Pono Music - high-quality music initiative from Neil Young

Halloway said:

Here's another article, this time from The Guardian here in the UK. I suppose I would describe the article as 'dismissive'. I have to say that I agree with the author's opinion.

Pono: only a man pays for music quality that he can't hear

Click to expand...

Call me a newbie but isn't this guy mixing apples and oranges? The limitations of human hearing in terms of frequency and the sampling rate of digitized music are two entirely separate things. Am I wrong?

"Now mix in that the absolute limit of human hearing is 20kHz (and for most people more like 14kHz or less), and you realise the 44.1kHz sampling rate for CDs is fine. It will capture everything, assuming your sampler is any good."

This:

Record companies, this is an opportunity to rescue the art of recorded sound. Why should a Frank Sinatra recording or an Adele recording or a Nirvana, Rolling Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Who, or classical recording be limited to the CD format for the future? This music is world cultural history. All of this cultural history should be preserved for enjoyment of the people in its highest possible form forever. In the 21st Century, people, and art, deserve this technology.
Bring it on. Now, as never before, it is possible.

Click to expand...

Even if the whole thing fails, I'm going to cheer him on just for saying it.

No, he isn't mixing apples and oranges. Human hearing is general considered to go up to 20kHz. Science tells us that in order to capture a 20kHz signal you have to sample at at least twice that rate (40kHz) so 44.1 should be sufficient. I won't get into the debates over harmonics, etc. but the basic science that he is presenting makes sense.

PK said:

Call me a newbie but isn't this guy mixing apples and oranges? The limitations of human hearing in terms of frequency and the sampling rate of digitized music are two entirely separate things. Am I wrong?

"Now mix in that the absolute limit of human hearing is 20kHz (and for most people more like 14kHz or less), and you realise the 44.1kHz sampling rate for CDs is fine. It will capture everything, assuming your sampler is any good."

Click to expand...

Cheezmo said:

No, he isn't mixing apples and oranges. Human hearing is general considered to go up to 20kHz. Science tells us that in order to capture a 20kHz signal you have to sample at at least twice that rate (40kHz) so 44.1 should be sufficient. I won't get into the debates over harmonics, etc. but the basic science that he is presenting makes sense.

Click to expand...

Interesting...Thanks for the explanation, Cheezmo...PK

"Red means run son and numbers add up to nothing"

According to all of the experts I have read interjecting the scientific facts that most can't tell the difference--those people are certainly not members here! Much less do they own any equipment that would utilize the increased quality. You really don't have to go any farther than a quality system to prove this. The frustrating part is they admit the terrible quality of some cds but then tell how great they are. The science proves they are good enough--bullshit! According to science a bumblebee can't fly. Even if the difference is psychological, like so many medical treatments, all that really matters is that the targeted audience believes. Why would you limit your options when you can make sure that your music is heard the way you want? Quad Linda said her 20 something colleauges didn't get it or appreciate hi rez (surround) music and would just go to the concert...WOW! are they missing out with such ignorance. This is not a cheap hobby, and my ears are not what they used to be, but EVERYONE I have played my hi rez music for CAN hear a difference on my moderately priced system. I am not comparing me or my set up to anything cheap which apparently these scientific idiots do or they wouldn't make such outrageous generalizations. Actually, my cheaper system still sounded much better than just cd quality. Add in surround sound and this tips exponentially in favor if higher rez formats. This ignorance is exactly why other formats have failed. I will admit that I will be hesitant to support stereo only versions of this, but I will buy as much as I can afford in surround. I am glad that a musician is pushing for higher rez formatting, but it needs so much more to be successful. Too many younger people (the target audience) don't know about or can't afford what we here love. Like I said earlier, everyone (musicians included) that I played my DVD Audio or SACD music for are amazed at the qualtiy of the higer rez (surround) music but are not willing or able to invest what I did to reproduce the quality. I agree with the author of the article from the UK that a little triangular box won't convert anyone. I don't have the answers, maybe some suggestions, but with this much negativity from the start, this will never succeed, IMO. I will do my best to spread the word, but have low expectations.

Blrac said:

According to all of the experts I have read interjecting the scientific facts that most can't tell the difference--those people are certainly not members here! Much less do they own any equipment that would utilize the increased quality.

Click to expand...

What equipment, exactly, would be required, and what are the measurable performance characteristics that give it the ability to reveal Pono's strengths?

You really don't have to go any farther than a quality system to prove this. The frustrating part is they admit the terrible quality of some cds but then tell how great they are. The science proves they are good enough--bullshit! According to science a bumblebee can't fly.

Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Even if the difference is psychological, like so many medical treatments, all that really matters is that the targeted audience believes.

Click to expand...

Oh, ok. Never mind.

Blrac said:

According to science a bumblebee can't fly.

