Interesting PONO Article

[bangsezmax]

I like some of Neil Young's music and I appreciate what he is trying to accomplish. If his efforts preserve music by remastering from original tapes using the most modern digital equipment at a high bit depth and bit rate, it's been worth it.

If, however, he thinks Pono will set the world on fire and have the great unwashed rushing to sign up to the service, he may be in for a surprise. A lot of the things that doomed SACD may harm Ponos, mainly the premium price to obtain music technical superiority but little or no practical superiority.

The truth is there are just not enough enthusiasts who have expensive, esoteric equipment that are willing to pay the premium price. I think most folks cannot hear enough of a difference to make it worthwhile. They are hindered by normal hearing and normal but still good equipment.

I think I'm a pretty middle of the road AK member. I care enough about music and gear to follow the forum. I'm blessed with pretty good listening spaces and pretty good gear. I don't have 20K or 30K or 40K invested. I found Ponos interesting and did a little research. I looked at my listening habits. I listen to my Sansa Clip at work and either CD's, NPR radio or Rhapsody streamed to my iPhone played via Bluetooth to my car stereo. When I'm home, I normally listen to my record collection in my office or to multi-channel SACD's in my dedicated home theater. I've got too many records to occupy my serious listening to want to listen to other sources. Given that, I've decided I can't justify an investment in Ponos. While it's not right for me, that doesn't mean it's not right for others and I hope there's enough of them to support it.

Posts on this thread indicate AK members and other hi-fi nuts have a hard time with perspective. We are a very small niche, a leftover anachronism. Compare the variety of really good stereo equipment from the past to today's offerings. A lot of people, including me, have moved on to other interests. I spend more on home theater, both for equipment and source, than I spend on stereo gear and music. I'm just not interested in investing enormous amounts of money and time pursuing the "ultimate" stereo setup.

This is a well-balanced perspective on this whole issue. I bolded the parts that I strongly agree with.

I too am a "good but not spectacular vintage equipment" guy. I love what I have, and am thankful to be satisfied enough with it to not have upgrade-itis.
I did the Kickstarter for the Pono because I supported the idea that recordings can and should sound better than they do and anyone who cares about music needs to start steering the conversation in that direction. Neil Young, bless his old hippie heart, is 100% correct in that regard. I bought the Pono simply to vote for that concept with my wallet.

In return I got a portable FLAC player with an outstanding Ayre DAC. Really, when you look what the other Ayre stuff sells for, it's a great deal. You can argue till the cows come home about 24 vs 16 bit and resolution. Bottom line is that the better the recording is mastered, the more little musical jollies you'll get listening to the Pono via headphones or through a nice rig.

What I did not expect was this vehement negativity towards the product and I still don't understand it. Is it about the product hype? I find it hard to believe that people who apparently support Apple products would go an a rant about overpriced and overly-hyped gear!

Look, everybody trying to sell anything (including their opinions, as you can see on this thread!) uses techniques that will appeal to some people and not to others. To each his/her own.

Why bash for the sake of bashing a product that you haven't even heard? What's to prove?

 

[bangsezmax]

Bangsezmax,
Double blind comparison (ABX is one type of many) is a very useful tool if applied appropriately ie. don't overstep the data you obtain. I can engage emotionally with music in "short spurts". How long is the average song? No reason you couldn't use an entire song in an ABX test...in fact many probably do.

Read the Ludwig quote again. The mere act of participating in an ABX test skews the experience. When you get truly lost in a good recording of good music, your brain is going to shut off the analytical parts because they're a distraction.

 

[Dennis Gardner]

If double blind tests were so useless, then they wouldn't be the major way our new drugs are tested as well as other items. It is not useless. It has to be set up appropriately and does not try to prove any conclusions that the test could not test for.

And yet as high as 20% get results simply because of placebo.......

 

[Reynolds531]

Ear burning?

Let's review what you opined:

"but detailed measurments and subjective testing both show that the iPhone DAC, amp, and circuit design give superb audio output eqivalent to expensive boutique DACs..."

that is not the same as saying "iPhone should provide the same performance as any transport/dac available." especially in the context of this discussion.

