[castleofargh]

   

  There was an interesting link over on the Pono Community site of a web interview with NY.  The best I heard there was his comment that, with MP3 compression you hear 5% of the music and with 24/192 you hear 100% of the music.  His question was, which would you prefer?  He also spoke of the new firmware, which will have "the Revealer, a built-in app which will take a hi-res file in the Pono and play it back at a variety of lower resolutions so that a listener can hear the difference(s) between them.  Before anyone comes on here and bashes, listen to what he says.  The Revealer is at about 10 minutes in.  The whole thing is interesting, especially when he discusses who can hear better sound and who can't.  "Good on you."  

  Enjoy.  
 
http://twit.tv/show/triangulation/199
 
BTW, I'm enjoying all of the posts of people who try the Pono thinking ehh, and then go wow when they actually hear it.  That was my response as well at Xmas and I certainly got beaten up a bunch for saying, WOW here in Head-Fi threads.  Looks like a lot of us are now in the wow camp.  And yes, if you try it in balanced mode, it's double wow.  No kidding.

 
I'm guessing a couple of folks here didn't actually watch the interview before posting.  See, that's sort of the point.  Listen to what the man says (oh, and listen to the equipment being discussed).  Certainly if you folks actually listened to a Pono you might have a different view.  Since you didn't, and this comes down, again, to an opinion (yeah, yeah, to you it's science but to everyone else it's an opinion) why not try a Pono with a CD-rip 16/44 (let alone something higher) BEFORE you come on a Pono site?  And, if you HAVE actually at least listened to a higher re file (though I'm fairly certain you haven't with a Pono) and can't tell the difference between it and an MP3, is that our problem or yours?  BTW, that was ALSO discussed in the interview.  Had you watched it.
 
 I can hear the difference between an iPod and a Pono, and I'm only a few years younger than NY (btw, had you actually watched the video you would have seen/heard him discuss this very point).  
 
Everyone at this site is constantly buying/trading/selling/buying more equipment, so how come a Pono not allowed in the club?  Why can't Pono say how good it is?  What is wrong with selling people something they will enjoy?  If they won't they don't have to buy it.  Advertising is just that.  
 
If people want to enjoy hi-res, why do you feel it so important to trumpet how worthless it is?  Do you stand outside the food store telling the folks buying gluten-free products that they are being duped?  Because science says the vast (VAST!) majority of them are. 
 
If MP3 is so good, why don't musicians record on it to begin with?  
 
Why is it so important to come to this site and tell us happy foo...er.... users of 16/44 and higher with our stu....er...waste-of-money Ponos that we are misguided?  
 
Why, lastly, do your knees jerk so much at the mere mention of something being better than MP3?  Let it go.  Have an ice cream.  Read a book.  Listen to some music.  Enjoy life.  

and off you go putting words into my mouth for the sole purpose of playing the victim in a plot of your own making.
I ask you not to do it and to have a little respect for what people are posting, and your answer is a textbook model of strawman argument creating your own questions and answers with no regard to what I actually wrote.
 
 
for the sake of it, here is my answer to your post:
I obviously couldn't stand a full hour of that crap video(both content and support). I went up to 20mn or something, and I feel like I made a huge effort already. but in just that time, he indeed went and said that "mp3 is 5%" crap again. and that was, if you ever bother to read what we wrote, the only point we were making. it isn't true and there is no way the difference is 95%, so why repeat it nonstop?
 
nobody was trying to tell people what to do or what they are allowed to listen to, and of course where did you see me trying to say that mp3 was so good? that's all in your invented discussion we're supposedly having. I didn't write that, meat01 didn't write that. I don't even know what to say. am I now supposed to argue with my fictional self because when I disagree with him?
this is sick.

