because they block all contrary input, I give up.
j_j is right about the statistics, false positives, false negatives, and the way it's all just confidences and weightings of probability.

UnderTow, on the other hand, wrote thousands of words of mockery about how I never listened to or passed an ABX test with unprocessed files, when I've said repeatedly that I played the unaltered 4 files after 'practicing' on 5, which I made. Played on a stock Lavry Black, off the ABX tester as given, using settings on the unmodified volume control, using untouched example files I didn't myself make.

I would really recommend that before lambasting me so intensely on the grounds that I didn't even listen to the files bandpass provided, you looked to see the numerous places where I said 'I used the files bandpass provided', or read the full unedited ABX tester log I provided that shows all the times I bailed out of a test, and which files were used on the two 20/20 tests, first the '5' pair I made, then the untouched '4' pair.

As for the statistics, again j_j nailed it. I would add that just as there is only a probability any given trial produced a correct identification of a difference, by the same token that says NOTHING about whether the threshold is always the same trial by trial.

It's not. It varies, and sometimes you're sharper than others, even on an instant-by-instant basis. So the probability returned is itself 'fuzzy' on that grounds as well… and if you did a million trials, the result wouldn't necessarily converge towards 100% or 50%. In some cases it would converge towards, say, 75%.

Statistically, a million trials converging towards 75% is consistent with half the trials being an authentic hearing of a difference and correctly identifying it, and half not hearing a difference and guessing.

I think we lost j_j but from my understanding of it, that's even the correct estimation of probabilities for that result. It's what you'd get if the test switched between a perceiveable and an unperceivable difference every trial.

What that would mean is, a 75% confidence over a sufficiently large sample set would mean that MOST LIKELY the perceptions were REAL but fugitive, varying. Which is the reality of the thing, and why these tests are even done. (and it would 'prove' neither the positive or the negative.)

It's just that it would be very unlikely a totally distinguishable test would end up at 75%, and very unlikely a totally guessing test would end up at 75%, but a fugitive, every-other-trial-is-distinguishable test would gravitate more toward 75% the longer you went. The error would cancel out and the statistical likelihood would trend towards whatever represented the percentage of trials really were distinguishable. For truly imperceptible differences, this would trend toward 50% and most certainly not anything higher.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2859
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by animal eater View Post
I don't have the time or energy to read this book of a thread. Who out there on this site has purchased this and what are your thoughts?
no one has purchased it because it is not yet for sale
though some may have donated to the Kickstarter...

the discussion is based around the claim in the Pono promotional material that the one and only reason Pono sounds so 'amazing' it that it utilizes high sampling rates. Professional engineers who have been using those exact same high sample rates for years are scoffing at the exaggerated nature of the claims. Another topic is the morality of charging a premium price for something for which the improvement has yet to be demonstrated to even exist, never mind be "Huge".

One person claims to have directly listened to what we can only assume is a Prototype Pono - listening at "124 dB" FWIW. He said it was the "best recording he ever heard", but made no mention if he directly compared it to any other device at that volume, or even to itself at any other volume.

Other people have reported using other brands of portable hi-resolution players, mostly minus the extreme hype.

Side discussions include some odd justifications of why Pono's insistence on quadruple and octuple sample rates might be "true". These include quasi-religious beliefs in human ultrasonic perception, how you don't need to close your eyes to do a fair test, and even outright rejections of Shannon/Nyquist (the principle upon which all digital audio at all sample rates is based)

I think that about sums it up.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2860
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
the discussion is based around the claim in the Pono promotional material that the one and only reason Pono sounds so 'amazing' it that it utilizes high sampling rates.
Nope. They have very good analog stages from the looks of the design, and they're so aware of this that they are producing a clear version where you can gawk at all the capacitors. Not only that, they're also executing the double and quad sample rates with a very different reconstruction filter… a moving average.

