[Koukol]

  it's not like this little player can't play any other formats so it's all good. i'm interested in the player but not Pono music store (or whatever they call it).

I'm hoping that this new store will inspire the people making the downloads to do it right.
I also hope this store will let people rate the downloads so crap can be weeded out.

 

[MassDude]

  it's not like this little player can't play any other formats so it's all good. i'm interested in the player but not Pono music store (or whatever they call it).

I am interested in the Pono Music store. First, to see what their pricing will be, then to see what kind of availability they have. As far as I'm concerned, HDTracks has an abysmal selection for the type of music I mostly listen to (Classic Rock). It will be interesting to see what Pono Music has to offer.

 

[fiascogarcia]

  I am interested in the Pono Music store. First, to see what their pricing will be, then to see what kind of availability they have. As far as I'm concerned, HDTracks has an abysmal selection for the type of music I mostly listen to (Classic Rock). It will be interesting to see what Pono Music has to offer.

 
Me too.  What's killing me is the pricing on HDTracks.  I've found plenty of their albums that are only 44/16 selling for $17.95, at which point I buy the CD on Amazon and burn it to my iTunes.

 

[epithetless]

  I am interested in the Pono Music store. First, to see what their pricing will be...

 
Regarding pricing, the Pono FAQ has this to say so far:
 
Quote:

HOW MUCH WILL PONOMUSIC COST?

The record companies set their own digital music prices, label by label. High-resolution digital albums at Ponomusic.com are expected to cost between $14.99 -$24.99, and there may be exceptions.

 
I believe it's a similar situation with HDTracks (the labels dictating their own prices), no?

 

[Koukol]

As I said earlier the fact that bands like the PATTI SMITH GROUP and RHCPs gives me hope that many more Alternative bands will be remastered
 
On HD tracks I found only one RAMONES album that I couldn't buy since I'm Canadian.

 

[MassDude]

   
Me too.  What's killing me is the pricing on HDTracks.  I've found plenty of their albums that are only 44/16 selling for $17.95, at which point I buy the CD on Amazon and burn it to my iTunes.

Exactly! I can get a CD off of Amazon for $7 - $12 and rip it to FLAC myself.

 

[MassDude]

   
Regarding pricing, the Pono FAQ has this to say so far:
 
I believe it's a similar situation with HDTracks (the labels dictating their own prices), no?

Thanks - I had seen the FAQ. But like with everything else, seeing is believing. Once the store is open, we'll get to see how much music they have and what the prices will be.

 

[Brendo09]

  Exactly! I can get a CD off of Amazon for $7 - $12 and rip it to FLAC myself.

 
This!! 
 
I don't listen to portable music enough to make a $300 Pono Player worth my while, I'm either at my work desk or in my home. My car speakers wouldn't know the difference between 320kbps or someone whacking a tree with a stick. 
 
If this Pono process can offer me, as a listener, more detail that what I can pull of a CD, for a similar price, then I think it's wonderful goal. That's what's right with it, but for all the bluster and puff, we won't know until it's up and selling things. 
 
For those who use players, I think the player is a good unit, versatile, quality components, and an apparently super simple interface. I hope it turns out that way. 

 

[DigitalFreak]

(Facepalm)
The main issue for me, an hopefully everyone else on here, should be the final mastering of the files on PonoMusic. Not the old debate of lossless vs lossy. That should be a debate being fought out on the sound science threads. As for the player itself, from the little I know about it it should be a player which sonically is worth it's price. That's just my gut instinct of coarse but that instinct has served me well enough in the past in that I've been happy with 90% of my purchases. The second issue should be the misinformation that has caused a hype train for the ill informed in both the general media and the consumer. I wish some of these mass market gear blogs and people in general would take the 30 minutes to research and at least know the difference between a DAC chip and their left foot. The last posted video made me roll my eyes so far back I think saw the inside of my skull.

 

[Brendo09]

(Facepalm)
The main issue for me, an hopefully everyone else on here, should be the final mastering of the files on PonoMusic. Not the old debate of lossless vs lossy. That should be a debate being fought out on the sound science threads. As for the player itself, from the little I know about it it should be a player which sonically is worth it's price. That's just my gut instinct of coarse but that instinct has served me well enough in the past in that I've been happy with 90% of my purchases. The second issue should be the misinformation that has caused a hype train for the ill informed in both the general media and the consumer. I wish some of these mass market gear blogs and people in general would take the 30 minutes to research and at least know the difference between a DAC chip and their left foot. The last posted video made me roll my eyes so far back I think saw the inside of my skull.

If your facepalm is pointed at me, I'll add that when I said '...the Pono process...' I was referring to PonoMusic (the online store). 
 
The proof will be in the pudding when it opens. 

 

[miceblue]

Now...suppose the Pono music store offers 24/192, 24/96, or 16/44.1 versions of an album. What version is Average Joe Consumer going to buy?

16/44.1 which is the standard CD quality, or 24/96 which is a studio-recording format? Is the 16/44.1 version the actual CD master, or is it the studio-recording master down-sampled? Let's say Average Joe Consumer has fallen into the marketing trap of an aura surrounding the whole high-resolution format containing 29138471038516 times more information than a CD.



