[Jackson 6]

I will always agree that full DSD with a dual Wolfson or some such Dap -hello AK 120- will offer a clear advantage to mp3, but with my A17 , which genuinely enhances 240/320 kbps, it is 75% equal, certainly not 5%, but then I've found i pods to offer a tinny sound with mp3, though I don't know the very latest iterations, so if Neil Young doesn't know the A17, he may have jumped to that conclusion.

 

[CountryBoy]

 As somebody who has made a point of reading through the entire thread before posting, I gotta say I've heard quite enough from the inaudibility brigade. Even though they may be right, they've made this thread a poisonous drudge of a read.

 

[oldmate]

  I will always agree that full DSD with a dual Wolfson or some such Dap -hello AK 120- will offer a clear advantage to mp3, but with my A17 , which genuinely enhances 240/320 kbps, it is 75% equal, certainly not 5%, but then I've found i pods to offer a tinny sound with mp3, though I don't know the very latest iterations, so if Neil Young doesn't know the A17, he may have jumped to that conclusion.

After reading all this debate re MP3 and Hi-Res I am a little confused. If your headphones say for example have a frequency response of 20Hz-20Khz that means they will not playback anything lower than 20Hz or higher than 20Khz correct??
 
Come to think of it DAP's usually have a stated frequency response as well so the question is the same for them - what gives?? The AK240 quotes 10Hz-70Khz. There would be no point pairing cans with say a 20-20 frequency responce to the AK240 I'm assuming. Something like the Sony Z7 or any other pair of headphones with the appropriate frequency response. Is frequency response relevant at all??
 
Very confusing.
 
Back to the debate from what I read the "inaudibility brigade" are more likely to quote scientific facts where as the "hi-res brigade" including Mr Young are just saying it sounds better and that is that.
 
Either way I really think the ops who are engaged in this debate should take it to the appropriate thread. Trouble is you do not. What are you afraid of??

 

[castleofargh]

Originally Posted by oldmate /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
After reading all this debate re MP3 and Hi-Res I am a little confused. If your headphones say for example have a frequency response of 20Hz-20Khz that means they will not playback anything lower than 20Hz or higher than 20Khz correct??
 
Come to think of it DAP's usually have a stated frequency response as well so the question is the same for them - what gives?? The AK240 quotes 10Hz-70Khz. There would be no point pairing cans with say a 20-20 frequency responce to the AK240 I'm assuming. Something like the Sony Z7 or any other pair of headphones with the appropriate frequency response. Is frequency response relevant at all??
 
Very confusing.

the frequency range for headphone has to be the most meaningless value you can get from a manufacturer. it says nothing concrete or just not the sae depending on the manufacturer.
you will find a few manufacturers that actually give a range where you shouldn't expect more than a few db deviation from the desired signature(of course they use the precision they want). but if the "signature" of the headphone was a -99db roll off @15khz, then as long as the manufactured models are close enough to that crap, they will say 20hz-20khz.
and then some manufacturers just go mad and give you specs like 12hz-48hz meaning there is still "some sound" when sending a signal at those frequencies. sony likes doing that stuff a lot, you will get a value in the ultrasound when the headphone actually rolls off like crazy at 15khz ^_^. it's silly.
anyway never buy a headphone because of that one spec, it's meaningless. and you just have to go look at the frequency response graph of the headphone to see it is.
 
about DAPs, it's also very much meaningless. anyway most headphones and almost all high end IEMs will be unable to replay those ultrasounds(in case you're super young and could hope to hear a 22khz). if a DAP can play high res, then most likely the low pass filter for those resolutions will not be around 20khz but higher(because it's better, less expensive blahblahblah). obviously a DAP that can only play 16/44 has no interest in saying it can output up to 50khz(or actually doing it) as the record stops at 20khz ^_^.
 
in any case, mp3@320 doesn't cut at 16khz or whatever. only lower compression values do it to save even more space by removing the top frequencies that have little audio content.