The truly funny thing about this is, it COMPLETELY throws away the super-high frequencies we're all talking about

But it also completely circumvents the issues of reconstruction creating brief overshoots beyond the range of the sample values (which is a known problem on 44.1K and can be demonstrated using SSL's 'X-ISM' meter).

I think these things are the real reasons Ponos purportedly sound so good, and so impress random listeners in the videos. The people shown in their videos clearly have never heard high sample rate digital audio used to extend the rejection band short of Nyquist. They have always listened to stuff with Nyquist at 22.050K and a really steep brickwall filter that causes ripple, pre-echo and overshoots.

Seems like they like the much shallower filter and total, measurable lack of ripple, pre-echo and overshoots. That IS what you get from implementing high sample rates that way. It has way less to do with frequencies up in the stratosphere and way more to do with handling of the top range OF human hearing as we know it… but you still have to have high sample rate to implement it.

Hell, if they're doing different degrees of moving average for 96K and 192K, they may be throwing away everything above 20K identically no matter which rate you pick. Or, 30K, something else much more reasonable. I'd love to know how many FIR taps they're using for their moving average, because we could calculate exactly where they're rolling off.

Of course, you could legitimately say that to do this, they are indeed 'using' high sampling rates. But it's got nothing to do with delivering the frequencies you'd get from a strict 'sampling theorem' Nyquist implementation at 192K, because they're not implementing one. Their rig at 192K will not deliver anywhere NEAR 96K signals at full scale in correct phase. Their moving-average rig will filter out 96K almost completely, and might not be delivering full output until nearly 20K.

…and it would be funny as hell if 44.1K sounds 'underwater' to them because they're still doing a moving-average on it, and you lose everything above 10K! It would become like the most lush, rich, sensuous, liquid version of the Myspace stream player You can still implement a moving average on that little data, but you'll trash everything up near 20K... I could throw together a quick plugin to show you, even, if you use Audio Units. We can hear that over regular converters, but without all the sonic benefits because we'd be still dealing with the standard Nyquist-based converters too.

This also means, knowing the characteristics of the converter, you could master or devise special upsampling to feed the Pono DAC. It's gonna have predictable behaviors that are not the same as typical converters we're familiar with. Algorithm's very different, as is the roll-off.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2861
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
no one has purchased it because it is not yet for sale
though some may have donated to the Kickstarter...

the discussion is based around the claim in the Pono promotional material that the one and only reason Pono sounds so 'amazing' it that it utilizes high sampling rates. Professional engineers who have been using those exact same high sample rates for years are scoffing at the exaggerated nature of the claims. Another topic is the morality of charging a premium price for something for which the improvement has yet to be demonstrated to even exist, never mind be "Huge".

One person claims to have directly listened to what we can only assume is a Prototype Pono - listening at "124 dB" FWIW. He said it was the "best recording he ever heard", but made no mention if he directly compared it to any other device at that volume, or even to itself at any other volume.

Other people have reported using other brands of portable hi-resolution players, mostly minus the extreme hype.

Side discussions include some odd justifications of why Pono's insistence on quadruple and octuple sample rates might be "true". These include quasi-religious beliefs in human ultrasonic perception, how you don't need to close your eyes to do a fair test, and even outright rejections of Shannon/Nyquist (the principle upon which all digital audio at all sample rates is based)

I think that about sums it up.
I don't need to close my eyes... because the Foobar ABX plugin hides everything for me. heh (Although it doesn't automatically turn off the running score, but the user can.)

But I knew joeq was speaking figuratively, of course.


I just couldn't resist.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
UnderTow, on the other hand, wrote thousands of words of mockery about how I never listened to or passed an ABX test with unprocessed files
One of only two Gearslutz I have on ignore.
Heated debate is fun an'all, and I think Alistair probably talks a lot of sense. But I never need to be personally abused and belittled just over a basic difference of opinion or different personal philosophy.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2863
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I think that about sums it up.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2864
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Nope. They have very good analog stages from the looks of the design,
So, better than the analog stages used by major recording studios and mastering houses, then. Because I think most of the rock stars in the video have been to a studio or two, and yet Pono is the "best thing they ever heard".

