Virtuoso or Maestro.
And naturally, the Goldfinger sounds pretty darn good in the Statement.
Interesting PONO Article
- Thread starter shacky
- Start date
And naturally, the Goldfinger sounds pretty darn good in the Statement.
frankxbe said:
E-Stat said:
I have 2 hires capable systems here including professional studio equipment in a dedicated acoustically treated working pro studio with professional digital and some analog equipment not over priced consumer stuff . Been there and done that although some of it can be very good .
The listening experience will usually be superior in there to many pricey consumer audiophile systems which after a point in given size room the upgrade returns are negligible and often inaudible at a similar listening level .
Very significant sound quality improvements can result from simple things like room treatment and speaker placement in orders of magnitude far beyond a higher resolution digital music source or collection of very expensive boutique DAC's , phono cartidges,preamps amps ,exotic cables ,power cords ,power conditioners etc.etc with the state of modern electronics and speaker design being what it is today.
We've done ABX testing and sighed evaluations on a small, scale among ourselves and a few local music pros ,friends ,family ,some limited research and some hires projects of our own to form what we belive is an educated opinion that 2 ch hires is not what it claims to be .
ofc working in at least 24 bit is necessary for editing /mixing headroom Most of our stuff is ultimately distributed in AAC or 16/44.1 .
16/44.1 is plenty decent playback format if done well .
Based on our experience and limited research we have a pretty good Idea with all things being equal hires doesn't sound remarkably better (if at all) in itself but it's a nice shiny toy and popular subject for forum hobbyists and enthusiasts if it makes them feel better not to mention the marketers ,vendors and mfrs are making some bank on it .
A much more very significant and underutilized format for hires would be multi channel music .
If you think about it audiophiles arguing over mostly measurably inaudible things and formats is rather silly no?
Last edited:
DougMac
Super Member
Thanks, I'm glad you found my perspective well balanced.
I'm with you. I think some are a little cynical. The worst we could accuse Neil Young of is overenthusiasm. I certainly don't group him and Pono with those who try to sell my old maid aunt an overpriced table radio or the company who has more lawyers than engineers and want to retroactively sue Bobby "Boris" Pickett for using a certain word in the title of his hit song.
The iPhone has been both lauded and denigrated in this thread. I've hooked mine up to my home theater and was surprised at the quality. I'm not about to make it my main music source, but it certainly beats the pants off the transistor radio that only got AM that I grew up with.
RobInONT
Active Member
Here is a critique of some of the high res files available on the Pono Music site.
Does seem to imply "caveat emptor" in regards to purchasing high res versions.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/01/last-words-on-pono-mastering-analysis.html
Does seem to imply "caveat emptor" in regards to purchasing high res versions.
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/01/last-words-on-pono-mastering-analysis.html
Still can't describe your empty claims I see.
Agree on the room treatments and as well on cables and power conditioners. Negligible at best. Amps and pre-s matter a good bit. Sources certainly matter. "Magnitude far beyond"? Arguable.
Some recordings -- not all -- sound significantly better in their hi res versions. Format or mastering? I don't really care. I'm just glad they exist. If hi res wasn't an option, nobody would be going back and making these better-sounding versions.
The tests I want to see for hi-res aren't necessarily what people hear, but more about what they don't hear -- I'd like to find a way to test for ear fatigue.
That's a big "if". A huge one actually. I've heard lots of unlistenably dreadful stuff in Redbook. We all have.
Agree 1000%. I'm thrilled that hi res m-ch stuff is still being released long after SACD and DVD-A have been declared dead. And some of the titles (the Steven Wilson-mixed ones in particular) have been outstanding.
"Mostly measurably inaudible" . . .
This morning, I was coming back from dropping my kid at school. Plugged up the Pono and put on "Tears of Rage" from Music from Big Pink. It's just breathtaking in hi res (pulled from my DVD-Audio) -- the expansive reverb on Richard's voice, the big roundness of Levon's toms, the shimmer and thwack of the tambourine during the chorus as Garth's organ mournfully pumps away in the back. The mix breathes wondrously. When I first got the Pono, this was the recording that made my jaw drop. I've listened to it 100s of times and never heard it sound like that. And we're talking about a mix originally created in 1968 on gear of that era!
