Neil Young Launches PonoMusic - What do you think ?

[Richie Royale]

A million dollars well invested?

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/mar/12/neil-young-kickstarter-pono-music-player

I think not.

[Helmutcrab]

Yep,

It just doesn't make sense to me to do this. Ok it gives people the chance to run tracks in 24 bits and higher sample rates when available ( and you will have to pay for tracks you already own in a lot of cases ) but when people do this and find out there just isn't the increase in quality that the marketing will have you believe it will surely not compete even for the few who have got on board.

[Richie Royale]

Confirmation bias will make the purchase worthwhile for the few.

[Helmutcrab]

Sure, plus also most people will have little to know knowledge or experience of higher resolution and will assume bigger is better, which is understandable.

[Tim Gillett]

Neil Young has been no stranger to recording studios for the past 40 or more years. That was the time of transition mostly to digital recorders and processing. Surely he's met enough savvy engineers who could have respectfully put him straight many times over on digital audio.

Does he only employ the personnel who agree with his views, or do they voluntarily self-censor when it comes to topics like this when they remember who is paying them? Dudley Moore's piano teacher character had to agree with his pupil, "Yes, the black notes do play louder"...

[Helmutcrab]

Exactly. I know very little about most stuff but i respect the knowledge of people who have expertise on a subject and reading about it left me with little doubt there are currently few benefits to this idea. I know its only intelligent to question everything in life and show independent thought but when the facts make good sound sense and are available to read if you are interested then thats it.

Anyway, he should have asked the folks around here about it ( er excluding me ) . Im sure the mighty knowledge base that is Hugh and co. could have put him on the right track.

Cheers

[Richie Royale]

Neil Young has been no stranger to recording studios for the past 40 or more years. That was the time of transition mostly to digital recorders and processing. Surely he's met enough savvy engineers who could have respectfully put him straight many times over on digital audio.

Does he only employ the personnel who agree with his views, or do they voluntarily self-censor when it comes to topics like this when they remember who is paying them? Dudley Moore's piano teacher character had to agree with his pupil, "Yes, the black notes do play louder"...

See the Bruce Swedien thread for examples as to why successful engineers are not always the ones to ask about technical matters.

[Dr Huge Longjohns]

Dear old Neil should team up with our favourite purveyor of audiophile cables--they'd make a great team.

[hollowsun]

Funnily enough, I meant to say that in my 'folly' post ... but forgot.

But yes, Russ Andrews probably has enough stupid sucker customers who'd go for this AND claim they can hear a difference. And Mr Andrews could no doubt sell them a £4,000 USB cable ... sorry - 'interconnect'!

[Martin Walker]

I've been perusing this product today after a friend announced that he'd already placed his pre-order, and still can't see what all the fuss is about.

Surely this FiiO X3 FLAC/WAV player is arguably just as good as the Pono (plays up to 192kHz/24-bit file formats), yet is half the price, and already widely available?

http://www.ea-audio.co.uk/fiio_x3.html



Have I missed something obvious?

Martin

[Hugh Robjohns]

The money's not in the player, it's in the music store download purchases!

H

[Theremax]

I've just watched the Kickstarter video and it's almost a bit Chris Morris/Ricky Gervais/Brian Pern-esque with all the celebs but I can't work out what the point of the satire would be!

There's a number of distinguished musos on there extolling Pono's virtues but I'm not convinced that they would be able to hear the difference (to the level they describe) from CD up to 96kH and on up to 192kHz, let alone from the mp3 (and in a car!). Have they all been had?!!

[Richard Graham]

Ok so Pono is just an overpriced FLAC player marketed to old farts with more money than sense... It makes sense now.

Dr Dre's Beats are just overpriced headphones, marketed to kids with more money than sense... Hasn't stopped them being a roaring success.

As long as it also plays MP3, WAV, and WMA, I can't see a problem with it, commercially speaking.

[Tim Gillett]

Here's a talk Neil Young gave to a live audience on Pono yesterday :

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=289435279&m=289465657

Rambling and full of misunderstandings. Perhaps his intentions are good.

Amazingly, the audio file of his talk is badly distorted (clipped?) all the way through...

Tim

[Glenn Bucci]

It's all about bigger marketing numbers and nothing to do with sensible audio quality. And Apple have already cornered the market anyway.

For general consumer domestic replay applications there's nothing wrong with 16/44.1 using decent delta-sigma converters. More dynamic range and bandwidth than 98% of listeners can hear. 24/96 is ideal for music capture and post production. 192 has some applications in signal processing. 384 is a complete waste of space as far as I'm concerned!

H

I agree to a point. If your listening to music with earbuds perhaps. Many years ago I bought a Adcom 555 amp and pre amp, and a Dual CS 5000 turntable with some pretty good speakers. I listened to records and even cassettes that sounded amazing. If you have a quality system you will enjoy the better sounding music.

