or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › PONO - Neil Youngs portable hi-res music player
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

PONO - Neil Youngs portable hi-res music player - Page 51

post #751 of 4585
I never believe in buying first gen products. I'll wait for reviews and see what other competitors come out with in the 500 buck price range. I don't love personal audio enough to buy an ak240.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
post #752 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegasf1 View Post

I never believe in buying first gen products. I'll wait for reviews and see what other competitors come out with in the 500 buck price range. I don't love personal audio enough to buy an ak240.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Buying v.2 or v.3 is almost always a good way to go.  Many v.1 products have problems which -- either were unexpected -- or for which there was not time in the v.1 schedule to iron them out.  For example, I never get the newest OS on the day it comes out.  That rule has served me well!

 

In this case, I bought in to v.1 to help make sure that there would be a v.2.  :-)

post #753 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


What makes you believe that? 

I believe Hi-res can add something (more room to breath and dynamics) based on personal A/B comparison. I say "can" because sure, it depends on:

 

• The quality of the original recording

• Te type of music recorded

• How revealing the equipment is (no weak link)

• Room treatment

• The listener (Not everyone can accurately tune a music instrument, not everyone's hearing is the same, not everyone likes the same sound signature... ... ...)

 

I haven't compared Hi-Res with 16/44.1 on the latest DAP players therefore I will refrain from quick conclusions or skepticism towards them. But sure, I am aware that many manufacturers have been using the Hi-res gig to lure people in making them believe Higher-res = better sound when in fact no difference happened (I've seen it with a $1600 CD player...) I've also seen manufacturers advertising DAP/DAC as 48/192 when in reality, the restitution is down sampled (!)... millions of dollars are made like this with no difference in the end, sure. Same abuse goes with the industries of Home audio, Home Theatre, cables... I hear your point, I'm neither closed minded nor gullible of the audio fluff/hypes going around. 

 

All I'm saying is all the right conditions need to be there for the improvement to be audible. 

 

But maybe you believe that regardless of who is listening, in whatever situation, with whatever equipment/recording... Absolutely no one can audibly tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 and if one claims to, it is purely imaginary? Is that it? (I'm asking because I am not sure I fully understand your point) 

post #754 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tympan View Post

But maybe you believe that regardless of who is listening, in whatever situation, with whatever equipment/recording... Absolutely no one can audibly tell the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 and if one claims to, it is purely imaginary? Is that it? (I'm asking because I am not sure I fully understand your point) 

What I'm saying is that no one to date has demonstrated (beyond hand-waving and empty claims) any actual audible differences between the two.

se
post #755 of 4585

Most high end audio stores are happy to provide audition of their systems.

Have you even gone into one of them, expressed your skepticism about the ability of Hi-res to make any difference and asked for a demonstration to hear it for yourself?

post #756 of 4585

Even if Apple goes high res, will an iPod be able to play it or will it just downsample it yet again but in the player? 

post #757 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tympan View Post

Most high end audio stores are happy to provide audition of their systems.
Have you even gone into one of them, expressed your skepticism about the ability of Hi-res to make any difference and asked for a demonstration to hear it for yourself?

Of course they will, but they will not set up a blind,level matched test which is what is needed to prove there is really an audible difference and not just placebo.
post #758 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by daphen View Post
 

Even if Apple goes high res, will an iPod be able to play it or will it just downsample it yet again but in the player? 

They won't go high res unless they intend to upgrade their players/iPhones to play it, meaning their new equipment.  The iDevices you currently own wouldn't be able to play it.

post #759 of 4585
If Apple does this, it would be a device-specific download. Hi-res would only go on devices that support it. The thing that is tricky is outboard DACs, which are not always connected when the download happens. So there would be a user specific setting in the iTunes Store to handle the choice of download.

All this complexity in delivery may be what is holding up Apple. They have a lot of legacy devices out in the market.
post #760 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzman7 View Post

All this complexity in delivery may be what is holding up Apple. They have a lot of legacy devices out in the market.

I think Apple is more likely to focus on fine tuning their devices than mess with Hi-res. Until technology has evolved enough, last thing they want is to compromise their design/form factor with fat batteries and massive capacitors when most Apple consumers are generally happy enough with their audio quality.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 5 years, they came up with a better DRM codec though, some alternative to the current lossless Flac 16/44.1...  something audible enough, a little more competitive sound-wise, and allowing them to keep the itunes $$$ coming in...

I'm sure meanwhile, they'll be watching the pono and pay attention to how people are responding to this niche market. If they feel better sounding portable audio gear affects their sales, they'll step in with a "super ipod" or something... 

post #761 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tympan View Post
 

I think Apple is more likely to focus on fine tuning their devices than mess with Hi-res. Until technology has evolved enough, last thing they want is to compromise their design/form factor with fat batteries and massive capacitors when most Apple consumers are generally happy enough with their audio quality.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 5 years, they came up with a better DRM codec though, some alternative to the current lossless Flac 16/44.1...  something audible enough, a little more competitive sound-wise, and allowing them to keep the itunes $$$ coming in...

I'm sure meanwhile, they'll be watching the pono and pay attention to how people are responding to this niche market. If they feel better sounding portable audio gear affects their sales, they'll step in with a "super ipod" or something... 

 

They haven't had DRM in several years now, and the iTunes $$$ is still rolling in. 

post #762 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiascogarcia View Post
 

They won't go high res unless they intend to upgrade their players/iPhones to play it, meaning their new equipment.  The iDevices you currently own wouldn't be able to play it.

As is the Apple way I guess..

post #763 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


What makes you believe that? How many millions are being made by companies selling quack products, like the Power Balance bracelets? Because it's so trivially easy to get humans to subjectively perceive differences even when there are no actual physical differences, you can always sell things to people for which there are no actual audible differences.

se

You know, I've probably said I would go silent on this issue at least once before, and I'm not going to go into the math yet again. But the refusal of many to believe that there are "physical differences"--mathematical differences, really--between rebook and hi-rez files is just plain silly. Look up my old posts in this thread, and there are probably many others scattered through Head-fi, and definitely others across the internet.

 

Anyway, refusing to recognize the mathematical differences I've noted previously (and others as well) is like refusing to note the physical differences between a modern Ferrari and an old VW Beetle. Both get you where you're going, both burn gasoline, but they do those things very differently.

 

Look, the redbook standard was not designed to produce a file that would result in a great sounding recording by the standards of either 1979 or 2014. It was designed to produce a pretty good sounding recording of Beethoven's Ninth that could be crammed onto a CD with the limitations of data storage as they were understood in the late 1970s, without surface noise and with full bass response. That's all. The fact that CDs produced to the redbook standard sound as good as they do 35 years after adoption of the standard is nothing short of amazing. The fact that smart engineers can now produce better sounding recordings should not surprise you, and you shouldn't fight it, you should go with that flow.

post #764 of 4585
Everyone has seen the charts and knows the mathematical differences. It's more a matter that under test conditions it turns out that all that extra 'data' is inaudible.
post #765 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kendoji View Post

Everyone has seen the charts and knows the mathematical differences. It's more a matter that under test conditions it turns out that all that extra 'data' is inaudible.

Thank you.

And I'd like to know just who it is that's arguing there is no "mathematical difference." Looks like a straw man to me.

se
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › PONO - Neil Youngs portable hi-res music player