NorioDS
I'd love to test this for myself - particularly if I can listen to my own MP3 of a favourite track and then hear their version, PLAYED ON THE SAME ("Pono") DEVICE.
I think that'll be a good test. Some music I just listen to for fun/background noise while I work. Other music transports me. If this can help me enjoy the latter more, then I reckon it's worth it.
AlanRatcliffe
While we could do with moving away from lossy formats like MP3 for the mainstream, and I'd love to see a higher quality of playback device become standard, this is more a marketing thing than actual science.
I remember Neil Young talking about this tech a while ago and it struck me that it's all based on his nostalgia for the relatively low fidelity of vinyl, which used to be part of the music-making process - pretty much like our valves are for our guitar amps. Going higher sample rate and bit depth for digital won't fix that, but it might have a chance of convincing the luddites and hipsters. ?
Ultimately, to succeed, these guys just have to convince enough people that it is better, like Apple does. I can see the music industry getting behind it - they love the opportunity to sell all the same music again. They've done it often enough in the past.
Attila
I see that Walkman is/has tried to pip them to the post on getting product to market first
warrenpridgeon
Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
While we could do with moving away from lossy formats like MP3 for the mainstream, and I'd love to see a higher quality of playback device become standard, this is more a marketing thing than actual science.
I remember Neil Young talking about this tech a while ago and it struck me that it's all based on his nostalgia for the relatively low fidelity of vinyl, which used to be part of the music-making process - pretty much like our valves are for our guitar amps. Going higher sample rate and bit depth for digital won't fix that, but it might do a chance of convincing the luddites and hipsters. ?
Ultimately, to succeed, these guys just have to convince enough people that it is better, like Apple does. I can see the music industry getting behind it - they love the opportunity to sell all the same music again. They've done it often enough in the past.
A lot of the people in their testimonial vid seem to hipsterish and quite a few referred to how it "sounded like vinyl, man!".
People will believe a lot of stuff if you are just very convincing...
I refer you to the following clip:
=
Mixerboy
So it comes with free noise, hum, scratch and dirt emulation and the sound quality gradually degrades the more you play the tracks........nice.
Here are some common vinyl myths:
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)
The whole DSD thing was a MUCH better idea for the advancement of digital audio and that went nowhere.
Gearhead
Hi I'm Gearhead and I am an audioholic.
Now that we've got that out of the way - I don't know how people cannot tell the difference. I can, in double blind test, hear the difference between SACD and CD from the same device; never mind differences with compressed stuff. All one needs to do is close their eyes and visualise the singer, the band, the instruments and amps and the acoustics of the room - if you can picture everything in your head it's good reproduction. As soon as the picture falters (think 'Matrix' glitches) there's trouble. Could be the recording itself - different takes in different acoustics or artificial wet added to parts of the mix etc. Chances are if it's a pro studio recording that any trouble is caused by the equipment you're reproducing from.
Modern audio gear is so full of compromise it's just not funny - and not even cheap either. The power supply is too slow and too small, stages are very nonlinear, there is too much local negative feedback to make up for that, the routing is awful, caps are crappy, on the digital side timekeeping is hideous, cables are junk, speakers are the worst ever with tiny flabby plastic housings and flabby cones with oval coils in tiny magnets, compensated by equalisers full of phase issues, and so on and so on and so on - it's not the audiphiles who are crazy but the general public buying these horrible 'sets'.
Out of curiosity I got some 6-channel BluRay thing the other day. It sometimes makes me nauseous listening, its so bad. I guess I needed a reminder to finish off my Nelson Pass F4 triplets. Poor consumers that cannot build amps.
doc-phil
Gearhead wrote:
Out of curiosity I got some 6-channel BluRay thing the other day. It sometimes makes me nauseous listening, its so bad. I guess I needed a reminder to finish off my Nelson Pass F4 triplets. Poor consumers that cannot build amps.
Sorry to hear about your condition ?
AlanRatcliffe
To be fair, there are extremes on both sides. There are the terrible "consumer" grade things that you mention, which do sound truly horrendous (I've got one, but heaven forbid I actually use it for music - or anything other than making movies louder). And don't get me started on badly ripped 128KB MP3s played on overpriced iPods... Or people who think that audio quality is measured solely by how much your windows rattle...
On the extreme end, way over on the other side, there's your marketing and pseudoscience driven purchaser who will "invest" tens of thousands in wooden knobs and directional AC power cables with flux capacitors to guide the midichlorians, simply because a glossy magazine ad or flash banner ad told him it will make everything sound that much better. The "listen with their wallet" types and the emperor's new clothes types...