Better than the analog stages of the FiiO player and the Astell & Kern, too, I guess. Should we expect to see a rack mounted version of Pono for use in mastering houses and so on? Given this totally new thing that nobody else is doing, you would think the Pono promotional material would say something more than endlessly flogging sample rates.

I am trying to follow your explanation, and I am still puzzled as to how any of this makes 384k sound better than 192k. So much better that it is like flying on the wings of an angel. You would think moving the filter higher to get out of the way would have diminishing returns once is it out of the way of the most bat-eared human on the planet.

Too bad the analog stages of the Pono player are unavailable to some poor sap who downloads a song from the Pono Store to use on his other brand of player. Maybe that's why they are less communicative about their D/A.

Quote:
…and it would be funny as hell if 44.1K sounds 'underwater' to them because they're still doing a moving-average on it, and you lose everything above 10K!
yes crippling 44.1 would be hilarious if that's how they elicited their testimonials of how much "better" Pono sounds. It would also explain a lot about that video.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2865
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
So, better than the analog stages used by major recording studios and mastering houses, then. Because I think most of the rock stars in the video have been to a studio or two, and yet Pono is the "best thing they ever heard".

Better than the analog stages of the FiiO player and the Astell & Kern, too, I guess. Should we expect to see a rack mounted version of Pono for use in mastering houses and so on? Given this totally new thing that nobody else is doing, you would think the Pono promotional material would say something more than endlessly flogging sample rates.

I am trying to follow your explanation, and I am still puzzled as to how any of this makes 384k sound better than 192k. So much better that it is like flying on the wings of an angel. You would think moving the filter higher to get out of the way would have diminishing returns once is it out of the way of the most bat-eared human on the planet.

Too bad the analog stages of the Pono player are unavailable to some poor sap who downloads a song from the Pono Store to use on his other brand of player. Maybe that's why they are less communicative about their D/A.



yes crippling 44.1 would be hilarious if that's how they elicited their testimonials of how much "better" Pono sounds. It would also explain a lot about that video.
I guess I never actually watched the video and it is a bit obnoxious but I feel its not that much worse than a TV car commercial.

As for the device not being available yet and just comparing the format, I have already stated my opinion on the format and I do think it's better, just very slightly (and I ABX tested on request for anyone who will tell me it's perception), but it is reasonable to market your product like that, even if obnoxious and if the player is what makes the difference, that is the product, not the format.



Which brings me back to the original point I wanted to make. Even if this is not what it is what it claims to be, it does put pressure on others to make a higher quality device, add storage space for not such a high premium, and the format has absolutely no downside. If anything, the attention it's getting will help us all (in a consumer product perspective) more likely than it will hurt us.

Again, not to go there again but we need to stop thinking that the converters on the market at this moment are the best we will ever hear and we did see some big leaps in the mid range stuff (yet to buy high end) in the last 10 years, in the last 15-20, huge differences so that technology is important to this whole idea.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2866
mixmixmix
Guest
Artists who endorsed Pono don't realize how phony they look praising this gadget. It is painfully obvious they just want to get paid / stay in the public eye etc.

Rock 'n' Roll started out as an act of rebellion. Today those corporate *****s will do anything to get a buck. And Neil Young is nothing but a pimp. Digital age pimp, hawking Pono to naive general public.

He use to write great songs. What happened to him? Did not he make enough money?
Old 12th April 2014
  #2867
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
I guess I never actually watched the video and it is a bit obnoxious but I feel its not that much worse than a TV car commercial.

As for the device not being available yet and just comparing the format, I have already stated my opinion on the format and I do think it's better, just very slightly (and I ABX tested on request for anyone who will tell me it's perception), but it is reasonable to market your product like that, even if obnoxious and if the player is what makes the difference, that is the product, not the format.