I went ahead and purchased the 16/44.1 and 24/96 versions of Ottmar Liebert's "Up Close" album (a fantastic album if I may add). Lucky for me, the one time I decide to purchase two resolutions of an album from the same website, one version doesn't play in Foobar, and it happens to be the 16/44.1 version. What...I don't even....

Well there goes that option for doing an ABX test. I'll use Mac OS's ABXer app instead, even though it won't be volume-matched with the ReplayGain information that Foobar can utilise for its ABX add-on.

Spoiler: ABX Results

ABX Test Completed: 2014-03-31 09:02:34 +0000

Number of tests performed: 15
Number of correct answers: 9
Percentage correct: 60%

File 1 = /Users/Michael/Desktop/01-Carrousel (binaural).wav
File 2 = /Users/Michael/Desktop/01-Carrousel.wav
File placement was static.

n [A] [X] Choice Score
1 [1] [1] [2] B 0/1
2 [1] [1] [2] A 1/2
3 [1] [1] [2] A 2/3
4 [1] [2] [2] A 2/4
5 [1] [1] [2] B 2/5
6 [1] [2] [2] B 3/6
7 [1] [1] [2] B 3/7
8 [1] [1] [2] A 4/8
9 [1] [1] [2] A 5/9
10 [1] [1] [2] A 6/10
11 [1] [2] [2] B 7/11
12 [1] [1] [2] A 8/12
13 [1] [1] [2] A 9/13
14 [1] [1] [2] B 9/14
15 [1] [1] [2] B 9/15

--------------------------------------------------------------

Results: Average Joe Consumer should have purchased the 16/44.1 version since it sounds identical to the HD version and save $6. Buy 2 of such albums and you'll save $12, enough to buy a third album.


Case point: If the Pono music store decides to sell different resolutions of a music album, and this goes for any HD music store, we still have no idea whatsoever about the mastering for each resolution. For all we know, the 24/96 version of "Up Close" could have been up-sampled from the CD version since a frequency response analysis looks pretty much identical with the exception of some 25 kHz noise. Or maybe it could be the case that the 24/96 version was indeed just down-sampled to 16/44.1, so the master is the same. In short, listing the mastering type/version should be far, far, far more important than the resolution.



^ I actually moved my cursor to about the 1000 Hz area and both versions measure at around -33 dB, which may suggest that these are the same master





Now I feel cheated for my money and I just wasted, in essence, $16 on the 24/96 version that provides no benefits.
HDtracks.com is the only store that distributes the 24/96 version of this album:
http://www.ottmarliebert.com/music/album/up-close

 

[DigitalFreak]

If your facepalm is pointed at me, I'll add that when I said '...the Pono process...' I was referring to PonoMusic (the online store). 

The proof will be in the pudding when it opens. 

Being a little overly touchy aren't you fellow bopper. For your information I was speaking generally on how the conversation had degenerated into a debate on 24 vs 16 vs 256 MP3.

 

[Brendo09]

Being a little overly touchy aren't you fellow bopper. For your information I was speaking generally on how the conversation had degenerated into a debate on 24 vs 16 vs 256 MP3.

No, I just re read what I'd written and it was quite vague sounding.

 

[Saraguie]

Results: Average Joe Consumer should have purchased the 16/44.1 version since it sounds identical to the HD version and save $6. Buy 2 of such albums and you'll save $12, enough to buy a third album.


Case point: If the Pono music store decides to sell different resolutions of a music album, and this goes for any HD music store, we still have no idea whatsoever about the mastering for each resolution. For all we know, the 24/96 version of "Up Close" could have been up-sampled from the CD version since a frequency response analysis looks pretty much identical with the exception of some 25 kHz noise. Or maybe it could be the case that the 24/96 version was indeed just down-sampled to 16/44.1, so the master is the same. In short, listing the mastering type/version should be far, far, far more important than the resolution.
^ I actually moved my cursor to about the 1000 Hz area and both versions measure at around -33 dB, which may suggest that these are the same master

Now I feel cheated for my money and I just wasted, in essence, $16 on the 24/96 version that provides no benefits.
HDtracks.com is the only store that distributes the 24/96 version of this album:
http://www.ottmarliebert.com/music/album/up-close

I would feel cheated too. I think you have solidified that the master/mix is what is important. My understanding is that, at the beginning at lest, that was the idea behind Neil Young's thumping. Master > listeners file has got to have enough information to sound like what the artist's original sound was. And that the master sans loudness wars and mixed properly is what counts.
Thanks for taking the time to do the A/Bing

 

[Koukol]

"If the Pono music store decides to sell different resolutions of a music album, and this goes for any HD music store, we still have no idea whatsoever about the mastering for each resolution. For all we know, the 24/96 version of "Up Close" could have been up-sampled from the CD version since a frequency response analysis looks pretty much identical with the exception of some 25 kHz noise. Or maybe it could be the case that the 24/96 version was indeed just down-sampled to 16/44.1, so the master is the same. In short,"
 
 
 
 
This is why I'm hoping they'll have consumer reviews on their website.