 

[olddude]

Since I got an alert email re the post above, I saw what you just wrote about me  However, and this is a big however, as I have you blocked I did not see, nor was I replying to, your previous post (I got no alert about that one).  I was referring to meat and willy in my post.  Don't take personal what was not directed at you (had I read your previous post it might have been, but as I said, I didn't read it).  Because we don't usually see eye to eye, or even eye to elbow, I keep you blocked.  Perhaps you should do the same for my posts, and that way you won't feel obligated to respond to what you think I am saying about you when I am not even reading what you post.  

 

[meat01]

Why block people just because they have different opinion? Why would you only want to discus things with people who love their Pono? I have never bashed you for praising your Pono. As castleofargh was saying, I never said MP3 was end all. My problem is that people think that there is music out there that is 95% better than mp3, when Mp3s are not missing even 50% of audible data of the original. It is not hard core science or just my opinion, it is simple math.

 

[olddude]

Not that it has anything to do with you, as I certainly haven't blocked you.  However, he and I do not see eye to eye and whenever we have any sort of communication here it seems to go bad.  So I simply decided not to continue down that road.  And, as we all just saw, even when I didn't address him, or his actual post, I got accused of "putting words into my mouth for the sole purpose of playing the victim in a plot of your own making."
 
So I am attempting to take the high road and simply stay out of his way.  Clearly even that didn't work.  However, I will continue to block him and would hope that he would accept that and not respond to my posts as if I were reading what he writes and responding to it.  I am not.  And I will not, unless I see an alert or a quote in which he says that I am.  As I just did.  For the most part the alerts don't cover every post, so mostly I won't know what he is saying and thus won't respond, as I just stated.  And, as I said, it might be best for both of us and for the general tone of this thread (which is, after all, about the Pono, an item I have and he does not) if he would just block me as well.  I don't find that all that unreasonable.  
 
As to your post, I merely said that I don't like MP3 but that if it were a discussion between an MP3 @320 and a 16/44 CD rip it might be worth talking about.  But your post stated that "The difference between a properly encoded MP3 and 24/192 is simply not this great" and that, to me, seems over the top.  
 
​Mr. Young, in his interview, made the percentage statement.  I merely pointed a link towards the interview and mentioned what he said.  This is a thread where a number of people who have Ponos, and who seem to enjoy a more hi-res experience, are speaking of their devices and their experiences.  And keep in mind that many/most of them may enjoy reading an interview with the man who created/owns the Pono.  

 

[Kerouac]

Originally Posted by ImperialBlade /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Hello Kerouac, or anyone else that know....
 
Any idea why I am seeing so many of the Sony MDR-Z7 on the sales section here? Am I missing somthing? If they sound so great why has there been so many sales of them?
For the record I am asking an honest question, as I really want some insight. Also for the record, I am not stirring the pot with my question.
 
Regards,
Eric

 
Hi Eric,
 
That are questions that I've also asked myself...why do those Z7's pop up over there and why do these people sell them for (imo sometimes) great prices?
 
The guy I bought it from had used his Z7 for some hours and liked them, but wanted to sell them to try the next hp (he does quite some buying/selling on hf). When I asked him if he had tried them balanced he said no, because he didn't have the stuff to try it that way.
The guy from who I bought my XBA-Z5 iem (which also comes with an extra balanced ''pono style'' cable) also had his Z7 for sale at that moment. So again I asked him ''Did you try them balanced?''. Now he even had a PonoPlayer, but didn't try them balanced on it. So, he tried his Z7 on his Pono in balanced mode and was so surpised (in a good way) that he immediatelly pulled his Z7 from the classifieds

Later on he asked me (with a wink, so I'm not completely sure if he was serious about that) if I would sell him back his Z5...
 
So, Z7 is already very good sounding when you use it single ended. But you haven't heard it's full potential when you haven't used it balanced. In balanced mode from my Pono it gives a full bodied sound with a huge (3D) ''out of your head'' soundstage and excellent bass. I think the sq out of the Pono is almost on par with listening with my LCD-2 out of my tube amp and I've paid way more for that combination...beside that the Z7 is light and very comfortable => ideal for portable listening in my house.
 