Which brings me back to the original point I wanted to make. Even if this is not what it is what it claims to be, it does put pressure on others to make a higher quality device, add storage space for not such a high premium, and the format has absolutely no downside. If anything, the attention it's getting will help us all (in a consumer product perspective) more likely than it will hurt us.

Again, not to go there again but we need to stop thinking that the converters on the market at this moment are the best we will ever hear and we did see some big leaps in the mid range stuff (yet to buy high end) in the last 10 years, in the last 15-20, huge differences so that technology is important to this whole idea.
This actually makes sense. There is a lot of hysteria in this thread. Thanks for balancing it out a bit.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2868
Here for the gear
 

the majority of the pledgers for pono are insufferable rubes that treat neil like audio jesus, they literally don't give a **** about the functionality of the device or specs and up to last night were mainly concerned with low serial numbers and who's name is scribbled on the side of the player. I'm honestly a bit interested in pono because my ipod classic doesn't hold a charge for over 30 minutes so I'm in the market for a replacement eventually. pono is around the same price as other flac players and has an advantage of storage capacity, nothing I've seen can do 128GB for $300, and i'd say it's a good bet that 128GB SD cards will work as well.

I pledged a few bucks so I can comment and ask about specs and got shouted down about how I have to "have faith in neil". people have literally said that they don't care if the player was a banana, as long as neil says it sounds good they'll buy it. one guy responded to my questions with:

"I mean, have you ever tried to record audio digitally ? You probably start at 44,1khz and you're fine with it until you experiment with higher frequencies. Then you realize as you get used to the sound of your instruments that anything under is deteriorating the sound by a LOT, and yet you only recorded a couple notes of a guitar (what!!!???). You also find that 192 and anything over is infinite times better for rhythm. For example, you cant hear a musicians subtlety accelerating at anything under 192, which can render a solo pointless. So with that said, imagine recording/mastering for a band of 6 or more ! Believe me, the videos are not communicating bull****."

these people have downed gallons of kool-aid. surprisingly the pono team responded to my questions directly in about ten minutes, which was appreciated, and shortly afterwards put up their posts about their DAC. it's nice to get at least a little better idea of what they're offering, and its a given that things will change when it goes into production, but now the pono cult are raging that specs have "distracted from neil's vision" and are pissed because they don't understand ohms.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post

Which brings me back to the original point I wanted to make. Even if this is not what it is what it claims to be, it does put pressure on others to make a higher quality device, add storage space for not such a high premium, and the format has absolutely no downside. If anything, the attention it's getting will help us all (in a consumer product perspective) more likely than it will hurt us.
I strongly disagree.
It means nothing to the main consumer demographic. Tech nerds and musicians might care about the ultimate sound quality, but then we don't need to attract that demographic back to buying music. We need to attract back the average 16 to 40 year olds.
Not only does Pono do nothing in that regard, it makes us look stupid.
We need to get young people buying new music again, in a way that nurtures and supports new music. The way to health in our industry is innovation and new blood. To propose charging premium prices for albums recorded 20 to 40 years ago is going to change anything - is actually a disaster and could make you angry if you thought anyone was listening. But thankfully I think the vast majority of potential music customers neither know or care about Pono.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2870
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMH View Post
one guy responded to my questions with:

"I mean, have you ever tried to record audio digitally ? You probably start at 44,1khz and you're fine with it until you experiment with higher frequencies. Then you realize as you get used to the sound of your instruments that anything under is deteriorating the sound by a LOT, and yet you only recorded a couple notes of a guitar (what!!!???). You also find that 192 and anything over is infinite times better for rhythm. For example, you cant hear a musicians subtlety accelerating at anything under 192, which can render a solo pointless. So with that said, imagine recording/mastering for a band of 6 or more ! Believe me, the videos are not communicating bull****."

