Jump to content


Photo

Pono

pono

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 ColonelForbin

ColonelForbin

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 473 posts
  • LocationChicago, Illinois

Posted 17 March 2014 - 05:14 AM

This thing merits it's own topic independent of the AMPLIFi gear, where I had originally posted it. The actual hardware is now "real"; the photos of it actually look really cool. What excites me most is the HIGH DEFINITION AUDIO that it will allow us to hear.

 

There are folks who will always say that iTunes and MP3's are acceptable, and that they can't hear the difference between 24 bit .wav files and uber-compressed .mp3 audio. And I am not here to rebuke or refute them - to each their own.

 

I personally hear a WORLD of difference when I listen - using the same speakers - to high definition, 24 bit/48k and up audio vs. iTunes .mp3's. The difference is there, it's actual, it's real. We already know that vinyl contains far more musical / audio 'depth' that CD's, which are 16bit / 44.1k, and those are substantially higher quality than .mp3's, which max out at 320kbps. The problem with vinyl, is it's not 'convenient'. I personally have a ton of music in .mp3 format, and I rarely listen to CD's anymore; they haven't held up well over time, that and my CD player in my car doesn't really work well anymore. I don't even have a CD player connected at home, other than the drive in my computer.

 

On the “low end” of higher resolution music (CD lossless, 16 bit/44.1kHz), PonoMusic files have about 6 times more musical information than a typical mp3.  With ultra-high quality resolution recordings (24 bit/192kHz), the difference between a PonoMusic digital file and an mp3 is about 30 times more data from which your player reconstructs the “song”.

 

So, yeah, I also gravitated toward the easily downloaded, shared, compiled, and organized iTunes format for the last several years. The file sizes are manageable, the shuffle options are great, playlists, etc.

 

Why I believe in PONO, is because it offers that same ease of use. And let's face it, storage sizes have increased exponentially, and cost has steadily dropped or stayed the same as drive sizes increased. Terrabytes and more!

 

•    Ultra-high resolution recordings (192 kHz/24 bit): About 800 tracks.

 

Anyway, I will definitely invest the $$ in this device when I am able to buy one, I will actually BUY the music I like in this format, and I personally cannot WAIT to pump the PONO through my StageScape speakers. The future is bright, and music is the light that leads the way.

 

Cheers everyone, and HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

 

http://www.ponomusic.com/

 

https://www.kickstar...discovers-music

 

PONO Player Image1

 

PONO Player Image2

 

PONO Player Image3

 

PONO Player Image4

 

PONO Player Image5


  • 0

"Searching for a distant star, Heading off to Iscandar

Leaving all we love behind, Who knows what dangers we'll find?"


#2 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5549 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 17 March 2014 - 05:33 AM

We already know that vinyl contains far more musical / audio 'depth' that CD's, which are 16bit / 44.1k, and those are substantially higher quality than .mp3's, which max out at 320kbps.

 

Well, whether or not vinyl sounds better than CD can be debated. That all comes down to subjective experience, and there's not much point in arguing that. But from a technical perspective, the CD medium has more dynamic range than vinyl, and can deliver a better frequency response. A lot of it comes down to mastering. Recent mastering techniques have taken the dynamics out of music, and that makes music suck regardless of medium.

 

Personally, when it comes to Pono, I'm not sold on the idea that a good CD is going to sound a whole lot worse than a hi res audio file. I also am not interested in switching to a format where each album is over 1GB. My prediction is that Pono may gain some early interest through this Kickstarter campaign (their goal of $800K was kind of laughably low, if you ask me), but I do not think it's going to make a big impact on the market in general.


  • 0
Time is a train
Makes the future the past
Leaves you standing in the station
Your face pressed up against the glass

 


#3 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15725 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 17 March 2014 - 05:49 AM

i love super high quality sound i really do... i can tell the difference.

but to me the convenience of digital over vinyl wins.. that's why i'll never be a hipster vinyl junkie.

if PONO can bridge that gap its a full win...

but they'll need to do so at a more competitive pricing...

I also will not shell out for the same music every technological advance...

just saying... 


  • 0

#4 gunpointmetal

gunpointmetal

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 06:57 AM

Its cool, its gonna be for audiophiles, and thats it....nobody wants ANOTHER new format right now, especially considering you can't just convert your old media and nobody wants to pay $15-$25 for a digital album that only works on one device.

 

and there is this LOSSLESS DIGITAL MEDIA PLAYER


  • 0

#5 cruisinon2

cruisinon2

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 775 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 07:28 AM

Well, whether or not vinyl sounds better than CD can be debated. That all comes down to subjective experience, and there's not much point in arguing that. But from a technical perspective, the CD medium has more dynamic range than vinyl, and can deliver a better frequency response. A lot of it comes down to mastering. Recent mastering techniques have taken the dynamics out of music, and that makes music suck regardless of medium.

 

Forget dynamics...things like auto-tune have taken the MUSIC out of music. Mumble Ben Stein-style monotone into a mic, and POOF, You're a pop star.

 

Personally, when it comes to Pono, I'm not sold on the idea that a good CD is going to sound a whole lot worse than a hi res audio file. I also am not interested in switching to a format where each album is over 1GB. My prediction is that Pono may gain some early interest through this Kickstarter campaign (their goal of $800K was kind of laughably low, if you ask me), but I do not think it's going to make a big impact on the market in general.

 

You're right...not many will switch if it's really gonna take up that much space...you'd fit what, couple dozen albums on a 32 gig iWhatever? I've got hundreds of albums on there now. Once people get used to convenience, they don't  give it up easily. And I'm sorry, most listeners can't carry a tune in a bucket, and will never notice any difference in quality. Hard core audiophiles might flock to it, but the masses won't.

 

 


  • 0

#6 Mr_Arkadin

Mr_Arkadin

    Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 2617 posts

Posted 17 March 2014 - 07:31 AM

You also have to factor in how many albums that have been recorded digitally were recorded at 192kHz. Probably not many. Old analogue masters could be digitised at the new rate for sure though.

 

You are not going to suddenly hear stuff if you up-samples 44.1 to 192. Personally I record at 24-bit/44.1kHz. I don't see the need for 192kHz at all. Why not increase the amount of tracks you can fit in a device by making it 96kHz? More than enough for most people - even audiophiles. I'm certainly in that camp to some degree being one of the few people that buy SACDs, DVD-As and Blu-ray Audio as well as regular CDs. I very rarely buy downloads. If I do I make sure a flac is available so I can convert to CD and burn my own.

 

I'm sure I even saw an article that claimed going 192kHz isn't necessarily better anyway - and might even be worse. I'll have to hunt around and see if I can find it.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users