Format or mastering? It doesn't matter! I just want more stuff that sounds like that. If encouraging hi res makes stuff like that available, I'm all for it.
fredgarvin
Super Member
Yes, that's a large part of it, and it began as soon as the Pono buzz started early last year. I don't know why it can't simply be stated that the iphone sounds pretty good with CD quality files and decent headphones, but the Pono sounds better, because of it's architecture and because of HD files.
Plus, you don't have to join the cult and start wearing a skin tight black turtleneck.
Last edited:
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
Yes, that's a large part of it, and it began as soon as the Pono buzz started early last year. I don't know why it can't simply be stated that the iphone sounds pretty good with CD quality files and decent headphones, but the Pono sounds better, because of it's architecture and because of HD files.
Plus, you don't have to join the cult and start wearing a skin tight black turtleneck.
This is the truth!!! iPhone, world class audio? I think not. In fact I'm certain it's not.
Reynolds531
Active Member
I can't imagine this lack of skepticism and accept that Pono sounds better with no evidence that the architecture is better and no evidence beyond anecdote and testimonials that HD files sound better. And if HD files do sound different it takes a test with 16 expert subjects and statistician to massage the data to find it?
I wouldn't assume that Pono sounds better any more than I would assume that since Apple spends billions on R&D and builds 30,000 units per hour that they have technical expertise and economies of scale that Pono can never touch, so the iPhone must be better.
My original comment reflects this. Why would anyone be surprised that the iPhone sounds as good as the Pono?
Plus, you don't have to join the cult and start wearing a skin tight black turtleneck.
I wish the original article we are discussing used a HTC One instead of an Apple.
I have only bought one Apple product in my life, an iPod Touch which I then gave away to an engineering colleague I was working with in Thailand.
When my kids get upgrades I pick over their old phones and choose one. I actually liked the Samsung Galaxy better than the iPhone until I played music on it.
My son says that HTC one is the way to go. (who by the way is a EE working in hardware design while pursuing a Masters. He laughed when he read how Ponos need to break-in. They don't teach that in EE! Aviation electronics--no break in, Nuclear power plant controllers, no break in, Super computer, no break in, Pono??.)
Bottom line, I don't have a black turtleneck. I do have disdain for the nonsense BS that Pono spews on breaking in electronics, on their use of low bit rate MP3 as a baseline, and their exaggerated claims about Hi Res audio.
Devoid of the BS I actually think that Pono at $400 is a nice deal for a stand-alone music player. I'll buy one the second they denounce down the bull.
I think someone forgot to tell SACD that it was dead.
ev13wt
Super Member
Yes, that's a large part of it, and it began as soon as the Pono buzz started early last year. I don't know why it can't simply be stated that the iphone sounds pretty good with CD quality files and decent headphones, but the Pono sounds better, because of it's architecture and because of HD files.
Plus, you don't have to join the cult and start wearing a skin tight black turtleneck.
This is the truth!!! iPhone, world class audio? I think not. In fact I'm certain it's not.
Why can you not wrap your head around the possibility that an iphone sounds as good as a pono?
Or that high-res is possibly not as good as marketing would lead you to believe?
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
I have actually listened to and compared high-res files and Red Book standard on my system. IMO the high-res files sound better. I've also heard a Pono and numerous iPhones. IMO the Pono is easily audibly better.
Please note, I've not said an iPhone can't or doesn't sound halfway decent. However, world class? NFW!!
IMO an iPhone playing Apple lossless files is audibly comparable to my $40 Sansa ClipZip playing FLAC files.
I don't give two damns about marketing. I actually listen and then make up my mind.
Please note, I've not said an iPhone can't or doesn't sound halfway decent. However, world class? NFW!!
IMO an iPhone playing Apple lossless files is audibly comparable to my $40 Sansa ClipZip playing FLAC files.
I don't give two damns about marketing. I actually listen and then make up my mind.
I haven't seen any proven empirical science to bolster subjective opinions that hires is superior to 16/44.1
What have you done or can you do to support your position any reliable ABX testing ?
It would seem your position is devoid of any proven science... what can you bring useful to the discussion to support your position .
Have you participated in any testing or personally and and repeatedly ABX tested hires vs 16.44.1 professionally produced samples (in their original resolutions ) of the same music and also other identical (except for resolution ) test tones and sounds with both tested samples being precision time aligned with a proven provinece and being level matched on a verified hires capable professional or otherwise hires capable playback chain ?