Click to expand...

http://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

The equipment I refer to is mine (see my profile) because I and everyone else who has heard music on my system has been amazed. That is what it is all about. Perhaps there is a psychological effect here, and I don't claim to be a scientist, but I know what I hear and what I prefer to hear. Maybe I am listening to shitty cd recordings, but my high rez stuff sounds so much better. Granted that surround makes a huge difference, but overall it is a definite improvement with what I have. Maybe you have some suggestions to compare cd to DVD Audio or SACD that I own both and won't see a distinguishable quality increase. I will do my best to compare apples to apples, and admitedly I may not be doing so.

As far as bumblebees and science....when you remove the wings, it has been irrefutably proven that they CAN NOT fly. Maybe you misunderstood my analogy and reference, so just clarifying it a bit

I found this to be an interesting perspective: What Is The PonoPlayer Doing For Music? Not Much

dr. simple said:

I found this to be an interesting perspective: What Is The PonoPlayer Doing For Music? Not Much

Click to expand...

Is this kind of like "we are all stupid and have to be told how to spend our money?" Sweet lord, if I want to buy Pono tunes or I want to buy other new artists who don't have any Pono downloads available well that's my choice.

£300 plus for a glorified FLAC player sounds excessive to me.
I also worry about the compression algos used, as the published numbers do not add up for lossless content.

The mistake with their numbers is they said 'albums' when they meant 'songs'.

I agree, it's not nearly a perfect device by any means, and it's not going to change the (music) world, but the more high resolution players and content providers that are out there, the better. Competition breeds innovation and pushes prices down and that can only be a good thing.

steelydave said:

The mistake with their numbers is they said 'albums' when they meant 'songs'.

I agree, it's not nearly a perfect device by any means, and it's not going to change the (music) world, but the more high resolution players and content providers that are out there, the better. Competition breeds innovation and pushes prices down and that can only be a good thing.

Click to expand...

That is not just a mistake - it's downright misleading.
It's also a total waste of time and vastly over priced too.
Sorry Dave.

I went ahead with a Pono player mainly because I already have lots of hires and/or high dynamic range CDs in stereo FLAC format. I can currently only play FLAC on my home system as I don't have a portable device for FLAC including inability to play in my car.

I figured a Pono with its 'audiophile' DAC, analogue line-out (for my car) and headphone out for when I'm out would be a nice addition to my gadgets that would get a fair bit of use.

I'm not sure I will buy much music from the Pono store but looking forward to listening to many of my multichannel DVD-As, Blu-ray Audio etc in stereo while doing chores and taking the dog for a walk etc.

Surely the Pono with its lossless FLAC and hi res content has got to sound better than my current iPod with MP3s (and no more converting my stuff to both FLAC and MP3, so more convenient for me too).

Also, I wanted to support what the Pono guys are doing in bringing better quality audio to the attention of the music industry, particularly the artists and general public. Hopefully this will lead to more quality content for consumers (and the natural progression into delivery on discs which may spark interest in multichannel extensions).

But then again, I've always been a dreamer.

HomerJAU said:

I'm not sure I will buy much music from the Pono store but looking forward to listening to many of my multichannel DVD-As, Blu-ray Audio etc in stereo while doing chores and taking the dog for a walk etc.

Click to expand...

This gadget is stereo only, is it not?

HomerJAU said:

I figured a Pono with its 'audiophile' DAC, analogue line-out (for my car)

Click to expand...

If you have an Android phone, GoneMad Music Player ($3.99, I think) is a very nice piece of software. Much, much better than the default crud that comes with any random phone. It will play 24/96 (though I assume it's being downrezzed), is gapless and will let you easily queue up a long playlist for a long trip.

I'm just talking about something that would be good in a noisy car, I'm sure the audio hardware in most phones will be nowhere near what Pono hopes to offer.

Oh Pono, Oh no

watsontr said:

This gadget is stereo only, is it not?

Click to expand...

Yes (I did say 'in stereo' in my quoted text)

HomerJAU said:

I went ahead with a Pono player mainly because I already have lots of hires and/or high dynamic range CDs in stereo FLAC format. I can currently only play FLAC on my home system as I don't have a portable device for FLAC including inability to play in my car.

I figured a Pono with its 'audiophile' DAC, analogue line-out (for my car) and headphone out for when I'm out would be a nice addition to my gadgets that would get a fair bit of use.

I'm not sure I will buy much music from the Pono store but looking forward to listening to many of my multichannel DVD-As, Blu-ray Audio etc in stereo while doing chores and taking the dog for a walk etc.

Surely the Pono with its lossless FLAC and hi res content has got to sound better than my current iPod with MP3s (and no more converting my stuff to both FLAC and MP3, so more convenient for me too).

Also, I wanted to support what the Pono guys are doing in bringing better quality audio to the attention of the music industry, particularly the artists and general public. Hopefully this will lead to more quality content for consumers (and the natural progression into delivery on discs which may spark interest in multichannel extensions).

But then again, I've always been a dreamer.

Click to expand...

You and I are interested in this for the exact same reasons.