How about that? SmoothVibe is on the Pono site! Who knew?
Old 12th April 2014
  #2871
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixmixmix View Post
Artists who endorsed Pono don't realize how phony they look praising this gadget. It is painfully obvious they just want to get paid / stay in the public eye etc.

Rock 'n' Roll started out as an act of rebellion. Today those corporate *****s will do anything to get a buck. And Neil Young is nothing but a pimp. Digital age pimp, hawking Pono to naive general public.

He use to write great songs. What happened to him? Did not he make enough money?
Pretty sad, if you really believe that.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2872
Gear Head
 
sickie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
..., Open Source player Foobar has...
For the record: foobar2000 is proprietary (closed source).
Old 12th April 2014
  #2873
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Nope. They have very good analog stages from the looks of the design, and they're so aware of this that they are producing a clear version where you can gawk at all the capacitors. Not only that, they're also executing the double and quad sample rates with a very different reconstruction filter… a moving average.

The truly funny thing about this is, it COMPLETELY throws away the super-high frequencies we're all talking about

But it also completely circumvents the issues of reconstruction creating brief overshoots beyond the range of the sample values (which is a known problem on 44.1K and can be demonstrated using SSL's 'X-ISM' meter).

I think these things are the real reasons Ponos purportedly sound so good, and so impress random listeners in the videos. The people shown in their videos clearly have never heard high sample rate digital audio used to extend the rejection band short of Nyquist. They have always listened to stuff with Nyquist at 22.050K and a really steep brickwall filter that causes ripple, pre-echo and overshoots.

Seems like they like the much shallower filter and total, measurable lack of ripple, pre-echo and overshoots. That IS what you get from implementing high sample rates that way. It has way less to do with frequencies up in the stratosphere and way more to do with handling of the top range OF human hearing as we know it… but you still have to have high sample rate to implement it.

Hell, if they're doing different degrees of moving average for 96K and 192K, they may be throwing away everything above 20K identically no matter which rate you pick. Or, 30K, something else much more reasonable. I'd love to know how many FIR taps they're using for their moving average, because we could calculate exactly where they're rolling off.

Of course, you could legitimately say that to do this, they are indeed 'using' high sampling rates. But it's got nothing to do with delivering the frequencies you'd get from a strict 'sampling theorem' Nyquist implementation at 192K, because they're not implementing one. Their rig at 192K will not deliver anywhere NEAR 96K signals at full scale in correct phase. Their moving-average rig will filter out 96K almost completely, and might not be delivering full output until nearly 20K.

…and it would be funny as hell if 44.1K sounds 'underwater' to them because they're still doing a moving-average on it, and you lose everything above 10K! It would become like the most lush, rich, sensuous, liquid version of the Myspace stream player You can still implement a moving average on that little data, but you'll trash everything up near 20K... I could throw together a quick plugin to show you, even, if you use Audio Units. We can hear that over regular converters, but without all the sonic benefits because we'd be still dealing with the standard Nyquist-based converters too.

This also means, knowing the characteristics of the converter, you could master or devise special upsampling to feed the Pono DAC. It's gonna have predictable behaviors that are not the same as typical converters we're familiar with. Algorithm's very different, as is the roll-off.
Hahahaha, this is gold, Chris. If this is the case, all the moaning and groaning about 'how it can sound any different to what all those artists have heard in studios millions of times' makes complete sense, and all the moaning about dog whistles are totally irrelevant. Beauty.

Re-read this post, chaps. Now, get back to moaning. Might be a little trickier to sound clever now though.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2874
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Nope. They have very good analog stages from the looks of the design, and they're so aware of this that they are producing a clear version where you can gawk at all the capacitors. Not only that, they're also executing the double and quad sample rates with a very different reconstruction filter… a moving average.

