Since this was a press event, and more than a few press members present had nary a clue about Pono, a lot of the information that was shared has already been said. But one of the big revelations for audiophiles came afterwards, when, in conversation with Pono's Executive Vice President of Technology, Pedram Abrari, I learned that Pono is planning a player upgrade that will make DSD file playback possible. The upgrade is now in the testing stage. Charlie Hansen of Ayre, who designed the DAC and analog circuitry in the Pono player, may not be a fan of DSD, but the player's chip is capable of DSD playback, and will do so in the future. There are no current plans for 352.8/24 (DXD) and 384/24 file playback, but DSD is coming.
In addition, Ralph Santana, chief marketing officer of Harman, announced a plan to bring Pono to the automotive experience. One of the places at CES where people can take a listen to Pono is at the Harman booth at Las Vegas' Hard Rock Café.
One of the features that, from my perspective makes Pono stand out from many other Digital Audio Players (DAPs) is that it has two outputs than can be run four different ways: headphone-level, line-level, dual headphone-level, and balanced line-level. In other words, you do not have to listen to Pono solo. You can share the experience, either with one other person via two sets of headphones, or with far more than one by plugging the player into your existing sound system. And you can also use the player in professional set-ups.
The Pono store already has 2 million tracks available from the big 3 labels, and is now ingesting material from the independents. You can, of course, download music from other sources (eg, HDTracks), but when you play back a file sourced from the Pono store, a little blue light will indicate that it not only comes from the store, but that its provenance is assured by Neil Young and crew. That means that if they say it's 24/192, it's not a 24/96 file that has been upsampled, but rather a true 24/192 file, either identical to a 24/192 master, or converted directly from analog to 24/192.
Note as well that Young has stretched the definition of high-resolution to include Red Book files recorded at 16/44.1, and sold as such.
Young was as direct and real as can be. Much of what he said he has said before. If there was any disappointment, it was that he still thinks of audiophiles and music listeners as men, and reminds them that it's their wives that call the shots on appearances. After Young's talk, both yours truly and recording engineer Leslie Ann Jones, a major player in both The Recording Academy and Skywalker Sound, reminded Abrari that not all audiophiles are either heterosexual or male—some are neither—and that many men care as much about appearances as some women.
Nonetheless, the way Neil Young ended his talk was most convincing.
"We are very sensitive human beings," he said, "and we have been deprived... I'm concerned with presenting and preserving the art. What matters, in the end, is if you can hear it. Can your soul recognize it? Can you feel it? Or do you not care, and just use music as wallpaper? If people love music, they'll hear the difference hi-resolution makes, and they'll talk to other people. That's the way that we'll educate people, and Pono and hi-res music will grow."
COMMENTS
"when you play back a file sourced from the Pono store, a little blue light will indicate that it not only comes from the store, but that its provenance is assured by Neil Young and crew."
PROVENANCE is where it's at with Hi-Res digital music. Without it what's being sold/offered is simply a "pig in a poke." When charging a premium price the consumer deserves assurance they are receiving a premium product.
Take note HDtracks!
He has been a champion of more bytes on disc for many years, he was one of the first artists if not only one that I can remember, who in the 80's railed against the CD and its inferior sound. That he now considers 16 bit 44.1 khz part of the high resolution family is proof that 16 bits was always enough, that it was those shiny silver discs that were the limiting factor. I hope his product and site take off with much success.
If Young was against CD's, and he considered it inferior sound, what has changed? CDs are 16/44.1 and they are uncompressed vs compressed files that are also 16/44.1. It sounds like Young is being hypocritical.
I think part of why CDs didn't sound that good was due to the way they were mastered, possibly AD and DA converters that weren't as good as they are now. and because record labels started to release heavily compressed (audio compression) masters as they wanted to get their recordings to have that punch, and "fatness" to the recording, etc. etc.
I think Pono isn't going to be around a long time due to lack of customers. I think they are going to need a lot more customers buying Pono devices and downloading content for them to make any decent amount of profit. Sorry, but I just don't see it.
More a reappraisal of his position and mine. I always thought it was the discs but realize now with computer audio that the weakness was more in the machines themselves. I agree the remastering was horrific back then but I believe 16 bit if done right is good enough and I suspect Neil Young realized that as well (at least I hope). I also agree that all these high rez devices might not be around for too long save for a fringe group. The world doesn't need another ipod nor another device to carry. The market has spoken! As for the high rez sites, time will tell I guess but right now the costs are too high to warrant in my opinion and streaming is so popular these days. People who are not computer savvy that I know, in their 60's are happy to stream. I think streaming is the biggest enemy. Still I wish Neil Young all the best because he does get it.