Sony also sells a (imo quite expensive) PHA-3 dac/amp from which you can listen balanced. But when you already have a Pono, you can save yourself that money. You also don't have to go after a balanced cable because Z5 and Z7 have that included in the price. That was the reason why I decided to buy them and I haven't regretted it for a second.
 
So, are you (and I) missing something? Well, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that the folks that sell their Z7 before listening balanced are missing out on something
 
For extra info you can check the MDR-Z7 thread...there are quite some happy owners over there

 

 

[ImperialBlade]

   
Hi Eric,
 
That are questions that I've also asked myself...why do those Z7's pop up over there and why do these people sell them for (imo sometimes) great prices?
 
The guy I bought it from had used his Z7 for some hours and liked them, but wanted to sell them to try the next hp (he does quite some buying/selling on hf). When I asked him if he had tried them balanced he said no, because he didn't have the stuff to try it that way.
The guy from who I bought my XBA-Z5 iem (which also comes with an extra balanced ''pono style'' cable) also had his Z7 for sale at that moment. So again I asked him ''Did you try them balanced?''. Now he even had a PonoPlayer, but didn't try them balanced on it. So, he tried his Z7 on his Pono in balanced mode and was so surpised (in a good way) that he immediatelly pulled his Z7 from the classifieds

Later on he asked me (with a wink, so I'm not completely sure if he was serious about that) if I would sell him back his Z5...
 
So, Z7 is already very good sounding when you use it single ended. But you haven't heard it's full potential when you haven't used it balanced. In balanced mode from my Pono it gives a full bodied sound with a huge (3D) ''out of your head'' soundstage and excellent bass. I think the sq out of the Pono is almost on par with listening with my LCD-2 out of my tube amp and I've paid way more for that combination...beside that the Z7 is light and very comfortable => ideal for portable listening in my house.
 
Sony also sells a (imo quite expensive) PHA-3 dac/amp from which you can listen balanced. But when you already have a Pono, you can save yourself that money. You also don't have to go after a balanced cable because Z5 and Z7 have that included in the price. That was the reason why I decided to buy them and I haven't regretted it for a second.
 
So, are you (and I) missing something? Well, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that the folks that sell their Z7 before listening balanced are missing out on something
 
For extra info you can check the MDR-Z7 thread...there are quite some happy owners over there

 

Thanks Kerouac,
 
This is what I needed to know. How do you describe the SQ signature of those Sony IEMs and Headphones when in balanced mode? 
To put it another way, for IEMs I find the JVC HA-FX850 and the Phillips Fidelio X2 my cup of tea. How do the Sony's compare?
 
Regards,
Eric

 

[meat01]

Olddude, I am really trying to understand here. I am being over the top for disagreeing that a properly encoded MP3 sounds 95% worse than a 24/192 flac file? "Difference not that great" means not 95% better

what if some Jackwagon said that if you don't have a Hugo and a Ak240ss, your Pono is only producing 5% of the music?

I think it is just hyperbole that's all.

 

[rickhawk22]

where did he say that a master and the mp3 are virtually the same? he didn't. stop interpreting everything as you please. it annoys me a little when you do it with music, but it's just revolting when it's manipulating other people's posts.

something ok to say would be 24/192>mp3. it has no relation with pono, it is true measurably and will sometimes be audible, so the superiority can be agreed upon as being true.
  "mp3 is 5% of the music", do you have any idea what that might actually sound like? please. how desperate and/or ignorant does somebody need to be, to come up with such exaggerated nonsense? as mentioned by meat01, one of the reasons why Young and most pono marketing received so much hate are exactly those stuff. you can have him talk about that 5% nonsense on several of his TV interventions, so it's not just a small error slipping in by mistake once.



the only idea I can come up with to get that order of difference is thismaybe if someone has a more legitimate way to get 5% of ... whatever? you can post it)
 24/192 that's about 24*192000/4*60=69MB/m
mp3 goes 320000/8*60=2.4MB/m
so if 69 is 100%(why? it's not 100%, we can always do more) then 2.4MB is 3.47%  I'm not too far off and it's clearly the right order of magnitude. but it would read better as 5% of storage space instead of 5% of the music. else flac is 25 to 50% of the music ^_^.