 

[oldmate]

 
the frequency range for headphone has to be the most meaningless value you can get from a manufacturer. it says nothing concrete or just not the sae depending on the manufacturer.
you will find a few manufacturers that actually give a range where you shouldn't expect more than a few db deviation from the desired signature(of course they use the precision they want). but if the "signature" of the headphone was a -99db roll off @15khz, then as long as the manufactured models are close enough to that crap, they will say 20hz-20khz.
and then some manufacturers just go mad and give you specs like 12hz-48hz meaning there is still "some sound" when sending a signal at those frequencies. sony likes doing that stuff a lot, you will get a value in the ultrasound when the headphone actually rolls off like crazy at 15khz ^_^. it's silly.
anyway never buy a headphone because of that one spec, it's meaningless. and you just have to go look at the frequency response graph of the headphone to see it is.
 
about DAPs, it's also very much meaningless. anyway most headphones and almost all high end IEMs will be unable to replay those ultrasounds(in case you're super young and could hope to hear a 22khz). if a DAP can play high res, then most likely the low pass filter for those resolutions will not be around 20khz but higher(because it's better, less expensive blahblahblah). obviously a DAP that can only play 16/44 has no interest in saying it can output up to 50khz(or actually doing it) as the record stops at 20khz ^_^.
 
in any case, mp3@320 doesn't cut at 16khz or whatever. only lower compression values do it to save even more space by removing the top frequencies that have little audio content.

Thank you.
 
Exactly what I suspected.
 
I was going to ask you what benefit hi-res has if any if the DAP or Headphone cannot reproduce those frequencies not to mention that my ears can only hear up to about 17Khz but I will ask someone in the Sound Science thread. However it does sound like MP3@320 will be perfectly fine for me.

 

[castleofargh]

   
These marketing graphs are actually accurate in their representation of the files waveforms (aka music data stream):

 
The only thing up for debate is if our hearing is good enough to discern the differences between them.

no they're not accurate. nothing exists in a device that actually looks like that.
those graphs are a human interpretation of the recorded values before being processed by the DAC. except that if you just had to do that stuff to recreate a sine wave from a few samples by placing points on a graph and join them using only vertical and horizontal lines, then PCM audio wouldn't have to be based on the equations you can get here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
anyway those samples are on the digital side, so there is no more or less stairs to make a wave because there is no wave in a digital domain only 0 and 1.  those graphs are made by kids trying to imagine digital audio. they have no accuracy because they represent nothing in relation to what a DAC will output.
 
but even if we play the digital wave game... almost all DACs nowadays will oversample, the sabre chip in the pono will oversample. so the graphs would all most likely be a lot smoother(of course to say that we would need to know what frequency is being displayed in that ****ty marketing graph).
 the DAC will at some point give an analog signal that could only look like that with a discrete NOS DAC and absolutely no filter. anything with some low pass filter would eliminate most of the utrasounds making those straight shapes in the graph. the result would be smooth and look even more like the original sine wave it's supposed to be. and in the process, greatly improve the signal resolution.
and anything with a delta sigma DAC would give an analog signal that goes up and down in the vicinity of the desired curve at a speed actually much higher than 96khz whatever the original resolution, so all the graphs would actually look almost the same with a thicker trace made from all the small added noises of the pulse system.
 
so however we look at it, the amount of BS we need to accept before those graphs become accurate is pretty phenomenal. I just gave 5 independent reasons and each one of them is enough to say that those staircase graphs are a lie.
 
again I'm not saying that mp3 is amazing, for me in practice it's good enough for portable use(more music, better battery),but that's it. I use flac on my computer. so I'm really not trying to sell mp3 to you guys.  I'm just really annoyed to see that everybody is accepting marketing lies all day long( this one is not limited to pono, the last sony I bought used that same staircase crap kind of graph). 
the superiority of highres can be measured, so why all the BS? because what they're trying to justify is the price difference, not the quality difference. they weren't making campaigns to tell us how much they ruined our favorite albums with the loudness war.

but scaring people with shameless propaganda to sell more of the more expensive stuff, they're all for it.
 