The truly funny thing about this is, it COMPLETELY throws away the super-high frequencies we're all talking about

But it also completely circumvents the issues of reconstruction creating brief overshoots beyond the range of the sample values (which is a known problem on 44.1K and can be demonstrated using SSL's 'X-ISM' meter).

I think these things are the real reasons Ponos purportedly sound so good, and so impress random listeners in the videos. The people shown in their videos clearly have never heard high sample rate digital audio used to extend the rejection band short of Nyquist. They have always listened to stuff with Nyquist at 22.050K and a really steep brickwall filter that causes ripple, pre-echo and overshoots.

Seems like they like the much shallower filter and total, measurable lack of ripple, pre-echo and overshoots. That IS what you get from implementing high sample rates that way. It has way less to do with frequencies up in the stratosphere and way more to do with handling of the top range OF human hearing as we know it… but you still have to have high sample rate to implement it.

Hell, if they're doing different degrees of moving average for 96K and 192K, they may be throwing away everything above 20K identically no matter which rate you pick. Or, 30K, something else much more reasonable. I'd love to know how many FIR taps they're using for their moving average, because we could calculate exactly where they're rolling off.

Of course, you could legitimately say that to do this, they are indeed 'using' high sampling rates. But it's got nothing to do with delivering the frequencies you'd get from a strict 'sampling theorem' Nyquist implementation at 192K, because they're not implementing one. Their rig at 192K will not deliver anywhere NEAR 96K signals at full scale in correct phase. Their moving-average rig will filter out 96K almost completely, and might not be delivering full output until nearly 20K.

…and it would be funny as hell if 44.1K sounds 'underwater' to them because they're still doing a moving-average on it, and you lose everything above 10K! It would become like the most lush, rich, sensuous, liquid version of the Myspace stream player You can still implement a moving average on that little data, but you'll trash everything up near 20K... I could throw together a quick plugin to show you, even, if you use Audio Units. We can hear that over regular converters, but without all the sonic benefits because we'd be still dealing with the standard Nyquist-based converters too.

This also means, knowing the characteristics of the converter, you could master or devise special upsampling to feed the Pono DAC. It's gonna have predictable behaviors that are not the same as typical converters we're familiar with. Algorithm's very different, as is the roll-off.
getting warmer
Old 12th April 2014
  #2875
Lives for gear
 
O.F.F.'s Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixmixmix View Post
Artists who endorsed Pono don't realize how phony they look praising this gadget. It is painfully obvious they just want to get paid / stay in the public eye etc.
Doesn't look good for Beck then given that his last album was almost completely recorded in that dreadful 44.1 format except two tracks which were recorded in mp3.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2876
Gear Head
 

I'm thinking, what's the need for all that dynamic range when most of today's popular music needs 12dB or less? What's the need for 192 or 96 kHz sampling rate when an average young human can't hear above 20kHz and the ability to hear high frequencies starts to decline at the age of 8 (according to Wikipedia).

The first cd I listened to was Symphonie Fantastique, played by Berliner Philarmoniker under Daniel Barenboim from 1985. It didn't take a long time for me to forget all about the technic involved and get deep into the music. Totally relaxed knowing there would not be any noise from the disk getting in between me and the music. A wonderful musical experience.
That record has a dynamic range of around 40 dB from the quietest parts to the loudest. 16 bits is enough to cover that range.

I have heard many good CDs since, and some bad.
Me thinks that if a cd sounds bad to me, it is not because of limitations of the media. It is because of bad decisions being made in the process of making the record.

If we want good quality music we need to focus on what's important. To deliver the content in a 'bigger box' is not the solution.
I believe that what the subjects in those videos reacted to was not so much 192/24 as good carefully remastered songs with lots of dynamics delivered with a high quality player.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2877
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by H.E. View Post
I'm thinking, what's the need for all that dynamic range when most of today's popular music needs 12dB or less? What's the need for 192 or 96 kHz sampling rate when an average young human can't hear above 20kHz and the ability to hear high frequencies starts to decline at the age of 8 (according to Wikipedia).