When someone says one day that CDs suck (CDs are 16/44.1) and then not too long afterwards, they consider 16/44.1 High Resolution. MP3, MP4 are 16/44.1.
As far as streaming, it's catching up but it's still not as popular to buying singles and albums, etc.
Here's a website you might want to check out and see what the latest Market Statistics are. It's very interesting to see the trends.
https://musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/is-streaming-the-next-big-thing-an-international-market-analysis/
I'm all for better audio, but I wouldn't consider 16/44.1 as High Res. I would consider it standard res as that's what is considered the standard that emerged with CDs and that's the norm for CDs, but for MP3 and MP4. If it was originally recorded as 16/44.1, then it's probably best to leave it alone, but nowadays a lot of digital recordings are either being done analog or if done digitally a lot are being done at 24/96 or higher and people should be able to get those versions where they "leave the original masters" alone.
between playing 16 bits 44.1 on a CD player and running it through properly set up computer audio. The difference blew me away and I was sure I would never jump to computer audio after having spent a fortune on CD players, but it was night and day and made a near 10k YBA cd player a distant second place finisher. Yes, 16 bit 44.1, is not high rez but Young is not selling CD's which is what he always criticized, but a download service with a media player and while I am just surmising I believe he now believes that 44.1 through computer audio is acceptable.
And furthermore, the data flow rate is very different in these cases which you erroneously equate:
"MP3, MP4 are 16/44.1."
However, as a semi audiophile, I agree that hi rez is anything above Redbook standard. But I'm not the sort of listener Neil Young is talking about or to.
All I know and care about is what my DAC says. My DAC has a display on the front, and it can play 16/44.1 all the way up to 24/384, plus DSD 1x, 2x and 3x and when I play MP3's and MP4 files, the DAC says 16/44.1. I know there are different bit rates of these compressed files, but the DAC is at 16/44.1.
I agree with you that hi rez is anything above Redbook. Not everyone thinks that 24/44.1 is hi rez, but I'll go with Sony on that one that that is hi rez - higher rez than Redbook.
Your initial comment about mp3 being 16/44 (which they are, sometimes,) is akin to saying that both cars and camels normally contact the ground at four points. It's not terribly relevant to any discussion of the merits.
The fact that mp3 files are lossy and that they have data flow rates around 1/4th or 1/5th of Redbook remains the relevant, governing distinction.
Most 320kbps MP3 sold are typically from 16/44.1 masters and they are compressing during the encoding process, but our computers decode them so the DAC can play it. Yeah, since they are compressing it, the bit rate drops accordingly, but the sample rate stays the same at 44.1 during the encoding process, but they have to be decoded so the DAC can convert to analog so we can hear it.
You don't appear to know what "compression" is versus what "lossy" is going by this last post of yours.
Did I say that it reconstructs it exactly like the original? NO. I know that information is lost during the encoding process. I was ASSUMING that everyone knows and understands that with lossy that information is lost, but it goes through a decoding process after it's been encoded and compressed. But the files are compressed, it's just HOW they are compressed by the algorithm and how much they compress it down to. But the have to go through a decoding process before it gets fed into the DAC. They aren't feeding the encoded file without decoding it, which is what you seem to think based on your comments.
Explain what happens during the decoding process so a DAC and convert it to Analog? Don't worry, I know that with lossless compression that there is some information lost during the encoding process and it can't make it exactly how it was before it was encoded. But what happens during that Decoding process so my DAC can convert it to analog. The sample rate does not change during both processes.
Now, I have heard CDs and compared to MP3 and in some recordings, it's VERY difficult to tell the difference and this is with careful listening on a decent system over many weeks of listening to the recordings. Sometimes I honestly can't tell much difference in some recordings. Some recordings I can.
1. "Did I say that it [mp3 file] reconstructs it [the original, uncompressed file] exactly like the original?"
2. "...And in some recordings, it's VERY difficult to tell the difference and this is with careful listening on a decent system...."
Yes, you said the former. You were invoking mp3 files' bit and sample rate to suggest they are equivalent or roughly equivalent to Redbook. If you were not doing so then there would have been no need to invoke their (sometimes) bit and sample rate in the discussion to begin with.
