Pono - a replacement for MP3 & iPod?

Rocker

You decide: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1003614822/ponomusic-where-your-soul-rediscovers-music

Lixarto

I'm familiar with this as I'm a big fan of Neil.

We'll see.

monquixote

I think it's been rendered largely obsolete by Apple announcing digital output via lightning from iPhones.

That and the fact that the limiting factor to quality in personal audio is almost always the ambient noise in the environment.

Lixarto

What if you don't have/want an iPhone?

monquixote

See my second point. 

iRiver used to do players with an SPDIF out that could play uncompressed audio about 10 years ago.

stickyfiddle

There are already shitloads of MP3 players. This is just an expensive one. I can't believe there's anywhere near the market for it to be successful. Normal people don't even care about mp3 bitrates, never mind lossless formats and whatnot

Lixarto

monquixote said:

See my second point. 

iRiver used to do players with an SPDIF out that could play uncompressed audio about 10 years ago.

I don't see how that answers my question.

*Shrug* - I really don't know (obviously, none of us do).

I doubt I will buy it though.

Rocker

monquixote said:

iRiver used to do players with an SPDIF out that could play uncompressed audio about 10 years ago.

AFAIK, the original [mono] iPod could do this but that feature was disabled on later versions.  I recall reading something about this years ago, it is possible that I got this wrong and if so I stand corrected....

DulcetJones

As much as I love Neil Young I can't see how this could become a big success.  He's kind of reinventing the wheel I think.  He railed against compact discs and mp3's from the start but look how they have proliferated. 

monquixote

If you want to know why this product makes no sense (and neither does super high sample rate audio) then read this article by Monty (of OGG Vorbis fame)

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

ICBM

DulcetJones said:

As much as I love Neil Young I can't see how this could become a big success.  He's kind of reinventing the wheel I think.  He railed against compact discs and mp3's from the start but look how they have proliferated. 

Same here. It was only about ten years ago (I think) that he was against digital entirely, now it's the sound of the 21st century...

An iPod Classic (and probably the other models) can play back full CD-quality AIFF or WAV files too - true, only via the headphone socket, unless you link it to a computer. OK, this can go higher, and has a dedicated 'hi-fi' analogue output - and I like the *idea* of being able to listen to the original studio masters of a recording… but unless you're going to listen on studio monitors in an acoustically-treated room, it's a bit pointless. It might conceivably sound *worse* than a CD too - the whole point of mastering for CD (or vinyl, or whatever) is to optimise the result for the playback system it's likely to be listened to on. And yes, very often that seems to be done crudely with the target being to create the loudest possible result, and damn the dynamics…

And really for 99% of my listening the audio quality really isn't that important - the *music* is. But that probably means I'm not in the target market anyway, ironically.

I wish them luck, but unless something major changes in the world I can't see it being any more than a tiny niche product.

Grumpyrocker

24 bit for listening is a waste of time really.

And the main problem is that it's no use having such great resolution/bitrate tracks when the mastering these days fucks up records. Much better if Neil Young was campaigning against the loudness war.

Even 320k MP3 files of an album with a great dynamic range sound better than a CD brickwalled. 

imalone

Grumpyrocker said:

24 bit for listening is a waste of time really.

And the main problem is that it's no use having such great resolution/bitrate tracks when the mastering these days fucks up records. Much better if Neil Young was campaigning against the loudness war.

Even 320k MP3 files of an album with a great dynamic range sound better than a CD brickwalled. 

Fortunately the loudness war is largely over anyway. When NY started promoting that 'sound like vinyl' plug in for playback is when I decided not to take anything he said about audio fidelity seriously (if you can do that it would just be in the decoder). Suspect that he may have hearing damage in ways that mean the lossy perceptual encoding that works for other people doesn't work so well for him. Monty is pretty persuasive on why super-sample rates are not a good idea outside the studio.
I like his music, but it doesn't mean I have to believe everything he says.

Grumpyrocker

Yup I've read that link before. I do prefer to buy my music in lossless forms - though that's to make sure I can convert into various portable forms without generation loss. I just wish we got better mastered music.

There is a move in metal for some better dynamic recordings. Carcass have been rereleasing their back catalog in high dynamic range form. My favourite record of last year by Witherscape came with the vinyl mix on the CD too. But I think you're right - the war is lost - people like loud shitty music to block out the sound of others on the tube. It's a crying shame.

Iamnobody

If NY really believed in the product why would he use kick starter?

I'm presuming a few things here like he does have a personal fortune and business associates that could back him.

I wouldn't buy one. I don't even do mp3 yet! Not properly anyway. I bought one and filled it with cd rips for a holiday 4years ago.

Rocker

Grumpyrocker said:

24 bit for listening is a waste of time really.

Any hi-res music I heard was clearly of better quality than standard cd. Hotel California by The Eagles is a good example of what I mean. What tracks did you listen to, thus forming your opinions on hi-res music?

monquixote

Rocker said:

Grumpyrocker said:

24 bit for listening is a waste of time really.

Any hi-res music I heard was clearly of better quality than standard cd. Hotel California by The Eagles is a good example of what I mean. What tracks did you listen to, thus forming your opinions on hi-res music?

I'm a broadcast engineer I've spent hundreds of hours in professional studios listening to audio of various formats. 

I also do audio quality assessments as part of my job.

I was also involved with the investigation into capture formats for BBC Radio including the decisions on bit depths. 

Essentially 24 bit is useful for capturing audio without loss of quality where there is a very wide dynamic range, or things are likely to not get lined up properly. It's also useful for manipulating audio without loss of quality. It doesn't really make any difference for listening.

Rocker

With respect @monquixote it does. And the degree surprised even me. I heard the hi-res Rolling Stones Grrrrrrr album at a hi-fi dealers showroom recently. By chance I had a few Stones songs ripped uncompressed to a USB stick with me. The difference was obvious after five seconds listening.... Even the early recordings sounded better.

monquixote

Rocker said:

With respect @monquixote it does. And the degree surprised even me. I heard the hi-res Rolling Stones Grrrrrrr album at a hi-fi dealers showroom recently. By chance I had a few Stones songs ripped uncompressed to a USB stick with me. The difference was obvious after five seconds listening.... Even the early recordings sounded better.

I'm not going to have a pointless argument with you about it. 

If you enjoy it then more power to you.

Grumpyrocker

Rocker said:

Grumpyrocker said:

24 bit for listening is a waste of time really.

Any hi-res music I heard was clearly of better quality than standard cd. Hotel California by The Eagles is a good example of what I mean. What tracks did you listen to, thus forming your opinions on hi-res music?

I've read the science. I trust that more than folks' ears.

monquixote

I've been in a room with a group of trainee engineers and a special DAC which could be switched to various bit depths switching up from one bit all the way from 24 and I know I can't hear any difference between things past 16. 

No one else in the room could either (or the lecturer who was a specialist in audio artifacts)