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 55

post #811 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tympan View Post
 

 

 

Not only most of these detractors have never heard anything else than an ipod/iphone in the first place but many still assume that "Apple lossless" (AAC 258 kbps) is lossless CD quality!!!

When in fact, it is LOSSY and audibly inferior to true 16/44.1 lossless CD quality. The difference is audible on most middle of the road DAPs, many desktop DACs, and even more obvious on top tier CD players...

 

 

"Apple lossless" is not the AAC 256kbps stuff they sell as digital downloads in the iTunes Store. You only get it (ALAC- Apple Lossless Audio Codec) if you rip a CD and encode it that way....ALAC is equal to FLAC, quality wise. :smile_phones:

post #812 of 4604

I have a question a little OT.  On a MAC how to rip a CD into FLAC and be able to adjust the bit rate? Whether I am fooling myself or not, downloaded music I have been converting from 16/41 to 16/96 and hahaha on me I think I hear a difference. So please no telling me how dumb a idea it is, if you can help with a deco for program I'd appreciate it.

post #813 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post
 

 

"Apple lossless" is not the AAC 256kbps stuff they sell as digital downloads in the iTunes Store. You only get it (ALAC- Apple Lossless Audio Codec) if you rip a CD and encode it that way....ALAC is equal to FLAC, quality wise. :smile_phones:

Nice to know, wow!.. So yes, everything I've bought on itunes is lossy and can't be converted in true ALAC, right?

Can my iphone 4 even play ALAC? (I know it can play lossless .flac with an App but the Accudio app has been unbearably buggy...)

post #814 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saraguie View Post
 

I have a question a little OT.  On a MAC how to rip a CD into FLAC and be able to adjust the bit rate? Whether I am fooling myself or not, downloaded music I have been converting from 16/41 to 16/96 and hahaha on me I think I hear a difference. So please no telling me how dumb a idea it is, if you can help with a deco for program I'd appreciate it.

I use Aiseesoft ($20) for conversions although I haven't tried to download files from a CD to convert them into .flac (I don't see why it couldn't do that)... This program gives you the choice between 13 of the most common audio formats (AAC, AC3, AIFF, AMR, AU, FLAC, MP3, M4A, MP2, OGG, MKA, WAV, WMA) + choice of Bit rate and other things, very easy to use. 

 

You can convert pretty much anything into anything but if you take a 5 MB mp3 256kbps and convert it into a 30 MB "lossless" .flac, the quality of your recording will be as good as the original mp3 (it won't improve the sound even though it will have 6 times more data)

 

 


Edited by Tympan - 4/18/14 at 12:12am
post #815 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tympan View Post
 

Nice to know, wow!.. So yes, everything I've bought on itunes is lossy and can't be converted in true ALAC, right?

Can my iphone 4 even play ALAC? (I know it can play lossless .flac with an App but the Accudio app has been unbearably buggy...)

 

Yes, everything you've bought as a download has been lossy, so converting it to ALAC would only make it bigger, not better.

 

And yes, an iPhone or other iPod will play ALAC, without the need for any 3rd party app.....assuming you have enough space for them onboard. If you have the extra hard drive space, you could convert some of your favorite FLACs to ALAC (keeping the original FLACs separate and making a new folder for the ALAC conversions) ahead of time just for use on the iPhone. A FLAC to ALAC, or vice versa conversion,  should maintain lossless status, so you shouldn't lose any bits. 

post #816 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


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

 

One of the best known digital designers I have talked to hates the 24/192 stuff, but, it's what the customers want and where the money is right now..

 

The only shot of 24/96 or 24/192 sounding better to a human than 16/44.1 is if they are selling a better mastering knowing that the 24/96 or 24/192 is going to be purchased by an audience that intends to play it on high-end equipment. it's a possibility, but I'm not aware of any such releases right now.