So you can't tell lossy from lossless on certain kinds of music. That's not saying anything. On certain kinds of music you can't tell live from recorded. But that's a narrow set of music for which that holds true.
Also, I think your quote I labeled as 1. contradicts your quote I labeled as 2.
1. was a question.
2. was a anecdote.
Again, regarding the significant differences between mp3 files and Redbook the fact that some mp3 files might be at 16/44 is not particularly relevant.
"All I care about is what my DAC says."
I hardly had to over think any of this. I may have over explained it, though.
MP3 is truncated. A significant amount of information is permanently discarded. Gone, done, finis. The word "lossy" is used to describe MP3 because the information is lost. It cannot be reconstructed or uncompressed, because it is no longer there. Your DAC may be able to play it, and it may say 16/44.1, but it is far less than 16/44.1 that you are hearing.
Here's a paper that I ran across that explains MP3 files in a fairly in depth level.
I haven't examined the entire document and absorbed everything completely. But it states that what is thrown out is information beyond 20kHz and below 20Hz because they are assuming that humans can't hear above and below those frequencies.
Here's the URL. http://sea-mist.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/857e49b9bfa2d753c125722700157b97/$file/Thesis%20report-%20MP3%20Decoder.pdf
Cruise through it and see if you agree. If you don't agree with what is being said, do you have another technical document that can explain it any better?
Enjoy.
"But it states that what is thrown out is information beyond 20kHz and below 20Hz because they are assuming that humans can't hear above and below those frequencies."
Now you're arguing again that mp3 are effectively the same as Redbook...or you're arguing again that they are not effectively the same?
You seem mixed up as to what you're arguing.
(The two are significantly, demonstrably different. This is not controversial. It is not in doubt, trolls or no.)
if I am comparing two different sources (RedBook, MP3, AIFF, etc. etc. etc.) and I can't hear a difference, that just means that I can't hear a difference. If i can hear a difference, that just means I can hear a difference. That's all that means. Sometimes I can and sometimes I can't. It depends, OBVIOUSLY on various factors. I'm not inferring that the two file are identical from a technical nature if I can't hear a difference. It just means I can't hear a difference and that's all that means. So don't confuse what I hear as me suggesting that the files are equal. Also, if I refer MP3 as 16/44.1, it's because the source was 16/44.1 and it gets decoded back to 16/44.1, yeah I know information is lost but that doesn't' always mean I can hear the difference.
I think you are doing your own interpretation of what was said so you can infer something that wasn't inferred. I think you might be the one mixed up in this case. Sorry if you don't think so, but it sounds like you are inferring something I said when it wasn't inferred.
Are you upset because I consider Redbook and MP3 as 16/44.1? I just think they are both 16/44.1 because the MP3 gets decoded back to 16/44.1, but as we ALL know there was something lost during that process. Whether one can hear the difference is whether or not one can hear the difference. I'm sure that the masses can't tell on a low grade stereo system, which probably is the reason why MP3's are so popular amongst the masses. I personally don't rip my CDs to MP3, I rip them to AIFF now. I only get MP3's from one source that only sells MP3's from old concerts and they were never pressed onto a CD and they only offer one file format.
As posted earlier, I think the percentage of music files in which you cannot discern a difference between mp3 and Redbook is small, on the order of the musical instruments for which you cannot tell the instrument itself from a good quality recording of it (like a theremin, for example, which never existed acoustically to begin with.)
If you routinely cannot tell the difference between mp3 files, even at fairly high data rates - that is different from bit and sample rates, by the way - and decent Redbook then something is amiss somewhere.
This is why the effort to equate the two very different sorts of files by harping on mostly irrelevant-in-the-context bit and sample rate caught my eye.
First off, I don't typically buy MP3's. sometimes I have no choice because there is only one source for the files and that's the only format they sell. Example: Wolfgang's Concert Vault, which sells old concert soundboard recordings that were never released as a Redbook or other physical format is only available as 320kbps MP3. But since they are direct from the soundboard, they aren't always the highest quality recordings because many are from the 70's. But some of them actually aren't that bad and some of them they actually did a half way decent job of mastering them, so those files are definitely hit or miss, but it's more for nostalgic listening and for hard core fans that don't care about the sound quality as much as they want to hear rare concert recordings of bands from the 70's to recent.