Whoa there cowboy, your math skills and your argument are already faulty as you didn't do any research into it. You do know that MP3's designate their compression quality using the Kilobits per second (Kbs) vs KiloHertz per second for HiRez/cd files?? Your calculating apples and oranges here. The MP3 would be based upon the CD rip at 44.1KHz, but it is a fraction of that information. I haven't done the math and am still looking up how to calculate each to find out, but I would tend to believe what Neil has come up with on this part, as they have experts in that field working at Pono. I'll try and find something in numbers we can understand. I don't think you can go by how much info per second is stored to compare each as different means of compression for lossless and MP3 will affect file size.
In conclusion, your basing an argument on a false premise.

 

[Kerouac]

  Thanks Kerouac,
 
This is what I needed to know. How do you describe the SQ signature of those Sony IEMs and Headphones when in balanced mode? 
To put it another way, for IEMs I find the JVC HA-FX850 and the Phillips Fidelio X2 my cup of tea. How do the Sony's compare?
 
Regards,
Eric

From the Pono both have a slightly warm soundsignature (characteristic for the Pono itself I guess)
What improves with listening balanced is ''more power, better depth, deeper bass, better separation and even wider soundstage...at least that's what my ears are telling my brain. Maybe it's all placebo, but I don't think so, because other people over here could also hear the difference...so in that case it would be shared mass placebo

 
I never heard FX850 and Fidelio X2, so can't compare=> maybe (if you really want to know the answer) you can post this question in the XBA-Z5 / MDR-Z7 thread?

 

[olddude]

Olddude, I am really trying to understand here. I am being over the top for disagreeing that a properly encoded MP3 sounds 95% worse than a 24/192 flac file? "Difference not that great" means not 95% better

what if some Jackwagon said that if you don't have a Hugo and a Ak240ss, your Pono is only producing 5% of the music?

I think it is just hyperbole that's all.

Again, write Neil a letter if you feel he is incorrect, or post on the blog of the interview site.  
 
I merely posted what he said, and linked to it so that people could see and hear what he is saying (after all, this IS a Pono site).  I found it to be an interesting comment.  He's been talking about MP3 for much longer than he's been thinking about making the Pono.  Do I agree with it?  I would guess that the difference is more like 80/20.  Consider that a 24/192 file ranges around 100-150mb for a five-minute song.  That same five-minute song  on an MP3 file is about 5-10mb.  Musicians DON'T record on MP3 for a reason.  They record on 24 bit.  Why?  More room, obviously.  And also because many of them apparently believe in sound being present there that would not be present on an MP3.  Do the majority of artists who care about their music like it being presented on MP3?  I can't say, but I would assume they would. Why have LPs come back?  Sound quality.  
 
Do I want to get all sound-science-y here?  No. This is a Pono site, and Pono is being sold as a player that plays hi-res music files.  Many/most of the people posting here use a Pono and hi-res files.  We talk about the sound quality of the Pono (that we own) as compared to other devices that we own or would like to own.  We answer questions about the sound quality when people interested in buying the Pono post here asking questions.  We also talk about the sound that hi-res has on our Ponos.  No one here who has a Pono has posted stating they don't like hi-res on it, that they wasted their money, or that they got scammed when they bought hi-res file.  Sometimes a file is not what it is supposed to be, but that is an issue with the seller, not with the genre in general.  
 
As to a Hugo or an AK240, I don't have those, but people on this thread do, and no one has said that the Pono offers only a fraction of their sound quality.  In fact, several folks have posted that the AK240 is not that much better in sound quality than the Pono.  

