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 53

post #781 of 4585
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kokomo O View Post

 

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.

Well illustrated.

post #782 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach-X View Post


Yes, however your customer id IS encrypted into them so if they pop up on p2p apple can potentially identify where they came from.

Very interesting! Good to know, Thanks!

post #783 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tympan View Post
 

Cool, thanks, I did not know that. So, if I buy 10 DRM-free albums from itunes, drag and drop them on a USB key and send them to a friend, he will be able to open and play them, right?

 

I don't see why not, as long as they have a device compatible with the format. I've played them on quite a variety of players, certainly not just Apple ones. 

post #784 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach-X View Post


Yes, however your customer id IS encrypted into them so if they pop up on p2p apple can potentially identify where they came from.

 I did not know that.....thanks for the info!

post #785 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


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

Um, that was you, if you look above. Since we're talking about something that only exists as binary information converted from the analogue sound signal, I translated your term "physical differences" so that it made sense in the context of the conversation that was occurring here, hence, "mathematical differences."

 

Look, you can believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe that 35 year old technology designed as a kluge to fit one particular piece of music onto a disc of predetermined dimension with the smallest pits then feasible at a specified price point is the best possible storage technology, fine, believe it. But there are way too many people who know what real music sounds like, and know that CDs are just a poor approximation, bettered by good vinyl systems, which are themselves imperfect, and also often, not always, bettered by hi-res as well, and who aren't all fooled by confirmation bias.

 

What's especially amusing about all these posts from you "there's no audible difference between redbook and hi-res" guys is when you claim that those of us who do hear a difference are hearing confirmation bias. From the smug tone of your posts, you'd never admit that it's at least as likely that your failure to hear a difference is due to your own confirmation bias.

 

Another observation is that unless you're listening through a chain that's of sufficient resolution, of course you're not going to hear a difference. I don't know what minimum resolution is, or what specific equipment will give you minimum resolution. I'll tell you that in doing my own comparisons I'm using a 2009 iMac running iTunes, an ODAC and a pair of Koss ESP-950s with the Koss E90 energizer. Clearly the weak link is the ODAC, but it's not terrible, although I do need to get a DAC that handles 192kB/sec; the headphones and amp are pretty good.

 

Finally--and unless I get a well-reasoned and respectful response I do intend that it's my final post on this subject--I do agree that mastering can make a more significant difference than either bit rate or depth, which is not to say that those are not important parameters.

post #786 of 4585
Quote:
 If you want to believe that 35 year old technology designed as a kluge to fit one particular piece of music onto a disc of predetermined dimension with the smallest pits then feasible at a specified price point is the best possible storage technology, fine, believe it.

Even if the CD is 35 years old, it is newer than the human ear technology and exceeds my ability to hear audible differences.  You can but 256 bit information in a song and my ears don't hear below 20 Hz or 20 Khz and can not process that much information.  Yes math says there is more information, but the human body and physics says I can't hear it.  Redbook is a perfectly fine listening experience for most people.  If you are worrying about nuances at such a small scale, you are doing it wrong and not enjoying the music:).

 

I prefer to enjoy the music, rather than listen for imperfections.


Edited by meat01 - 4/16/14 at 2:40pm
post #787 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomo O View Post
 

What's especially amusing about all these posts from you "there's no audible difference between redbook and hi-res" guys is when you claim that those of us who do hear a difference are hearing confirmation bias. From the smug tone of your posts, you'd never admit that it's at least as likely that your failure to hear a difference is due to your own confirmation bias.

Yeap, the influence of confirmation bias works for the non believer as much as for the believer.

It would be interesting to see how many non believers have actually never bothered to get a store demo with the proper equipment...

I can hear and respect that none believers can't hear any/enough of a difference between such or such file/equipment as long as they have themselves already tried it, with their own ears and an open mind. What bothers me is when they haven't and yet, tell me it is my "bias confirmation" at work (same thing went on with the Hifiman HM801, the db Audio Labs tranquility DAC, the Tera player... ... ...)

 

Oh well, who cares, the pono got enough back up to come to life pretty soon and I'll be giving it a chance hopefully it delivers on its promise. 

post #788 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat01 View Post
 

Even if the CD is 35 years old, it is newer than the human ear technology and exceeds my ability to hear audible differences.  You can but 256 bit information in a song and my ears don't hear below 20 Hz or 20 Khz and can not process that much information.  Yes math says there is more information, but the human body and physics says I can't hear it.  Redbook is a perfectly fine listening experience for most people.  If you are worrying about nuances at such a small scale, you are doing it wrong and not enjoying the music:).

 

I prefer to enjoy the music, rather than listen for imperfections.

 

For me it's not about listening for or hearing "imperfections" as much as it is about getting closer and closer to the sound I would experience hearing an artist's music live. That is what I've been chasing all these years and what gives me hope for projects like PONO. Many years ago I was at a friend's brother's home who had just finished building his system. He put on an Elton John album and turned out the lights. To my young ears it sounded like Elton was right in front of me singing. The music was palpable. That's what drives MY passion for audio. 

post #789 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by shockdoc View Post
 

 

For me it's not about listening for or hearing "imperfections" as much as it is about getting closer and closer to the sound I would experience hearing an artist's music live. That is what I've been chasing all these years and what gives me hope for projects like PONO. Many years ago I was at a friend's brother's home who had just finished building his system. He put on an Elton John album and turned out the lights. To my young ears it sounded like Elton was right in front of me singing. The music was palpable. That's what drives MY passion for audio. 

Well said--and whether it's Elton John, or any other musician that you dig, that's what listening to recorded music is about.

