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 7

post #91 of 1143

yep, yep, and yep

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #92 of 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianmedium View Post


I completely agree with your statement. I would rather have a well mastered 16/44 than a poorly mastered 24/192 any day.


 

I have some 16/44 rips that are fantastic - if all albums were mastered with the same care, we'd be spared a lot of trouble.

post #93 of 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post


I'm just plain skeptical - high rez files are huge and 24/192 cannot be differentiated from 16/44 by the human ear afaik. Albums need to be mastered better, that's all. If he can convince labels to master albums for optimum sound quality, he'll have done more right there than what the release of a DAP could hope to achieve.

I think it's pretty easy to hear HiDef on a good master. That said, I'd also take a good master at a lower bit rate also but I never cared for the either/or perspective. How about getting it all right. Most A2Ds, DACs, players and interfaces have issues that can mask differences especially when using a computer as player or recorder. Until you're absolutely certain that you've heard the best transcription from front to back, don't blame the format. When you simple mic something into a good dedicated recorder and don't mess it up, the difference in sampling becomes more obvious, not less so, IMO.

post #94 of 1143

Not sure if Neil explained how he came up with the name? 

 

In Hawaiian it means:

 

Pono =  proper, right, or morally correct.

post #95 of 1143
Well, we'll see & hear how "righteous" this player really is once it's released.
post #96 of 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

I think it's pretty easy to hear HiDef on a good master. That said, I'd also take a good master at a lower bit rate also but I never cared for the either/or perspective. How about getting it all right. Most A2Ds, DACs, players and interfaces have issues that can mask differences especially when using a computer as player or recorder. Until you're absolutely certain that you've heard the best transcription from front to back, don't blame the format. When you simple mic something into a good dedicated recorder and don't mess it up, the difference in sampling becomes more obvious, not less so, IMO.


There's no way of getting around the ginormous file sizes of 24/192 recordings and double-blind tests have shown that people cannot distinguish between hi-rez and 16/44, so whatever card Neil has up his sleeve will have to be something unexpected with regards to the Pono. I think it's a bit of a quixotic mission he's on since a lot of genres clearly don't care about catering to the audiophile crowd. As I said before, the best thing he can do is convince some big labels to really hunker down on the actual recording of the music - they'd come around if they could market it as a sort of blu-ray format for music if it really delivered the goods...if there isn't any financial incentive for the major labels, it simply won't happen.

post #97 of 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post


double-blind tests have shown that people cannot distinguish between hi-rez and 16/44

 

I can... barely... sometimes.  My older player would default to CD layer, and often I forgot to change to SACD.  Sometimes I would notice during listening, other times not so much.  

 

I believe that double blind does not prove people "can't."  If you consult a statistician in for example the medical field, you will find that the "null hypothesis" (assumption) is that "no difference exists."  What you can prove (if p<0.05 usually) is that differences can in fact be heard, if the results indicate.  But if not, you have simply failed to prove that differences can be heard.  You have not proven that they cannot.  Widespread misunderstanding. 

post #98 of 1143

Point well taken, but the lesson being that a file 5 or 6 times greater in size offering alleged improvements in sound that cannot be detected with any accuracy = waste of space, especially in a portable DAP.
 

post #99 of 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoney View Post

I can... barely... sometimes.  My older player would default to CD layer, and often I forgot to change to SACD.  Sometimes I would notice during listening, other times not so much.

That could be attributed to the SACD and CD layers having different masterings. Or, since it happens only "sometimes", pure luck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoney View Post

But if not, you have simply failed to prove that differences can be heard.  You have not proven that they cannot.  Widespread misunderstanding. 

That's correct. However, the likely theory (supported by scientific facts other than double blind testing, such as physics and anatomy) is the null hypothesis. There is no scientific reason to believe it is false to begin with. Only the audiophile crowd does (and they believe A LOT of crazy things), and they've failed to ever provide any proof of it. So, it's actually fair to assume that the null hypothesis here is true, and it's up to high res believers to prove otherwise. My point is that there isn't any reasonable doubt about it, and worrying about it is fairly pointless.
post #100 of 1143

When we compare, we use 1st generation digital dubs of an analog master as source. Record different bit rates natively on a Nagra VI which we've favored over other D2A setups and also do downsample comparison as well. (Nagra is not computer interfaced. We use a regulated linear supply which is a bit better than battery power, the included switching supply is worst.) Results favor HiDef but I've run into HiDef not offering anything significant when sourced elsewhere. It's why I tend to think problems are more related to mastering, the encoding process and kit, not the so much the format. Playback is also on dedicated audio kit and not a USB DAC. Whether these results are important for moderately priced usb DAC setups or portable may be debatable but, for me, there is no question as to the higher capabilities of HiDef. I get the spec stuff as well but I also know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and is why I test for myself.


Edited by goodvibes - 12/11/12 at 7:56am
post #101 of 1143

Is this DAP dead?

Was supposed to come out in march 2013.

post #102 of 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicday View Post

Is this DAP dead?

Was supposed to come out in march 2013.

popcorn.gif

post #103 of 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicday View Post

Is this DAP dead?

Was supposed to come out in march 2013.

popcorn.gifpopcorn.gif

post #104 of 1143

at this point , it might as well be dead

post #105 of 1143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrias View Post

at this point , it might as well be dead

Have you heard something or you mean you haven't ???

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › PONO - Neil Youngs portable hi-res music player