 

[RRod]

Whoa there cowboy, your math skills and your argument are already faulty as you didn't do any research into it. You do know that MP3's designate their compression quality using the Kilobits per second (Kbs) vs KiloHertz per second for HiRez/cd files?? Your calculating apples and oranges here. The MP3 would be based upon the CD rip at 44.1KHz, but it is a fraction of that information. I haven't done the math and am still looking up how to calculate each to find out, but I would tend to believe what Neil has come up with on this part, as they have experts in that field working at Pono. I'll try and find something in numbers we can understand. I don't think you can go by how much info per second is stored to compare each as different means of compression for lossless and MP3 will affect file size.
In conclusion, your basing an argument on a false premise.

 
69MB/minute is correct for stereo 24/192, and 2.4MB/minute is correct for stereo 320kbps mp3:
 
2 channel * 192000 samples/channel * 24 bit/sample * 60 s/m * 1/8 byte/bit * 1e-6 Mbyte / byte = 69.12 MB/m
2 channel * 320 kb/(s*2 channel) * 1000 b/kb * 60 s/m * 1/8 byte/bit * 1e-6 Mbyte/byte = 2.4 MB/m
 
Carry on.

 

[rickhawk22]

   
69MB/minute is correct for stereo 24/192, and 2.4MB/minute is correct for stereo 320kbps mp3:
 
2 channel * 192000 samples/channel * 24 bit/sample * 60 s/m * 1/8 byte/bit * 1e-6 Mbyte / byte = 69.12 MB/m
2 channel * 320 kb/(s*2 channel) * 1000 b/kb * 60 s/m * 1/8 byte/bit * 1e-6 Mbyte/byte = 2.4 MB/m
 
Carry on.

 
We could make it simpler and compare the Bitrate for each.
We already know 320 kb/s (2 channel) for the Mp3
For highest resolution file:
192,000 X 24 X 2 = 9216000 = 9216 kb/s
320 * 100 / 9216 = 3.47%
Which is the same percentage you get with MB/s calculation.

 

[RRod]

   
We could make it simpler and compare the Bitrate for each.
We already know 320 kb/s (2 channel) for the Mp3
For highest resolution file:
192,000 X 24 X 2 = 9216000 = 9216 kb/s
320 * 100 / 9216 = 3.47%
Which is the same percentage you get with MB/s calculation.

 
So what's the problem? argh was postulating a possible meaning behind this "5%" number, and here's a viable candidate. It may be based on something else, like thin air; who knows.

 

[castleofargh]

 

where did he say that a master and the mp3 are virtually the same? he didn't. stop interpreting everything as you please. it annoys me a little when you do it with music, but it's just revolting when it's manipulating other people's posts.

something ok to say would be 24/192>mp3. it has no relation with pono, it is true measurably and will sometimes be audible, so the superiority can be agreed upon as being true.
  "mp3 is 5% of the music", do you have any idea what that might actually sound like? please. how desperate and/or ignorant does somebody need to be, to come up with such exaggerated nonsense? as mentioned by meat01, one of the reasons why Young and most pono marketing received so much hate are exactly those stuff. you can have him talk about that 5% nonsense on several of his TV interventions, so it's not just a small error slipping in by mistake once.



the only idea I can come up with to get that order of difference is thismaybe if someone has a more legitimate way to get 5% of ... whatever? you can post it)
 24/192 that's about 24*192000/4*60=69MB/m
mp3 goes 320000/8*60=2.4MB/m
so if 69 is 100%(why? it's not 100%, we can always do more) then 2.4MB is 3.47%  I'm not too far off and it's clearly the right order of magnitude. but it would read better as 5% of storage space instead of 5% of the music. else flac is 25 to 50% of the music ^_^.