Anyway, I was cruising through Apple's iTunes and fell upon their "Mastered for iTunes" and I read an article that was interviewing Bob Ludwig and he was explaining that the "Mastered for ITunes" were SUPPOSED to be from 24/96 recordings and that those extra bits were supposed to help create a better lossy version. I have one CD and for laughs, I bought the ACC Mastered For iTunes version of an album which is Return to Forever Light as a Feather, which is not a typical heavily produced pop/rock album with lots of processing and tons of compression. I for the life of me couldn't NOT tell the difference between the two. It was so close, I spent weeks listening back and forth and I simply couldn't tell on my system. Some AAC files from iTunes I can tell the difference and some aren't that far apart where I worry about it. Now, AAC files from iTunes aren't MP3, they are MP4, but most people THINK of them as MP3 lossy, but they have a different algorithm and they are able to get similar sound quality with an even smaller file size because they are compressing to 256kbps vs the typical 320kbps. But the intended audience for AAC files is for iPod, iPhones, etc. and most people are listening with relatively inexpensive earbuds/headphones and these mobile devices are meant for the average consumer and are typically used in noisy (outdoors, airplanes, cars, etc.) environments, where it's not as crucial and storage in these devices has been (since inception) very limited. Remember, they sell the iPod shuffles or older models with very limited storage, so it's the number of tracks one can hold vs them trying to compete with a high end audiophile system.
I personally have only collected a fairly small collection of AAC files since they first came out and for the most part, if the content was mastered well, there isn't much of a difference and since the application is for mobile use, it doesn't bother me that much. Most of the content I bought was just more pop recordings where the sound quality isn't as critical and most of the instruments recorded were mostly synthesized/modeled, etc. and the vocals typically have processing on them, so it's not a big deal. I certainly don't buy my jazz and classical recordings that way since those recordings simply don't have tons of compression and processing.
I would also venture to guess that a MP3/AAC file can sound noticeably worse or very similar and I really believe a lot has to do with the original recording and how it was mastered and where they got the original source before they converted to MP3/AAC files. I've heard really close versions AND really noticeably bad versions, but unfortunately I didn't know what they were using to convert to MP3/AAC. Because they could have converted from original WAV, Redbook, 24/96, 16/44.1, etc. Maybe someone took a SACD file, converted to PCM and THEN converted it. So there are a lot of variables in the mix and we have only limited control on our end since we can only have a limited choice over the equipment we use, some degree of control on the environment (most of us have soundproofed and perfectly treated/designed listening rooms), but we don't control the original source of the MP3/AAC files or how these recordings are tracked, mixed, mastered or converted.
I have plenty of Redbook CDs that sound like crap and that there is only one version obtainable and I have to live with it. But I still listen to them because I like the music, unfortunately everything that surrounded it wasn't as good as it could have been and some of it was just a bad recording as they over saturated the initial tracking and this was done a lot back in the 70's. go listen to the very first Journey album. The music is great, but the recording is God awful and they could release that in SACD and it's STILL going to suck. they just over saturated the tape and it's just really bad sounding. I think they made that album to be played on a big pair of JBL PA speakers cranked to 100dB while the listeners get high as a kite so the sound quality isn't an issue. /s :-)
I would surmise that your DAC reads 16/44.1 on mp3 and mp4 files because it's not capable of displaying the actual mp3 or mp4's bit and sample rate. Check with the company for clarification.
I would surmise that your DAC reads 16/44.1 on mp3 and mp4 files because it's not capable of displaying the actual mp3 or mp4's bit and sample rate.
His D/A processor is correctly displaying the format of the data fed to its DAC chip. As DrBlank correctly points out above, when a lossy-encoded file is played, it is first unpacked to PCM at the original sample rate and bit depth, most always 44.1kHz and 16 bits.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I know I'm not TOTALLY stupid. :-)
I know some people put a lot of importance on the 20 to 20,000Hz, but I think there is probably some areas that should be considered that can explain what we are actually listening to. There is a lot of things done to information and it seems as though there is approximations of what it puts back.
Has anyone done this test.
Take a variety of instruments and play one note and then look at the spectrum analysis of the note to visually see the harmonic structure and compare the two between a variety of formats (WAV, Redbook, MP3, 24/96, 16/44.1, etc.). That might indicate if in fact they are identical or not identical.