In addition, I always disliked having a great mix in my studio that was recorded at 48 or 96 24 bit, and then I have to reduce the sound quality to 44 16 bit. I clearly hear the difference every time. Everyone knows how great audio sounds on DVD movies, and if we could get that in audio players it would be great! Now if they can get the music from the master tapes and do this, this is great,

[Hugh Robjohns]

I agree to a point. If your listening to music with earbuds perhaps.

I only ever use earbuds when listening to an iPod on a journey by train or plane somewhere. The vast majority of my listening is via pretty high-end equipment, and I almost always use 16/44.1 sources. The good recordings sound fabulously good to me. The bad ones sound abysmally bad. I'd expect nothing less in either case. Sadly, there seem to be more of the latter than the former...

But if you've ever heard just one CD that sounds fabulous, clearly there is no fault with the technology!

I listened to records and even cassettes that sounded amazing.

I'm yet to find a cassette (or cassette player) that sounds 'amazing'. Unstable azimuth, audible noise floor, limited bandwidth, dropouts, flutter and scrape noise... yuch!

I have a reasonable Linn turntable and a lot of vinyl albums, and enjoy playing them very much. They have a certain quality that is attractive -- both in terms of listening and in the whole handling aspect and sleeve notes/cover artwork etc. But I also always hear the clicks, the tracking distortion, the pre-echoes, and the noise floor. It is a flawed format from yesteryear. Better than shellac 78s, but not as good as high-speed tape or good digits.

The benefit of vinyl records, for me, is that they usually have far less dynamic range reduction inflicted at the mastering stage than CDs, but technically they are a very poor medium in comparison and a good digital recording will easily expose the limitations of vinyl pressings.

At the end of the day, the aim is to get the information from the master tape into the domestic environment, and CD can do that very well. Vinyl (and cassette) can't. The fact that so many mastering engineers fail in that task -- often for reasons beyond their control -- is the great shame.

If you have a quality system you will enjoy the better sounding music.

That much is certainly true -- provided the source is good, which is not as common as it should be.

I clearly hear the difference every time.

I suspect this is confirmation bias or poor converters. It's not something I have problems with myself.

Everyone knows how great audio sounds on DVD movies, and if we could get that in audio players it would be great!

Most DVD tracks are 20bit/48k, which is hardly a massive step up from 16/44.1. The difference is that the tracks aren't crushed to death and they are recorded with headroom. It's the use of dynamics that makes them come alive, and hopefully the loudness normalisation paradigm will help to reinstate that opportunity in the music world in the years to come.

Now if they can get the music from the master tapes and do this, this is great,

Easy peasy. I do it all the time!

H

[Glenn Bucci]

So if you recorded a song at 96 24 bit, bounce it to a two bus. Then dithered it down to 16 bit 44 and compare it to the 96 24 bit file on you beloved PMC's and your Neumann 310's you don't hear a difference?

In using Rosetta Apogee 800 converters with either Wavelab or Samplitude with POW1 I hear less clarity in the top end when I compare them.

[Hugh Robjohns]

So if you recorded a song at 96 24 bit, bounce it to a two bus. Then dithered it down to 16 bit 44 and compare it to the 96 24 bit file on you beloved PMC's and your Neumann 310's you don't hear a difference?

Not when listening in a conventional domestic setting and at normal levels, no -- and certainly nothing that would 'affect sales'.

Of course, not all SRCs, dither algorithms and converters perform as well as they should or are entirely transparent.

In using Rosetta Apogee 800 converters with either Wavelab or Samplitude with POW1 I hear less clarity in the top end when I compare them.

The Rosetta is not an entirely neutral converter, and I don't know which versions of Wavelab and Samplitude you're using, but I'd expect Wavelab to be significantly more transparent in its SRC functions. (Compare their performance here: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ )

Pow-R is also not an entirely benign or transparent word-length reduction process, and the fact that it piles a great deal of dither energy around the Nyquist frequency is quite likely to cause problems with half-band converters that only achieve 3-6dB attenuation at the Nyquist point.

I hear less clarity in the top end when I compare them.

It's possible for the reasons listed above, but try it with double-blind comparisons and see how reliably you can identify that reduced clarity.

H

[Glenn Bucci]

I choose the Rosetta a while back as it had a more "analog sound" ( I hate using those words but I think you know what I mean) and not so crystal clear with a slight brittle sound in the high end from my prior converters. I still like the Rosetta better than the Lynx Aurora but with new converters like the Focusrite 2 out (PC user so can't use the newer Apogee) I would like to update at some point.
It should be noted I use the D/A converters in my Dangerous D Box for playback. I noticed a slight clearer sound with their converters compared to my Rosetta.

I use Wavelab 8 which has the crystal algorithm, compare to Samplitude's Pro X Pow 1 and 2. Steinberg claimed they updated the CD/DVD burning engine in version 7. Nothing has changed in Samp for years.

I will perform a blind test and report back using Wavelab.

[muzines]

The sad truth is that most regular people do not know what good quality audio is, nor do they know how to critically hear (not a criticism, just an observation).

I was watching Twit the other day where they were discussing the Pono and it's frustrating seeing how ignorant people are about audio in general.