 

So the whole point about CD redbook sound is that from the get go, it was never as good as the preexisting technology that it competed with. You knew recordings could sound better because vinyl sounded better. It wasn't just me, obviously, who perceived this, or who understood the mathematics of why this would be so from well before the day we could hear a CD. There were lots of us. Some were completely unsuspecting, like my friend Tom, who, when I played him the Beatles' version of Money, said, "wait a minute, there's something wrong here, put on the record," and then said, "yeah, that's what it should sound like." Some are like my 14 year old son, who went 10 for 10 in a level-matched single-blind test between 16/44 and 24/96 files, or in some cases 24/192 files downsampled to 24/96. No confirmation bias in either case.

 

So yeah, I'm not listening for imperfections, I'm listening to the music. But in so doing, I'm not hearing it the way I know it was recorded, or the way I know it could sound if it were presented properly. And while perhaps the current hi-res formats aren't the best that could be done, my experience and my knowledge of math and physics tell me that they're a damn sight better than redbook--by which I mean they're marginally better, but at that margin that means a whole lot more enjoyment for listeners like me.

post #790 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomo O View Post
 

Well said--and whether it's Elton John, or any other musician that you dig, that's what listening to recorded music is about.

In my case, I'll even go as far as saying "better sounding equipment" has made me appreciate music styles or artists I would have never suspected I'd be listening to before... like Diana Krall, Cesaria Evora... or even some classical and Opera... 

post #791 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokomo O View Post

Um, that was you, if you look above. Since we're talking about something that only exists as binary information converted from the analogue sound signal, I translated your term "physical differences" so that it made sense in the context of the conversation that was occurring here, hence, "mathematical differences."

You completely misunderstood what I said.

What I said was, "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."

When I said subjectively perceiving differences even when there are no actual physical differences, I meant exactly that. For example, playing a 16/44 file for someone, and then play the exact same 16/44 file but tell them that it's a 24/96 file. Many people will report subjectively perceiving a difference, even though there is no physical difference, i.e. both files are 16/44.

That's what I meant, not that there's no physical physical or "mathematical difference" between 16/44 and 24/96 or whatever.

Quote:
Look, you can believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe that 35 year old technology designed as a kluge to fit one particular piece of music onto a disc of predetermined dimension with the smallest pits then feasible at a specified price point is the best possible storage technology, fine, believe it.

What I believe is what I have stated previously, that to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences between 16/44 and 24/96. If you can show me otherwise, I'll be happy to look I to it. But at this point, that appears to be the reality and I fail to see why I should be taken to task for believing in the apparent reality.

Quote:
But there are way too many people who know what real music sounds like, and know that CDs are just a poor approximation, bettered by good vinyl systems, which are themselves imperfect, and also often, not always, bettered by hi-res as well...

Well implemented digital, including 16/44 doesn't have anywhere near the gross noise and distortions that vinyl has and there's no arguing that there aren't clear audible differences between the two with many preferring vinyl. There's no arguing over people's subjective preferences, but there's virtually nothing about vinyl that's technically equal to let alone superior to digital, again including 16/44.

Quote:
...and who aren't all fooled by confirmation bias.

And you know they're not fooled by expectation/confirmation bias how exactly? Because they say so?

Quote:
What's especially amusing about all these posts from you "there's no audible difference between redbook and hi-res" guys is when you claim that those of us who do hear a difference are hearing confirmation bias. From the smug tone of your posts, you'd never admit that it's at least as likely that your failure to hear a difference is due to your own confirmation bias.

Sure, biases can work both ways. But all you have to do to put all this to rest is simply demonstrate that there are in fact audible differences between 16/44 and 24/96. And do so by means other than empty claims and hand-waving.

se
Edited by Steve Eddy - 4/16/14 at 6:24pm
post #792 of 4585
deadhorse.gif YOU CANT HEAR FREQUENCIES OF 48000 HZ
post #793 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

Quote:
Look, you can believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe that 35 year old technology designed as a kluge to fit one particular piece of music onto a disc of predetermined dimension with the smallest pits then feasible at a specified price point is the best possible storage technology, fine, believe it.

What I believe is what I have stated previously, that to date no one has demonstrated actual audible differences between 16/44 and 24/96. If you can show me otherwise, I'll be happy to look I to it. But at this point, that appears to be the reality and I fail to see why I should be taken to task for believing in the apparent reality.

Quote:
But there are way too many people who know what real music sounds like, and know that CDs are just a poor approximation, bettered by good vinyl systems, which are themselves imperfect, and also often, not always, bettered by hi-res as well...

Well implemented digital, including 16/44 doesn't have anywhere near the gross noise and distortions that vinyl has and there's no arguing that there aren't clear audible differences between the two with many preferring vinyl. There's no arguing over people's subjective preferences, but there's virtually nothing about vinyl that's technically equal to let alone superior to digital, again including 16/44.
se
That pretty much sums up my thoughts and experiences with regards to HD audio and that correlates exactly with what has been studied.

And likewise for vinyl. Vinyl may sound good, but higher harmonic distortion introduced from imperfections of the vinyl's grooves are far from high-fidelity, unlike that of digital audio. Perhaps this is what Pono does to get "vinyl-like" sound quality.
post #794 of 4585

aaaaaaand back to the Pono. The campaign is finished and I managed to resist the temptation to buy a Willie Nelson limited-edition player (pats self on back). I'm going to try to wait until the end of the year before I buy a new dap. By then, there should be more than enough reviews to decide between the Pono/Calyx M/Sony ZX-1/Fiio X5/Ibasso DX90. I have upgrade-itus, but not early adopter-itus...

post #795 of 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post
 

 I have upgrade-itus, but not early adopter-itus...

LOL   :p

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