The first cd I listened to was Symphonie Fantastique, played by Berliner Philarmoniker under Daniel Barenboim from 1985. It didn't take a long time for me to forget all about the technic involved and get deep into the music. Totally relaxed knowing there would not be any noise from the disk getting in between me and the music. A wonderful musical experience.
That record has a dynamic range of around 40 dB from the quietest parts to the loudest. 16 bits is enough to cover that range.

I have heard many good CDs since, and some bad.
Me thinks that if a cd sounds bad to me, it is not because of limitations of the media. It is because of bad decisions being made in the process of making the record.

If we want good quality music we need to focus on what's important. To deliver the content in a 'bigger box' is not the solution.
I believe that what the subjects in those videos reacted to was not so much 192/24 as good carefully remastered songs with lots of dynamics delivered with a high quality player.
Maybe re-read chrisj's twice reposted post and see if that might change your perspective on the possible and the to be assumed.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2878
Gear Head
 

Oh and about the Pono player itself... I think it looks quite good. Yellow, easily recognizable on the street. People will see it and be curious of what it sounds like. Good marketing thinking. Maybe.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2879
tkr
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
So, better than the analog stages used by major recording studios and mastering houses, then. Because I think most of the rock stars in the video have been to a studio or two, and yet Pono is the "best thing they ever heard".

Better than the analog stages of the FiiO player and the Astell & Kern, too, I guess. Should we expect to see a rack mounted version of Pono for use in mastering houses and so on? Given this totally new thing that nobody else is doing, you would think the Pono promotional material would say something more than endlessly flogging sample rates.
I don`t know......
Digital theory isn`t the easiest thing to understand. Probably a lot easier to get a "Higher sampling rate = BETTER!!" - message across than "well, we have implemented this new filter, see, and now we can use less steep filter slopes, but we need to use high sample rates".

Quote:
I am trying to follow your explanation, and I am still puzzled as to how any of this makes 384k sound better than 192k. So much better that it is like flying on the wings of an angel. You would think moving the filter higher to get out of the way would have diminishing returns once is it out of the way of the most bat-eared human on the planet.

Too bad the analog stages of the Pono player are unavailable to some poor sap who downloads a song from the Pono Store to use on his other brand of player. Maybe that's why they are less communicative about their D/A.
Well, they want to sell Pono players, don`t they?

Quote:
yes crippling 44.1 would be hilarious if that's how they elicited their testimonials of how much "better" Pono sounds. It would also explain a lot about that video.
It doesn`t seem logical to cripple 44.1 and get away with it, considering that all those people have been in a studio or two.
Old 12th April 2014
  #2880
Lives for gear
My thoughts about Pono at this point is this. You might not like that Pono is not a streaming service, you might not like that music on Pono will be pretty expensive to consume, you might not like that the Pono music catalogue might turn out relatively limited and you might not even be a fan of Neil Young. But one thing is for sure, the mobile music beauty will be far greater than Spotify and iTunes on their current versions and the impact will be global. So from a pure music beauty point of view, Pono is what Spotify and iTunes at least should have been on their initial versions.

So how big is the difference? In relative terms it is huge, in absolute terms it's tiny. If I can notice an emotional difference at [email protected] even from using a high distortion D/A converter like the RME Fireface 800 out through some high distortion Mackie HR 824 nearfields in an acoustically untreated room just playing some of my own old out of tune and distorted recordings (this was many years ago), then in my understanding it means the potential of [email protected] at an end-to-end high quality signal chain is really great, the impact Pono will have on music will be a relatively big one.

Having said that, I do not view Pono as music consumption without compromise. A much greater solution would be to see music produced and consumed on DSD512 or similar 24.576 MHz (512 times 48 kHz/CD-quality) delivered in a Dolby Atmos format or similar.

Dolby Atmos on Wikipedia

Dolby Atmos article

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