The legal disclaimer at the Pono website cited in this discussion would seem to indicate they are attempting to reduce the risk of being accused of or litigated against for fraudulent advertising imagine that ?
If one were to do a little more research they might find out that the intent of the language in the disclaimer was advised by one or more of the engineers that designed the Pono.
That's not to say the Pono player doesn't perform well the BOM of the parts used in it would seem to indicate it should sound pretty good and at it's price it's probably not altogether unreasonable .
Ofc. that doesn't mean hires music files with all things being equal would sound any better on a Pono (or any other playback chain ) than an equal quality 16/44.1 sample at matching levels on the same system in the same room at the same listening position or on phones .
Last edited:
My studio monitors in the studio here claim to reach ~ 24 kHz albeit likely with considerable roll off at those frequencies which we can't hear anyway .
Several sets of studio headphones here are rated at ~ 25- 27 KHz .
Speakers that go any higher than that might make good amplified dog whistles if one fed them an appropriate signal :yes:
davidro
Lunatic Member
Fair enough. But the point is there's no point discussing the superiority of HD files (i.e. ones hitting over 25kHz) over the conventional files if your amp and speakers can't swallow them.
OTOH any speaker that could produce that high of a freq is likely to have significant roll off negating any practicality even if one could hear it
No problems with anyone having a subjective opinion that hires sounds better than 16/44.1 nothing wrong with a friendly discussion.
In any event like most people I cant hear 22kHz much less 25kHz
Lacking widely accepted scientific proof lets entertain the proposition lots of variables can quite possibly lead to an incorrect conclusion that with all things being equal hires sounds better than 16/44.1 . Oh I did a lot of precision ABX testing here with the headphones that are rated for 27kHz thus eliminating room variables .
I couldn't reliably tell one resolution from the other musically or even if only listening for artifacts or anomaly's of unknown causation although there were a few people here at my spot and on AVS forums that detected a slight repeatable artifact present at a specific time interval in a hires test file that turned out to be a small time alignment causation once that was corrected with new precision time aligned files the artifact disappeared, hardly proof that hires music sounds better on it's own merits .
Also of note : if you graph many unaltered commercial hires audio files at ~ 0 - +1 dB gain in playback there is little to no information above ~ 20 -22 kHz aside from maybe some transient peaks at about ( - 80 dB ) ..so not much to hear way up there anyway even if you could hear it in an anechoic chamber also our ability to detect audible changes falls off a cliff rapidly once we near our audibility threshold anyway ☺☺
Might as well play a known to be well mastered 16/44.1 file or CD ofc if you can only get a particular recording meeting those criteria in hires
(which is getting more frequent in some cases ) well that's certainly a legitimate reason to buy it .☺☺.
Last edited:
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
I realize all you objectivists will disagree and ask for measured proof. However, I don't have any and am not interested in trying to make measurements. What I hear with some high res files is a greater sense of "they are here or you are there". IME most pop rock recordings don't exhibit this because they've already been massaged and tweaked with an inch of their musical life.
Listening to well recorded Jazz or classical music is when I hear the difference that high res provides. This is not to say it isn't there with pop rock recordings. I just don't usually hear it with them.
In short, with a good recording, to my ears there is more there "there" with high res recordings. I don't know if an extended frequency response is why, although I think not.
Listening to well recorded Jazz or classical music is when I hear the difference that high res provides. This is not to say it isn't there with pop rock recordings. I just don't usually hear it with them.
In short, with a good recording, to my ears there is more there "there" with high res recordings. I don't know if an extended frequency response is why, although I think not.
Reynolds531
Active Member
I understand and appreciate this sentiment. I have an odd bifurcation in my thought process. On the artistic side, the music itself, I don't really want to understand or explain why I, for example, like Miles Davis Kind of Blue and Dave Brubeck Take Five, but dislike Ornette Coleman Sounds of Thing to Come from the Seminal Jazz year 1959 (when I was born). On the media and equipment side I have an odd desire to know why or if a technology can produce higher fidelity sound in my brain.
Given that I'm 56 and can't hear (or run, jump, see or #$%^) like I used to, and given that I like a lot of recordings made in 1950-1980, Hi Res is pointless to me anyway, but I still care if it is BS or not. I'm quite convinced it's BS.
Maybe it's Quixotic, but if we scientists and engineers don't provide skepticism and challenges to technical claims, who will?