Whoa there cowboy, your math skills and your argument are already faulty as you didn't do any research into it. You do know that MP3's designate their compression quality using the Kilobits per second (Kbs) vs KiloHertz per second for HiRez/cd files?? Your calculating apples and oranges here. The MP3 would be based upon the CD rip at 44.1KHz, but it is a fraction of that information. I haven't done the math and am still looking up how to calculate each to find out, but I would tend to believe what Neil has come up with on this part, as they have experts in that field working at Pono. I'll try and find something in numbers we can understand. I don't think you can go by how much info per second is stored to compare each as different means of compression for lossless and MP3 will affect file size.
In conclusion, your basing an argument on a false premise.

as RRod said, it's just the one weird idea I came up with that would give that order of values. I tried first with sampling and bit depth but that wouldn't give 5%, in fact by being irrational and caring only for the data sampling precision instead of the output signal resolution(2 very different things but hey, mistaken for mistaken, better go all the way), Young could have given some meaningless but true numbers making the mp3 even less than 0.5% with ease.
so as I couldn't come up with an actual good reason for those 5%(if somebody has it plz tell me), I ended up with what could give a close value. but it's just my guess, he could just as well have made up that number from the top of his head and stuck to it from there in all the videos because it sounded cool?
anyway, the point was a simple one, and could have ended at meat01's comment. that "5% of music" stuff is misinformation. and repeating it isn't making it real, it's just making people who care for facts angrier at him for using dishonest arguments. the only reason why so many people trashed the pono campaign in the first place. the pono itself was never under fire, the worst I could think of, is that I didn't like the shape(OMG what a drama

), really not the reason why the campaign met so much opposition.
 
but instead of trying to discuss it, olddude decided that it was better to create many more dishonest strawman arguments on his own. because that has got to solve anything when talking about how manipulation makes people angry...
I thought I could try myself just once: the founding fathers of the US of A didn't use mp3, that's obviously because mp3 is bad! why are you kidnapping my mother to force me to listen to mp3?  I don't deserve that.
 
I can only hope that people reading the forum care more for the content than the form and see what there is to see when such situation arises.
 
 
 
 
 
about going to MB, it's just that being familiar with how much a file would weight in that unit, it was an easy way for me to double check my numbers in one go(wouldn't want to argue about false numbers by making some up myself ^_^).  but you're right, to go to %,  kb was just as good.

 

[olddude]

You know, I've been thinking about the whole compression thing and how hard it can be to reliably distinguish differences with our ears, or at least talk about these differences in a way that is understandable to others.
 
So let's consider video.  Our sense of sight is, for the most part, more easily quantifiable.  Focus, contrast, color, resolution, sharpness, ghosting, etc., these are terms we can all understand easily.
 
So, someone takes a 4.33gb DVD and rips it to a 700mb .avi.  Are we able to see differences in the areas listed above?  Sure.  Sometimes it looks like fuzzyvision and sometimes it looks ok, but it doesn't look the same as the original.  Usually sharpness is softer, resolution is lessened, focus doesn't seem as clear, color tonality/fidelity is not as it should be, contrast may be a bit softer or, sometimes, harder.  It's often quite watchable, but it''s not the same as the original.. One of these things is not like the other.
 
So, someone takes a Blu-Ray movie of anywhere from 15-50gb and rips it to that same 700mb .avi or an .mkv.  It looks so much less than the original that, even if it is watchable it is not the same in terms of visual enjoyability or experience.  Everything that makes a BD wonderful to view is gone, and it just looks like a not-great DVD.  Even if someone takes the time to do a really good compression to a 1.2gb .mkv, it's not even close to the original.  It may look better than the 700mb .avi, but compare it to the original and it's easy to see the differences immediately.  If someone does a 4.33gb .mkv, rip it still does not stand up under scrutiny to the original.  One of these things is definitely not like the other.  
 
It is so much harder to express these type of differences in our auditory processing.  At least in concrete terms.  In visual terms it is right in our faces.  Although I have seen blogs on AVS where people say they don't see a difference between SD and BD, that would seem to come down to a failure of their visual processing.  
 
I'm not pointing fingers here, I'm not responding to anything written above this post, as I haven't read it.  I'm merely pointing out what visual compression does, and how easy it is to see it and describe it.