I remember watching a RMAF discussion that Bruce Brisson and his panel were talking about the science of music and it was interesting when they showed various musical notes being displayed to show the harmonic structure. Here's the video I was watching and if you forward to about 26 to about 34 minutes into the video, they show some various spectrum analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBEjWVEDsz8&spfreload=10
Has anyone done this test.Take a variety of instruments and play one note and then look at the spectrum analysis of the note to visually see the harmonic structure and compare the two between a variety of formats (WAV, Redbook, MP3, 24/96, 16/44.1, etc.). That might indicate if in fact they are identical or not identical.
Yes I have done this. The differences in the waveforms are difficult to see and the spectral analyses can be misleading as the steady-state nature of the tones is not altered by much. But if you subtract the decoded MP3 file from the original, you can listen to what the MP3 process removes. I have demonstrated this at shows and dealer events: it tends to consist of high frequencies, transients, and reverberation, overlaid by a cyclic content due to the MP3 coder splitting the original signal into discrete time blocks for processing.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
What is the relevance of that regarding the net effect of lossy compression?
I was addressing the specific question about why the poster's DAC indicated a 44.1kHz sample rate when playing MP3s. An MP3 file is a data package that must be unpacked to PCM at the original sample rate and bit depth before being presented to the DAC chip. This happens regardless of the degree of lossy compression.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
But it was previously acknowledged in the thread that mp3 files exist at different bit and sample rates, including 16/44.
I said previously that that fact really is not germane, however true - it's like saying both a car and a camel (usually) contact the ground at four points. They're really quite different beasts.
And this discussion is in the context of the other poster saying, "All I know and care about is what my DAC says [regarding bit and sample]."
I think a number of posts explained his misunderstanding to him, and then at that point he went and did some reading to justify part of what he posted. That's all for the good - education.
Isn't DSD last year's fad? Next MQA or is it real?
Tidal and Meridian recently announced that Tidal is going to be streaming MQA files. I don't know how long it's going to take for them to convert everything or if it's just for specific files, but that's a new subscription service that currently does lossless. It's something like $20 a month currently.
From what I've read so far, Meridian updated their entry level Explorer DAC to the Explorer2 and it's only $300, I have no idea if they are going to push out a Director2 version or if it's going to get a firmware update (crossing fingers) and they are supposed to push out firmware updates for their headphone Prime DAC, and probably firmware updates for the rest of their lineup (most likely), but I have absolutely no idea how they are going to handle everyone else's DACs. They have inked deal with I think Marantz and Onkyo in future receivers or something to that effect.
I personally wish/hope that they could simply license the MQA to player developers like Amarra, PureAudio, Audirvana, etc. so we don't have to buy a new DAC if our current one is a good DAC and just do the decoding in s/w, but something tells me that everyone that wants to support it (other than Meridian) has to integrate a decoder chip. Time will tell.
It would be cool if Apple could support MQA in iTunes s/w and then start spitting out MQA versions, but I don't know if that's in the plans or not.
I haven't heard any MQA demos. Anyone go to CES and go to the Meridian booth?
Maybe we are setting-up these Pono people for a Billion Dollar Buy-out by Apple? Everything Young promises is already available from Sony & Philips and all the other Big Outfits.
Kinda smells funny.
Tony in Michigan
Apple doesn't need Pono. The Pono device is ugly, big, no margin and Apple isn't going to buy Pono when they can do it themselves. Pono has no technology that Apple can't do on their own.
The problem Apple has is they can't implement expensive DAC chips in their products because it increases the mfg cost, and they would have to increase the price of the unit to see good margins. There isn't enough demand by the masses for this.
getting better audio is only important to a VERY small number of people. The masses are content with the quality of sound they are currently getting, which is either a CD, MP3/MP4 and that's what the masses are content with. The masses don't have high end speaker systems, high end car stereos, and high end earbuds/headphones. Your typical teenager, young adult has a pair of Beats headphones/earbuds connected to an Android or Apple device and they are playing mostly MP3 and MP4. That's the masses.
DSD for mobile devices is just plain dumb. the file sizes associated with DSD recordings is just too big and storage is a limited resource in mobile devices.
I am interested to see what Meridian does with MQA, unfortunately, I think it requires a DAC that has the firmware/decoder chip inside, which most don't. But they claim they can make recordings sound better and it can still be with any file format. But to get MQA to the masses is going to need a herculean effort.
Time will tell what ultimately happens, but I wouldn't put all my eggs in Pono, they are too small of a player in a market that simply doesn't have enough demand for what they provide.
Apple doesn't need Pono. The Pono device is ugly, big, no margin and Apple isn't going to buy Pono when they can do it themselves. Pono has no technology that Apple can't do on their own.