And what you quote is not just my opinion:

Archimago's musings:

So without further ado, let's have a look at the output of both the iPhone 4 and 6 ... The iPhone 6's DAC measures very well up to the maximum 48kHz sample rate. Furthermore, I was surprised that Apple has been using a minimum phase digital filter at least since the iPhone 4. Not that I really feel it makes much of any difference, but the iPhone can claim "no-pre-ringing" just like the Pono/Ayre folks might claim. Of course, with a typical minimum phase filter like we see here, there is quite a bit of post-ringing. The Ayre folks dampened that with a -6dB at 22kHz slow roll-off filter which IMO isn't necessarily a good thing if you want flat frequency response all the way to 20kHz...Given the measurements I'm seeing, the iPhone's DAC is excellent and can produce very accurate output.

...I listened to both lossy 320kbps MP3 encoded with LAME and AIFF lossless music. The music sounds great using my Sennheiser HD800. Typical audiophile female vocals like Jane Monheit's Come Dream With Me sounded wonderfully detailed with vocal nuances intact. With the iPhone 6 plugged into my AudioEngine A2 speakers for "near-field" listening, the soundstage was excellent and voice well focused. The classic Miles Davis Kind Of Blue sounded nice and warm as it should - nothing was missing, including the elevated background noise and ambient sounds (is that someone clearing his throat 9 seconds into "So What"?). Mark Knopfler's Privateering sounds excellent with multi-layered strings, percussion and vocals on the title track. Loud tracks like Joe Satriani's "Crowd Chant" from Super Colossal (a dynamically compressed DR8 track) sounded fine with the phones capable to rendering details through the "mass" of vocals and playful guitar-voice interchange.

Ken Rockwell

"Holy cow; I tested a Beyerdynamic A200p DAC and headphone amp at the same time I had the iPhone 6 Plus in my audio lab, and the iPhone 6 Plus beat it! The iPhone 6 Plus has less distortion, flatter frequency response and much better ability to drive low-impedance headphones with low distortion than the dedicated portable amp!

While all iOS devices have always sounded great if you have good transfers, the audio output of the iPhone 6 Plus is now so improved that it sounds and measures about as well as professional reference DACs like the Benchmark DAC1 HDR, and better than many consumer DACs.

The iPhone 6 Plus even has flatter response than the Benchmark DAC1 HDR! Of course an iPhone and a plug-in-the-wall professional DAC are intended for entirely different pupposes, but if the 1 volt RMS output (6 dB less than good outboard DACs and CD players) and 3.5mm jack do it for you, there's no reason not to use the iPhone's output for critical listening.

The iPhone 6 is a better analog audio source than many audiophile products, but the cottage industry created around selling you DACs and other accessories you don't need doesn't want you to know. Remember that accessory dealers, manufacturers and publications that accept advertising from these makers have a vested interest in trying to create FUD about the iPhone's audio quality. Don't beleive them and listen for yourself.

Apple has more smart engineers and far more resources than any other audio specialty company. It makes perfect sense that the iPhone output should be spectacular.

No longer do you need to waste money on DACs and headphone amplifiers, at least for most portable (low-impedance) headphones. Save your money and spend it on more music instead."

 

[bangsezmax]

If double blind tests were so useless, then they wouldn't be the major way our new drugs are tested as well as other items. It is not useless. It has to be set up appropriately and does not try to prove any conclusions that the test could not test for.

This was all covered in the other thread, so it's kind of a waste to cover it here . . .

Double blind tests for drugs aren't remotely comparable to people listening to musical samples. When someone has a quantifiable physical reaction to a bad recording, then we can talk.

 

[bangsezmax]

An Apple cultist. Well, that explains a lot!

 

[E-Stat]

If double blind tests were so useless, then they wouldn't be the major way our new drugs are tested as well as other items.