I've had a good few conversations with people who started of by commenting on how "good quality" this music was, only for me to audibly demonstrate clipping, limiting, limited dynamic range and mp3 conversion and so on for them to realise that what they were listening to (once they knew what to listen for and how) *actually* sounded bloody awful, and how they could now understand my comments as to that.

And I probably forever ruined their music listening experience from then on...

I would imagine a few people will buy a Pono, and be happy with their purchase, and think that indeed their music does indeed sound better. Kind of like how people go to mediums to get comfort - they are being ripped off and manipulated, but if they know no better and feel better, is there harm in this? (imo: yes)

[Richie Royale]

And I probably forever ruined their music listening experience from then on...

The joy of being a production enthusiast. I must stop rewinding records to show people where the edit has been badly done - Hollywood Swinging by Kool in the Gang (LP version) was my latest infraction there.

[Helmutcrab]

Most DVD tracks are 20bit/48k, which is hardly a massive step up from 16/44.1. The difference is that the tracks aren't crushed to death and they are recorded with headroom. It's the use of dynamics that makes them come alive, and hopefully the loudness normalisation paradigm will help to reinstate that opportunity in the music world in the years to come.

This is so true. The dynamic range creates enormous volume shifts when watching a movie at home. In fact, so much so that i can't hear the quiet dialogue from the broody low voiced male heroes in most of the movies i watch - so i turn it up at that point and BAM my ears are blasted when the explosion goes off ! I act like the worst compressor ever with the remote control volume - always too late. I really want to set up a compressor between TV and stereo to avoid having to do this.

I really hope the loudness normalisation will allow music to breath again. Its crazy, way too much compression and limiting on music and not enough in DVD films ( at least for old farts like me who are too worried about upsetting the neighbours and my ears ) . I would have liked the option on DVDs to either leave audio as is or reduce the range but maybe thats just me.

[BJG145]

I told my wife I wanted Pono for my birthday. She just said 'You're DISGUSTING!'. But I think she's getting me one anyway.

J

Since you posted that I just haven't been able to get into this discussion at all.

Pono music indeed.

[Tim Gillett]

Most DVD tracks are 20bit/48k, which is hardly a massive step up from 16/44.1. The difference is that the tracks aren't crushed to death and they are recorded with headroom. It's the use of dynamics that makes them come alive, and hopefully the loudness normalisation paradigm will help to reinstate that opportunity in the music world in the years to come.

This is so true. The dynamic range creates enormous volume shifts when watching a movie at home. In fact, so much so that i can't hear the quiet dialogue from the broody low voiced male heroes in most of the movies i watch - so i turn it up at that point and BAM my ears are blasted when the explosion goes off ! I act like the worst compressor ever with the remote control volume - always too late. I really want to set up a compressor between TV and stereo to avoid having to do this.

I really hope the loudness normalisation will allow music to breath again. Its crazy, way too much compression and limiting on music and not enough in DVD films ( at least for old farts like me who are too worried about upsetting the neighbours and my ears ) . I would have liked the option on DVDs to either leave audio as is or reduce the range but maybe thats just me.

I agree with you re some DVD's. For me at least with the genres I watch/listen to, the dynamic range on good quality productions is usually excellent, listened to in my quiet home space with a good setup. It's the releases from less expert companies that are usually the problem. There's often a contrast between the main feature film on a DVD and the Special Features, Bonus Material, Extras, or whatever they call it. Often done by small production companies the latter audio can be all over the place. Too compressed, not compressed enough, widely varying in level, poor mic positioning, EQ balance etc. All the usual faults.

I just watched tonight Noel Coward's Blithe Spirit(1945) on a 2004 DVD reissue. Here, it was not the Extras (there were none) but the actual feature film. Someone had used expansion on the 1945 optical sound track so that (I kid you not, I measured it in Wavelab later on) it now had an average ground noise level in programme silences, of around -90db re peak levels. Actors words swung wildly from inaudibly quiet to ear shatteringly loud, and all in the one sentence.

Online customer reviews of the DVD confirmed the soundtrack was almost unlistenable, but the point is, it was made unlistenable in 2004 by some production employee ostensibly trying to make it a better soundtrack. Rather they had ruined it.

A further online search reveals the same original film has recently been released on Blu Ray by another (well respected) company, amid glowing reviews. Some will wrongly conclude (like some proponents of hi res such as Pono) the improved soundtrack will be because of Blu ray's better audio specs re DVD (if indeed it has, I'm not sure). But it will have been nothing to do with the Blu Ray format or the DVD format, but in the production skill and the "ears" of the production staff. Whoever worked on the audio track for the 2004 DVD release was incompetent. It had nothing to do with the technology or the sampling rate or the bitrate of the DVD.

As George Martin once said "you need... ears".

[muzines]

I've seen more than a few (usually US-based) TV broadcasts so heavily compressed and limited that when the dialog is quiet, the background noise and ambience comes up to the level where dialog normally is(!), only to be squashed down to it's usually barely audio level when the dialog commences.

I expect most of us audio production types are fairly heavy with the volume control in our day to day lives...