The problem Apple has is they can't implement expensive DAC chips in their products because it increases the mfg cost, and they would have to increase the price of the unit to see good margins. There isn't enough demand by the masses for this.
getting better audio is only important to a VERY small number of people. The masses are content with the quality of sound they are currently getting, which is either a CD, MP3/MP4 and that's what the masses are content with. The masses don't have high end speaker systems, high end car stereos, and high end earbuds/headphones. Your typical teenager, young adult has a pair of Beats headphones/earbuds connected to an Android or Apple device and they are playing mostly MP3 and MP4. That's the masses.
DSD for mobile devices is just plain dumb. the file sizes associated with DSD recordings is just too big and storage is a limited resource in mobile devices.
I am interested to see what Meridian does with MQA, unfortunately, I think it requires a DAC that has the firmware/decoder chip inside, which most don't. But they claim they can make recordings sound better and it can still be with any file format. But to get MQA to the masses is going to need a herculean effort.
Time will tell what ultimately happens, but I wouldn't put all my eggs in Pono, they are too small of a player in a market that simply doesn't have enough demand for what they provide.
Apple has no need for Pono. They could buy it of course since they're cash rich, but it's not like this would add substantially to their portfolio.
I have long argued about needing a new file format for DSD because of that insane file size. In fact, if you DST compress DSD64, the file size is quite reasonable and generally compresses to less than a 24/96 PCM conversion. Alas, DST compression is not easily available to the general public but thankfully JRiver has no problems with playing back these compressed files. IMO, without a new file format that brings DSD up to modern standards of taggability and compression, it's just too cumbersome and not worth the effort. (I'd be very curious if the Pono firmware will be able to play DST compressed files!)
MQA is an interesting concept but IMO will not add anything new that a flat 24/96+ file wouldn't. Unless proven otherwise, it really cannot be better than the original PCM file it originated from anyways. Good for streaming as a file size optimized solution, but I don't see how it could sound any better... Unless MQA becomes some kind of de-facto standard with massive manufacturer support, I'm not convinced it will go far.
this is a heck of a remark! And, yes, maybe we are...
Looks like pono may be looking for a buyout
It is definitely conducted lime a business and neil young is as deceitful as any marketer. He systematically leaves out a huge truth: it's the masters, damn it!
I'm in agreement that the masters are what's the most important part, espeically how they are tracked first. The problem with a LOT of pop music these days is they aren't even using real instruments like they used to.
Instead of a real grand piano, they use a sampled grand piano, which is like recording a second gen piano with less dynamics. Same thing with Rhodes pianos, clavinets, organs, even drums are sampled drums that are sequenced by some idiot that doesn't even play the drums.
I've run into younger musicians that have never even sat behind a B-3, a real Fender Rhodes piano because they can just press a button on their synth and get a sampled/modeled version. It's kind of pathetic that the record industry allows this. the quality of sound just isn't there when you compare a sampled version to a real one, especially with dynamics, they lose much of that when they use the sample. I can understand not lugging these things on gigs because they are going through a PA and they need to cut costs in transporting gear, but for a studio recording? NOPE. I say use the real thing or not at all. heck, they are even modeling Les Pauls and Strats and acoustic guitars with some of the technology they have now. It's great for the musician because they can get a lot of sounds very cheaply, but in terms of authenticity? It's not there. I used to be able to quickly pick out a Les Paul, Strat, Tele, etc. on recordings very easily but not these days, it's very difficult to do that. Oh well, sorry for my rant on the sign of the times, it's just really annoying to listen to a lot of the modern "pop/rock/whatever" music that's coming out these days. Fortunately, some artists/bands do know what they are doing and get a good solid recording, but most don't, they just spit out production based music and it's all about how many plug-ins and other technology they can use.
Sorry, but although I am still a fan I can't take that guy seriously anymore: His CD (also two "audiophile" double 180g LPs!!) "A Letter Home" was simply embarrassing as far as the sound was concerned. He will probably bring that out on Pono, too.... Of course, I know that he wanted to create "authenticity" but me and many, many fans just felt we were made fun of. - Now this - I suppose another gadget for the garbage can in a few years or even months. Let's only hope Neil won't go broke again. When will all(!) artists finally realize that the recording process itself is the decisive factor for quality sound ?! Why do so many recordings from the 1950s on good old vinyl sound so much better than most "modern" recordings no matter on which media you listen to them?
after this video in February 2012:
http://www.openculture.com/2012/02/neil_young_on_the_travesty_of_mp3s.html
He clearly did not know what he was talking about then in terms of sonic quality and his simplistic linear correlation of sound quality and data rate. Nothing has changed since, really. It's an embarrassment that audiophile sites don't have the balls to call him out on his BS or show some critical commentary on what is grossly obvious (especially since HDTracks and such were already in existence)! I can respect the man with regards to his musicianship but in terms of his "understanding" around audio technology - no thanks.