There are, however, significant differences between medical trials and audio trials:

1. In medicine the training, experience and test-taking abilities of the subjects do NOT affect the results of the test.

In audio they all DO. So it is as much of a test of the listeners than differences between the components alone. Harman, for example, trains their speaker evaluators who use the "shuffler". Follow Sean Olive's blog for details.

2. In medicine, the participants don't compare anything. There are administered either the the control or a placebo.

In audio, one must make a forced choice between two different DUT.

3. In medicine the tests have been scientifically validated for this use.

In blind audio component comparisons, there has been NO validation. The sensitivity of the tests for different sonic parameters has not been determined. That's because the sensitivity changes with each subject (see #1).

 

[Reynolds531]

An Apple cultist. Well, that explains a lot!

realhd-audio.com
" Think Pono made a splash with their dedicated yellow 192 kHz/24-bit FLAC player? They’ve presold around 18,000 of them and are currently struggling to complete the design, tooling, testing, and manufacturing of the first batch of Pono music players. Apple will sell 1,000,000 iPhone 6s on the first day after they’re available. Unknowing non-audiophile customers will instantly have a device in their pockets that will perform as well as the Pono device and be able to do so much more."

 

[E-Stat]

that is not the same as saying "iPhone should provide the same performance as any transport/dac available." especially in the context of this discussion.

Since the words "equivalent" and "same" have identical meaning, the only variable is your definition of *boutique* gear. I asked for clarification as to your assertion and you have not provided any.

Archimago's musings...
I listened to both lossy 320kbps MP3 encoded with LAME and AIFF lossless music. The music sounds great using my Sennheiser HD800.

And? "Sounds good". "Sounded nice". "Sounded fine". So what conclusive results do you get from the Faerie Sorcerer?

"While all iOS devices have always sounded great if you have good transfers, the audio output of the iPhone 6 Plus is now so improved that it sounds and measures about as well as professional reference DACs like the Benchmark DAC1 HDR, and better than many consumer DACs.

You hold Ken Rockwell as a discriminating reviewer? He is a hobbyist who *tests* his own stuff exclusively with little perspective of what is available in the marketplace. Read any of his other shallow reviews for more examples.

No longer do you need to waste money on DACs and headphone amplifiers, at least for most portable (low-impedance) headphones. Save your money and spend it on more music instead."

Clearly that guy's point of reference is different from mine as well. He thinks everything he's purchased is just swell.

 

[Reynolds531]

Since the words "equivalent" and "same" have identical meaning, the only variable is your definition of *boutique* gear. I asked for clarification as to your assertion and you have not provided any.

I guess that I should have said "much of boutique gear" so it wouldn't be interpreted to mean an Iphone is as good as any transport and DAC on the face of the earth.

Again, context is important. And I previously stated "for most of us who are not superhuman golden ears"

and I'll stipulate that you, E-stat, are one of the 0.0001% of the population with audio standards and expectations far above the rest of us.

 

[E-Stat]

realhd-audio.com
" Think Pono made a splash with their dedicated yellow 192 kHz/24-bit FLAC player? They’ve presold around 18,000 of them and are currently struggling to complete the design, tooling, testing, and manufacturing of the first batch of Pono music players. Apple will sell 1,000,000 iPhone 6s on the first day after they’re available. Unknowing non-audiophile customers will instantly have a device in their pockets that will perform as well as the Pono device and be able to do so much more."

Don't you just love evaluations made entirely on speculation alone?

Note that the author didn't do a comparison between the two because neither were available!

Alas the *buzz* about the iPhone 6 doing hi-rez that Mark waxed enthusiastically proved to be false.

 

[Reynolds531]

Don't you just love evaluations made entirely on speculation alone?

Note that the author didn't do a comparison between the two because neither were available!

Alas the *buzz* about the iPhone 6 doing hi-rez that Mark waxed enthusiastically proved to be false.

I plead guilty to tweaking bangsezmax.

And I'm curious, after all your hand wringing about brickwall filters, aren't you impressed with the iPhone's lack of pre-ringing?

 

[bangsezmax]

So is this whole "controversy" some defensive stance being argued vehemently by Apple acolytes who think their precious iPhones are getting dissed WRT their audio quality?