But there's plenty of middle ground, ranging from good to "wow!". We do need something much better than MP3's on an iPod for the mass market too. Listening is a skill that gets better with practice and until the general public starts being exposed to better quality audio (and music), they are never going to know any better.
warrenpridgeon
Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
To be fair, there are extremes on both sides. There are the terrible "consumer" grade things that you mention, which do sound truly horrendous (I've got one, but heaven forbid I actually use it for music - or anything other than making movies louder). And don't get me started on badly ripped 128KB MP3s played on overpriced iPods... Or people who think that audio quality is measured solely by how much your windows rattle...
On the extreme end, way over on the other side, there's your marketing and pseudoscience driven purchaser who will "invest" tens of thousands in wooden knobs and directional AC power cables with flux capacitors to guide the midichlorians, simply because a glossy magazine ad or flash banner ad told him it will make everything sound that much better. The "listen with their wallet" types and the emperor's new clothes types...
But there's plenty of middle ground, ranging from good to "wow!". We do need something much better than MP3's on an iPod for the mass market too. Listening is a skill that gets better with practice and until the general public starts being exposed to better quality audio (and music), they are never going to know any better.
Sigh...I only started listening to music towards the end of highschool so I lost a few years of practice... lol...
So I often have conversations with our keyboard player where he is like "can you hear that electric guitar riff in there?" and I am like "uh... nope", then he'll hum/whistle it and then I can hear it... I can already hear a lot more detail than say 5 years ago... but I still need a lot of practice!
Attila
too true Warren, I am guilty of hearing and not taking the time to listen properly
AlanRatcliffe
Keep at it and eventually you'll reach the stage where you can clearly hear individual instruments - your "conductor's ears", if you like.
You can also reach the level of "Producer's ears", where you get to hear the individual elements of the sounds (if it's double or triple tracked, where each is in azimuth, where the "space" around it is in the "space" of the mix, etc.). Helps if you listen to a lot of later era (Wall to Final Cut) Floyd repeatedly. ?
I suppose there's also an ultimate level I haven't reached yet - mastering engineer's ears. But I'm kind of scared of reaching that one as it'll probably make most of the stuff I like unlistenable - it seems that each level raises your expectations of the recording and a lot of the classic stuff just doesn't pass muster any more. I already can't listen to any Hendrix...
And back to audiophile level stuff - once you have producer's ears, hearing a familiar recording on another good playback system becomes an absolute joy - akin to hearing it for the first time again. How a different system can change a mix is quite a revelation.
Bob-Dubery
A potential problem for Pono, it seems to me, is the CEO. Young might be a great visionary, but the original CEO stood aside and Young took over. Can he play the corporate game? Already there are rumblings from early investors who bought in on the basis of an experienced business man running with Young's vision rather than into a company being run by Young.
Mixerboy
I think overall it will have it's place (up until now if you wanted high quality portable music as far as I know you never really had much option so it's a good thing), as far as mass consumers go it has the same chance of replacing MP3's as fine dining gourmet food has of replacing McDonalds.
warrenpridgeon
Attila Barath wrote:
too true Warren, I am guilty of hearing and not taking the time to listen properly
I bet if you ask ANY of our wives they will attest to this... HAHAHAHAHA ? ?
doc-phil
Eyoh! That's expensive. Is the seller having a laugh trying to market it as an investment? That's just a really pricey ipod. For that kind of money I'd rather buy a decent hi-fi amplifier.
Attila
Doc its not digital sound 128k sampling its full spectrum analogue sound
Malkav
I just don't see the point of this, if everyone just stepped over to flac and that became the standard then we'd have something that is higher quality than cd and this whole thing would be invalid.
Some of the artists I listen to have picked up on this and put out flacs that are encoded at the highest possible standard straight out of the mastering project. 44.1 can suck it ?
doc-phil
Attila Barath wrote:
Doc its not digital sound 128k sampling its full spectrum analogue sound
Yeah, I get that, and I understand the marketing behind the product.
For me the difference in enjoyment between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC (or whatever the format it plays) is not worth the price.
I will reserve judgment on the product itself for now until I have a chance to listen to one, but even if it does live up to the hype and marketing, I still think it's over-priced.
Mixerboy
Attila Barath wrote:
Doc its not digital sound 128k sampling its full spectrum analogue sound
It's 24 bit 192khz digital
The improvements in going any higher than 44.1khz are negligible.
Seems like a nice audiophool gift for the rich dentist who already has the fancy hi fi with directional, burned in, R10 000 speaker cables etc.