 

And I was just over at HDTracks looking at an album that's available in 24/192, 24/96, and 16/44.1. The 16/44.1 is $12, the 24/96 is $18, and the 24/192 is $25. Ok, i'll purchase the 16/44.1 and save the money. But then I had another thought -- what if, knowing that nobody can hear the difference, they're going to start intentionally making the 16/44.1 stuff sound worse? That is a definite real possibility

 

At least though the high-res stuff is far from the most absurd thing to hit high-end audio. Several years ago I was "embarrassed" as a manufacturer at a demonstration because when asked to pick which CD had the special magic marker treatment, I picked the wrong one. Should have seen that coming


Edited by justin w. - 4/18/14 at 1:15am

HeadAmp Audio Electronics - home of the Pico and Gilmore amps.  Now with Audeze, Fostex, HiFiMAN, Sennheiser, and STAX.
Find us at www.HeadAmp.com

Reply
post #817 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post
 

 

Yes, everything you've bought as a download has been lossy, so converting it to ALAC would only make it bigger, not better.

 

And yes, an iPhone or other iPod will play ALAC, without the need for any 3rd party app.....assuming you have enough space for them onboard. If you have the extra hard drive space, you could convert some of your favorite FLACs to ALAC (keeping the original FLACs separate and making a new folder for the ALAC conversions) ahead of time just for use on the iPhone. A FLAC to ALAC, or vice versa conversion,  should maintain lossless status, so you shouldn't lose any bits. 

Thank you, I will try that and see if ALAC is audibly better than AAC on my iphone

post #818 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tympan View Post
 

I'm not really that annoyed at Apple. I've been a Mac user for 10 years, Macbook Pro, ipods, iphone...  I'm just not relying on them for audio. Thankfully, the portable audio industry has provided me with alternatives and better suited portable players (namely HM801, HM700, and Tera player)

 

I am more annoyed at people criticizing such alternatives every time someone comes up with something different that the common ipod. First of all, if that's not their thing, no problemo, they can ignore it and move on. But instead, too often, they criticize like they know better.

 Pono detractors often say there is no audible difference between hi-res and Lossless CD so there won't be any audible difference between an ipod and a pono... insinuating that Neil Young's project is nothing more than a profitable venture in disguise to take advantage of gullible music snobs, pretty much... and then pointing at the triangular design as a total fail in comparison to the sleek ipod/iphone's design (another clue in their mind of a lack of competency and rubbish intentions)... It never crossed their mind that maybe, assuming a recording is well produced, the delivered quality will depend on both the file's quality itself and the quality of the electronic components/design of the player...

 

Not only most of these detractors have never heard anything else than an ipod/iphone in the first place but many still assume that "Apple lossless" (AAC 258 kbps) is lossless CD quality!!!

When in fact, it is LOSSY and audibly inferior to true 16/44.1 lossless CD quality. The difference is audible on most middle of the road DAPs, many desktop DACs, and even more obvious on top tier CD players...

 

Skepticism is healthy when expressed with an open mind and sufficient information (not just "scientific" reports).

Assuming the pono succeeds in delivering audibly superior music enjoyment. Many will still favor the practicality of an all in one slim device, sure. I don't think Neil Young's mission ever was to take over Apple... But Apple won't put as much effort into improving the sound they have advertised as being "good enough" unless their sales are decreasing (which is happening right now)... 

 

In the end, wether these pono detractors realize it or not, if Apple's sound quality ever gets audibly better than what it is now (yes, there is room for audibly better and I don't think anyone would complain about a better sounding ipod/iphone), the alternative portable audio's industry efforts, Neil Young included, and all those who supported these projects with an open mind may very well be responsible for Apple addressing these improvements faster...

I get your argument, and I too am all for Apple alternatives. Competition usually improves any industry.  I hope Pono is a good product and if it is, I hope it is a success. I see earlier posts addressed the Apple lossless issue, and to me, ALAC, FLAC, WAV, and AIFF among others all sound the same.  The one thing I do hope for is that Apple competitors bring their UI development up to Apple quality.  That's the main reason I stick to my iDevice/CLAS vs alternative DAP's.

post #819 of 4604
There are already a bunch of apple alternatives that are not shaped like a candy bar, have a built in amp, sound awesome and don't claim that 16/44 sounds inferior. If Neil Young believes in it so much, why didn't he pony up the money himself to fund it?
post #820 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by justin w. View Post

One of the best known digital designers I have talked to hates the 24/192 stuff, but, it's what the customers want and where the money is right now..