Really? This is what people do with their time? Do Apple products carry some sort of virus that renders their users immune to perspective?

 

[ev13wt]

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=640307


Lets all do it and get our own data together!

 

[E-Stat]

I guess that I should have said "much of boutique gear"

You still haven't answered the question. What gear do you consider *boutique*? Surely you've experienced some. Right?

..."for most of us who are not superhuman golden ears"

Gee, I find no such qualification in post # 39. Quite normal folks with regular hearing who are discerning listeners prefer a more musical result. No need to use the appeal to ridicule logical fallacy.

and I'll stipulate that you, E-stat, are one of the 0.0001% of the population with audio standards and expectations far above the rest of us.

What I have trouble with is the inability for you and others to acknowledge there are two separate questions here:

1. Does high resolution audio make a difference?
2. Do many listeners care?

For some reason, you blend the two.

I'll be the first to acknowledge the fact that most folks accept MP3 resolution and fully believe that's as good as it gets.

I really wish others had the good fortune I've had to hear my music on some spectacular systems that convinced me otherwise! If they are truly passionate about music, they may no longer be satiated with mediocrity.

 

[E-Stat]

And I'm curious, after all your hand wringing about brickwall filters,

I would characterize filter performance as the elephant in the room. Hardly anyone here acknowledges it and goes straight for the ridicule fallacy about needing to hear out to 50 kHz and how "decades of science" disproves that.

Totally missing the point.

...aren't you impressed with the iPhone's lack of pre-ringing?

Frankly, yes. Apparently, they understand that you cannot run a linear filter out to Nyquist without pre-ringing. What Charles Hansen at Ayre calls the "listen filter". Rolls off the top a bit, but sounds more natural.

Then again you still get post-ringing which is handily eliminated with a higher sample rate! The solution exists and is entirely practical in today's computer media storage world - unlike 1980.

 

[Dennis Gardner]

The funny thing about audiophiles is that 95% of them drive around in cars with factory paint jobs and stock engines that drive the gearheads crazy......

Isn't if funny how our differences make us all that much more the same???

 

[E-Stat]

The funny thing about audiophiles is that 95% of them drive around in cars with factory paint jobs and stock engines that drive the gearheads crazy...

Paint jobs? I'm completely happy with the paint on my S2000. I must be missing something here.

And I find that 240 HP from a two liter motor provides a "surfeit of adequacy" to borrow R-R's language. Ok, I do use a K&N air filter.

 

[Reynolds531]

You still haven't answered the question. What gear do you consider *boutique*? Surely you've experienced some. Right?

I have wasted too much time going to high end (for me, not for you) audio stores straining to hear the metaphysical joy produced by high end (for me, not for you) gear. I think that any standalone DAC probably qualifies as "boutique."

Gee, I find no such qualification in post # 39.

Reading each post as an enumerated standalone statement is why you miss the context.

What I have trouble with is the inability for you and others to acknowledge there are two separate questions here:

1. Does high resolution audio make a difference?
2. Do many listeners care?

I completely acknowledge the two separate questions.
1. no.
2. not many, but some want it anyway.

I really wish others had the good fortune I've had to hear my music on some spectacular systems that convinced me otherwise! If they are truly passionate about music, they may no longer be satiated with mediocrity.

I already have some regrets that I couldn't enjoy music on an AM transistor radio with a 4 inch speaker like I did when I was a kid. That was truly passionate about music! I do retain the ability to enjoy a $200 Yamaha sound bar, though.

 

[E-Stat]

I think that any standalone DAC probably qualifies as "boutique."

Ah, thank you. I thought it was a simple question. So, you never had the chance to hear any in your own system.

I truly wish the sound quality of the AKM DAC found on the Squeezebox Touch was as good as the Audio Research DAC7 used upstairs. I use the onboard one in the garage system.

I completely acknowledge the two separate questions.
1. no.
2. not many, but some want it anyway.

We will agree to disagree. Sorry you're not hearing as deeply into your music. And I still enjoy listening to my mobile solutions. It's just not the same.