Thank you.  
Exactly what I suspected.
 
I was going to ask you what benefit hi-res has if any if the DAP or Headphone cannot reproduce those frequencies not to mention that my ears can only hear up to about 17Khz but I will ask someone in the Sound Science thread. However it does sound like MP3@320 will be perfectly fine for me.

I suggest you encode a file in mp3 and try for yourself. only you can tell if you benefit from one specific format.

 

[doctorjazz]

The weird thing is, I don't see such vitriol on, say, the high end dap thread (haven't read the whole thing, but a good chunk is the way through, maybe it's coming...).these Players all handle hi rez, haven't seen the same clashes between the theoretical nay sayers and high rez fans there, but seems to be an ongoing cause of friction here.I have high rez files I think sound great. I actually do listen to some mp3 (buy new vinyl, these often include a free mp3 download...I'm nuts, but not enough to buy the lp and high rez version of the same album at the same time). And, while iI can hear where mp3 falls flat compared to the less compressed spread, I can enjoy it (hey, could enjoy a great single on a car AM radio in the day). Really wish this focus and heat generated around this would go away...

 

[uncle b]

Just thought I'd post something I posted elsewhere, as well: not sure if I've ever had a more frustrating, confusing, beguiling, yet somewhat strangely rewarding (sonically, at least) experience that I have had with this PONO player.
Originally, I had ZERO interest in this DAP, as I originally thought it would only play hi-Rez files bought from the PONO store. With a collection of about 1.5 TB (and always growing) of CD's encoded to ALAC, I had/have no interest in re-buying more of my favorite music. When I read people saying they were getting enjoyment out of their existing lossless files through the PONO, and no one is tied to that store, I started gaining interest.
After reading all the bashing, contrasting opinions, anti-Neil rants, waveform analysis, hate of the build/form-factor, and hyperbole (both positive and negative), I figured I'd take a "test drive" of the PONO experience, and let my ears be the judge.
Starting off with a haltingly hesitant on-line ordering experience, and progressing through the fact it's not really playing nice with my MacBook Pro (and vice versa), a somewhat laggy UI, the slow loading of music onto it, the lack of user EQ (which I have not really missed, but would welcome a firmware update addition) and the almost laughably low-resolution touchscreen, the only thing that truly matters...the sound, has won me over. I like the portability of the player, and some incremental software updates and upgrades are making me like it even more.
I think some have said this elsewhere: the PONO is nowhere near a good as originally touted, mostly due to unrealistic claims and undercooked execution, and nowhere near as bad as some are claiming!

 

[meat01]

  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.

I agree that it is hard to compare it to video, but if we do that and we test random people and ask them to identify which picture looks better, an AVI, or a Blu-Ray, you will probably find that 90-100% of the people could tell the difference between the 2.
 
So in audio, we have Neil Young, the head dude at PONO, coming out saying that Hi-Res is 90% better than MP3 and we have someone actually do a blind test where NO ONE could actually tell the difference between the two.  I am pretty sure 100% of those people could tell the difference between cassette and hi-res.  If the player is as good as Neil says it is, I would really think more people could tell the difference between the 2, whether you are an audiophile, musician or not.  90% better means most of the time people can tell the difference.
 
People start bashing me for posting links of the actual test in question, where someone is trying to be actually prove how good or bad the PONO is, but no one here wants to read that.  They want to take Neil's word for it and keep praising the PONO and only want to hear gushing reviews.

The weird thing is, I don't see such vitriol on, say, the high end dap thread (haven't read the whole thing, but a good chunk is the way through, maybe it's coming...).these Players all handle hi rez, haven't seen the same clashes between the theoretical nay sayers and high rez fans there, but seems to be an ongoing cause of friction here.I have high rez files I think sound great. I actually do listen to some mp3 (buy new vinyl, these often include a free mp3 download...I'm nuts, but not enough to buy the lp and high rez version of the same album at the same time). And, while iI can hear where mp3 falls flat compared to the less compressed spread, I can enjoy it (hey, could enjoy a great single on a car AM radio in the day). Really wish this focus and heat generated around this would go away...