Well sure. Because 24 is bigger than 16 and 192 is bigger than 44. So it's just gotta be better. The numbers game is there to be played right up front.

Quote:
The only shot of 24/96 or 24/192 sounding better to a human than 16/44.1 is if they are selling a better mastering knowing that the 24/96 or 24/192 is going to be purchased by an audience that intends to play it on high-end equipment. it's a possibility, but I'm not aware of any such releases right now.

Yeah, I doubt there will be much remastering to speak of. And of course remastering can go either way.

Quote:
And I was just over at HDTracks looking at an album that's available in 24/192, 24/96, and 16/44.1. The 16/44.1 is $12, the 24/96 is $18, and the 24/192 is $25. Ok, i'll purchase the 16/44.1 and save the money. But then I had another thought -- what if, knowing that nobody can hear the difference, they're going to start intentionally making the 16/44.1 stuff sound worse? That is a definite real possibility

That would be quite the scandal. I seem to recall reading so we here that some high res offerings were just up sampled from 16/44.

Quote:
At least though the high-res stuff is far from the most absurd thing to hit high-end audio. Several years ago I was "embarrassed" as a manufacturer at a demonstration because when asked to pick which CD had the special magic marker treatment, I picked the wrong one. Should have seen that coming

Turn in your audiophile badge right now, Justin. You're all washed up. biggrin.gif

se
post #821 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat01 View Post

There are already a bunch of apple alternatives that are not shaped like a candy bar, have a built in amp, sound awesome and don't claim that 16/44 sounds inferior. If Neil Young believes in it so much, why didn't he pony up the money himself to fund it?

 

I love Neil Young, but he's not selling too many records lately! :rolleyes:

post #822 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiascogarcia View Post
 

 

I love Neil Young, but he's not selling too many records lately! :rolleyes:


Nobody is these days.

post #823 of 4604

"At least though the high-res stuff is far from the most absurd thing to hit high-end audio."

 

Really good point and one I hadn't really thought of. We're complaining about hi-res recordings and whether or not we're wasting money

buying them in a "hobby" where people spend THOUSANDS on special wires and other items that purportedly possess some special magical

property that against all logic  is supposed to make music sound better. Not to start up the whole cable brouhaha again but there are far more

questionable things people buy in our world than hi-res music. 

post #824 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by shockdoc View Post

"At least though the high-res stuff is far from the most absurd thing to hit high-end audio."

Really good point and one I hadn't really thought of. We're complaining about hi-res recordings and whether or not we're wasting money
buying them in a "hobby" where people spend THOUSANDS on special wires and other items that purportedly possess some special magical
property that against all logic  is supposed to make music sound better. Not to start up the whole cable brouhaha again but there are far more
questionable things people buy in our world than hi-res music. 

Yes, good point. Debate all you want about hi-res music, but the fact is there is a tangible difference in the file. The file is bigger, there is more information contained.... Whether it's better, well that is and will continue to be a matter of debate. At least you are getting something measurably different for your money. So it's not as ridiculous as much hi-fi malarkey.

A cable, a magic marker, and all the other junk. well there's no way to prove ANY difference there. And no limit to the amount of cash that can be flushed down with that stuff
post #825 of 4604
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegrobe View Post


Yes, good point. Debate all you want about hi-res music, but the fact is there is a tangible difference in the file. The file is bigger, there is more information contained.... Whether it's better, well that is and will continue to be a matter of debate. At least you are getting something measurably different for your money. So it's not as ridiculous as much hi-fi malarkey.

A cable, a magic marker, and all the other junk. well there's no way to prove ANY difference there. And no limit to the amount of cash that can be flushed down with that stuff


There are many who will endlessly argue the point about whether hi-res is better than CD, and they all know of science webpages they can link to, I'm sure.

 

But I'd hope that most of us on here are enthused by the possibility of legal downloads making the jump from lossy MP3/AAC/whatever to lossless (be it CD resolution or higher), and that's the good news here.

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