I agree - while I admire his efforts, this thing is at least a year too late. Tidal CD res streaming is great, and not too hard for them to add hi res streaming when it makes sense for them. I suspect their customers are already people who care about audio quality, when compared to Spotify customers.
I really hope it does work, and maybe there is a market for a $399 hi res digital audio player. I can see people who've paid a similar price for a NAD CD player moving into digital audio through pono.
And, LOL, see what you get when you visit www.pono.com (hint - a porno site.) How could they not have solved that problem in all this time?
Margins are certainly higher in that endeavor.
Did ya stop to consider that?
Is Pono identifying 'genuine' Pono tracks by embedded tags, or by a carrier signal? Tags aren't a guarantee of genuine anything, and carrier signals are not a good thing.
And as we have seen with the right gear anyone can verify with good, if not perfect, accuracy whether the depth and resolution claimed are true or not.
An important piece of information missing from the article is the opportunity for free lifetime music upgrades. Initially only for Kickstarter supporters, there is now a short window (until January 31, 2015) when purchasing or pre-ordering a Pono Player will include this benefit. Assuming artists currently offering a title in 16/44.1 may eventually return to the source recording and supply a higher resolution file. The upgrade would be supplied at no additional cost to the purchaser.
Just another music file player with a store selling higher resolution files than mp3. Yawn. I was listening to 16/44 files on an iPod at least 10 years ago. Spoiler alert...that little green light is not a guarantee of anything other than you bought a file from Pono and it has a bit flag that makes the light turn on. Give me a break and a ticket to Sugar Mountain.
I appreciate any attempt to educate a wider consumer segment about sound quality but I find the cult of personality appalling. The Pono player might be a good DAP for that price but it may not last long: https://gigaom.com/2015/01/08/neil-young-pono-wont-be-a-hardware-company-for-long-video-interview/
I see no reason why Pono should tell everyone what is high quality sound especially considering that Neal Young himself was not ware of the resolution of his own music.
In contrast to Pono I think MQA is a genuine attempt to make better sounding music wider available but it does not yet have the coverage it deserves.
How I wished he would have said that he couldn't listen to music for the last 15 years because the MASTERING SUCKED!
Why have interviewers also rarely even brought out stuff like the LOUDNESS WARS rather than allow him to blather more about his "movement", "sound like God" or meaningless "rescuing the art form"? When he used the phrase "dynamic range", we need interviewers to jump in there and stick it to him about mastering quality!
"Branded Pono", "Certified Pono" - LOL. What does that even mean? Upsampled to 24/192?! Yeah, right... :-)
None of you have heard this unit or used it, and all of you have rushed to judgment of it.
Everyone in here has their own brand of knowledge about digital, and most of the assertions are just speculation by jaded trolls.
It would appear that Pono could find its niche in the marketplace for non-audiophile music lovers, and those people could move up to an A&K player if they like what they hear over time.
But whatever- Keep mistrusting everything you see and hear- you already have the answers you need.
Thanks for your post. Who amongst us has not made mistakes? Neil Young may have said a few surprising things in his talk, but he is as capable of learning as most of the rest of us.
The bottom line is, after listening to Young, I am convinced that his motivation is genuine. His impact on young listeners and those longing for sound that brings them closer to what artists and recording engineers have always hoped others would be able to hear is immense. As someone who treasures music, and has always longed to get closer to the source of artistic creation, all I can say is, more power to him.
I am a "computer geek", happy with my $50 earbuds and lossy mp3's until this summer.
I always knew there was something called "high fidelity" having heard it briefly during college, but I was very suspect of many of the claims made by the "audiophile" world.
I haven't listened to the Pono player, but do had the chance to have my hands on High Res Dacs like Dragonfly and Woo audio, should I say I was amazed by it's sound quality.
Since Neil is so big in the game, he knows what he's up for.
FEATURED VIDEO
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources |  |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