You also don't have the owner of the other DAPs claiming that Hi-Res music sounds 90% better than MP3s, but not proving it.  You also don't have them posting that obnoxious bar graph without backing up their data

 

[olddude]

Just thought I'd post something I posted elsewhere, as well: not sure if I've ever had a more frustrating, confusing, beguiling, yet somewhat strangely rewarding (sonically, at least) experience that I have had with this PONO player.
Originally, I had ZERO interest in this DAP, as I originally thought it would only play hi-Rez files bought from the PONO store. With a collection of about 1.5 TB (and always growing) of CD's encoded to ALAC, I had/have no interest in re-buying more of my favorite music. When I read people saying they were getting enjoyment out of their existing lossless files through the PONO, and no one is tied to that store, I started gaining interest.
After reading all the bashing, contrasting opinions, anti-Neil rants, waveform analysis, hate of the build/form-factor, and hyperbole (both positive and negative), I figured I'd take a "test drive" of the PONO experience, and let my ears be the judge.
Starting off with a haltingly hesitant on-line ordering experience, and progressing through the fact it's not really playing nice with my MacBook Pro (and vice versa), a somewhat laggy UI, the slow loading of music onto it, the lack of user EQ (which I have not really missed, but would welcome a firmware update addition) and the almost laughably low-resolution touchscreen, the only thing that truly matters...the sound, has won me over. I like the portability of the player, and some incremental software updates and upgrades are making me like it even more.
I think some have said this elsewhere: the PONO is nowhere near a good as originally touted, mostly due to unrealistic claims and undercooked execution, and nowhere near as bad as some are claiming!

Nice.  I, too, thought it was not going to be a good DAP.  Got it as a gift, thought I'd try it, and fell in love with the sound.  I just sold my X5 as I never listened to it anymore.  For me a DAP is about the sound, and this silly-looking candy bar shaped yellow device does deliver the sound.  

 

[uncle b]

I have done my best to tune out Neil Young related to anything to do with the hi-Rez revolution and anything to do with his PONO. Pretty sure Neil could care less about my indifference, though.
I feel like what you get out of the PONO will entirely depend on what YOU want/get out of it. For me, a major shortcoming in the whole PONO experience is I get the feeling there is little effort going into the end consumer feeling maybe they are getting their $399 out of their investment. From a ragged on-line ordering experience to some customer service/support hoops you gotta jump through, you may feel a little on an island once into it.

 

[fiascogarcia]

The weird thing is, I don't see such vitriol on, say, the high end dap thread (haven't read the whole thing, but a good chunk is the way through, maybe it's coming...).these Players all handle hi rez, haven't seen the same clashes between the theoretical nay sayers and high rez fans there, but seems to be an ongoing cause of friction here.I have high rez files I think sound great. I actually do listen to some mp3 (buy new vinyl, these often include a free mp3 download...I'm nuts, but not enough to buy the lp and high rez version of the same album at the same time). And, while iI can hear where mp3 falls flat compared to the less compressed spread, I can enjoy it (hey, could enjoy a great single on a car AM radio in the day). Really wish this focus and heat generated around this would go away...

It seems to me that one reason the furor has been prevalent on the Pono thread is due to some Head-Fiers perceiving that Neil Young markets the Pono as though he invented the concept of a hi res player.  The fact that it is a good player and sells for $400, I think is a good thing for the industry overall in that it has exposed more people to quality portable gear.  I stay away from the hi res argument, as people are way too firmly entrenched in their opinions on this subject to make it worth arguing over.  I say, play what you want and enjoy, and just give up trying to defend or sell your point of view.

 

[doctorjazz]

The weird thing is, I don't see such vitriol on, say, the high end dap thread (haven't read the whole thing, but a good chunk is the way through, maybe it's coming...).these Players all handle hi rez, haven't seen the same clashes between the theoretical nay sayers and high rez fans there, but seems to be an ongoing cause of friction here.I have high rez files I think sound great. I actually do listen to some mp3 (buy new vinyl, these often include a free mp3 download...I'm nuts, but not enough to buy the lp and high rez version of the same album at the same time). And, while iI can hear where mp3 falls flat compared to the less compressed spread, I can enjoy it (hey, could enjoy a great single on a car AM radio in the day). Really wish this focus and heat generated around this would go away...

It seems to me that one reason the furor has been prevalent on the Pono thread is due to some Head-Fiers perceiving that Neil Young markets the Pono as though he invented the concept of a hi res player.  The fact that it is a good player and sells for $400, I think is a good thing for the industry overall in that it has exposed more people to quality portable gear.  I stay away from the hi res argument, as people are way too firmly entrenched in their opinions on this subject to make it worth arguing over.  I say, play what you want and enjoy, and just give up trying to defend or sell your point of view.

I think what we need is to stay a separate "Bash Neil Young" thread, and use this for ACTUAL IMPRESSIONS OF THE PLAYER! I also have been through a number of players, including various i devices, a dx90, a Fiio X3 (which I have my daughter), and for portable use I only use the Pono. Sounds much better to me than my others. I am starting to notice some headphones do better with it than others, but that's true of any player.

 

[ImperialBlade]

 
It seems to me that one reason the furor has been prevalent on the Pono thread is due to some Head-Fiers perceiving that Neil Young markets the Pono as though he invented the concept of a hi res player.  The fact that it is a good player and sells for $400, I think is a good thing for the industry overall in that it has exposed more people to quality portable gear.  I stay away from the hi res argument, as people are way too firmly entrenched in their opinions on this subject to make it worth arguing over.  I say, play what you want and enjoy, and just give up trying to defend or sell your point of view.

I agree fiascogarcia.
 
Seems to me people are upset with Neil Young's claims, and how they perceive the sound of the music player. Seems funny a majority of the those folks have not, and likely will not, even listen to this music player. However, they go on to tell those who have the music player, how bad it sounds. All the while talking about scientific facts and argument to bolster their position, again without even listening to the music player.
 
That is just like bashing a certain car made by a manufacturer without actually driving the car and then telling the owners of said car why they shouldn't like it. Odd indeed. I have seen they behavior on car forums over and over.  Moreover, name a product and the same behaviour presents itself, those who don't like a certain product (and have not tried it) telling the owner of said product why they should not like it.
 
I could care less about any  hyperbole gobbley gook marketing speak and only focus on the product. If I am getting so wrapped up in the marketing speak to the point I need to pick every little thing apart, then I would never buy anything. Bottom line, If a product meets or exceeds my expectations I am happy. End of story.
 
At the end of the day, for me, I wanted a amp/dac combo they could run just about anything, the bonus was I could use it in balanced mode and the fact they had a website to order music directly through them if I chose to.
 
 
Regards,
Eric

 

[PalJoey]

For all Neil Young's claims (and many of them were hyperbolic and hard to swallow), he did make it clear early on that he was not inventing anything new, but trying to make the best listening experience as accessible as he could.
 
Because he wasn't giving players or music away free and they weren't Apple products and his 'percentage' claims were OTT, he alienated the slackjaws (how DARE people not just give me everything I want free and now!), the gadget magazine/website iShills & Bose-os and the Measurement-Heads in that order.
 
Teething troubles (What, with wholly new hardware/software/webstore? Unforgiveable!) fuelled the fire and of course, the keyboard warriors loved having a chance to make snarky comments about a guy who wasn't just famous but also old.
 
As far as I can tell, what we have is a player that most people who have actually tried it like a hell of lot and a webstore that I can't judge yet, as it is still USA-only.
 
So, not an overwhelming success, but a decent start.