[ianmedium]

Get better kit:wink_face:  and you may see this world more clearly. I actually understand the dilemma here as most kit is very masking but for those fortunate enough to get it right, there is benefit to higher bit rates. Converting can go wrong as well. You can talk bandwidth and dynamic range until the cows come home but there is just better sense of time/space and with it perspective and emotion in hi-res when other factors are taken out of the equation. This is why he's so hot to do PONO, he's heard his own masters and remembers analog as well. The device looks goofy but I like that somebody is at least trying.

Another problem is that most haven't even heard exceptional analog kit which was always a better reference than CDs to begin with. A great analog master played on the right stuff is something to behold and a CD quality dub of it will always pale. This isn't a HiDef debate and since this is about a HiDef player, I don't think this is the place for it continuing. We can agree to disagree and thise with interest can continue to subscribe.

Here here Goodvibe!

 

[tds101]

If this proves to be as great as it's being hyped up to be I'm getting one of these,...

 

[SurfWax]

^Same here

 

[Taowolf51]

It looks pretty interesting, but I'm more interested in the music service over the hardware. It seems like they're really working on making sure those high res recordings are from *good* sources, and are converted over well. That I think will be the biggest difference.
 
I'm not sure if this will eventually end up with a cloud-like system like spotify, but I'd throw gobs of cash so hard for a lossless Spotify with good recordings.

 

[gidion27]

Interesting  concept but will be interesting how the UI is. Looks as simple as the Tera player

 

[Llloyd]

this is pretty much why I'm saying mastering makes the biggest difference here.  Most people dont have the ears or equipment to discern between lossless and lossy files, especially not on a portable player.  well mastered material is going to make a huge audible difference between just taking terribly compressed material and releasing it 24/192.  As far as eqipment goes ive been through some of the tests on these forums and people with full stax setups cannot tell the difference between some files.  I imagine some are more noticable than others but it just goes to show how close it can be for human ears to even tell any difference.  if you are sitting back and enjoying the music then it's not really going to matter.  I do however get a much larger kick out of very dynamic professional masters over their brickwalled counterparts.

 

[shockdoc]

Just serached for Pono and found this thread after seeing N.Y. on The Daily Show. Interesting concept but I'm a bit skeptical after pulling out my old Technics turntable and hooking it up and listening to some olf my old 70's-80's era vinyl. I was really kind of disappointed. Will certainly be interesting to watch and see what,  if anything, happens after living through so many format wars in my lifetime.

 

[Billyk]

Interesting article http://blog.ironmountain.com/2012/entertainment-services/quality-is-once-again-our-most-important-product-high-resolution-audio-downloads-for-consumers/ Mentions 192/24 as the rate the files will be delivered. I am curious to see what comes of it. I know I enjoy listening to a quality "needledrop" more than the CD rip, but that is purely subjective opinion on my part!

 

[gidion27]

For portable use most formats are fine. I still use some MP3's that sound fine on the train. There are obvious drawbacks when you listen at home. 192/24 is not a selling piont for me.

 

[Stoney]

Quote:

As a grad student I did a test of bit rates with high-res audio vs. what undergrads could detect in quality terms through middle of the road stereo system.  Answer was none could hear any improvement beyond 160kbps.  

 
There is a remarkable resemblance to full-resolution at that bit rate, to be sure.  However, at least for me, longer listening (esp. on a familiar system when the subject is selecting the music and volume) reveals that differences can be heard up to 320kbps.  Double blind methodology matters -- to do it well is seemingly impossible, and lengthy.  When DBT does in fact detect a difference, you have a strong positive result.  However, when it does not reveal a difference, by definition ("null hypothesis" testing), nothing is proven except that the difference is not large enough to be obvious under those exact conditions.  
 
 
Quote:

 
...320kbps or so for most.  But CD is 1,411kbps: 4X greater still.  
 

 
Look again.  CD is not 1411kbps effective data rate.  An AIFF file includes redundancy.  I believe that redbook uses "eight-to-fourteen modulation" (goes way back to space telemetry, IIRC) as a way of error avoidance (by spatial diversification of redundant data) and correction (not interpolation or approximation).  Look it up for me...  I'm not sure I'm precisely right.  But the effective data rate of redbook is better represented bit rates of "apple lossless" (no redundancy) which in my experience is around 800kbps.  
 
 
Quote:

Oh, and Mikey Fremmer and Stereophile have lost any credibility they once had, twisting themselves into pretzels to deny the validity of double blind testing in order to support ad space for $1,000 cables.  
 

 
Pros in the area you studied have characterized DBT limitations and found ways to minimize the drawbacks.  Not easy!  The literature is there for anyone who is not a "golden-ear denyer".    It started long ago, but in the 80s and beyond, the National Research Council of Canada did some tremendous work... I've attended presentations.  
 
Before this becomes like most DBT debates, please know I sympathize and came at this from a similar viewpoint.  While there is certainly excessive self-fulfilling or placebo effects in the high-end world, it is not universal.   I have been an AES member and even published a few times, and over the decades I've studied Sean Olive, Floyd Toole, and others, and been friendly with John Curl and John Atkinson.  And spent some time with Mikey, and a dozen manufacturers and journalists.  A major mentor was Richard Heyser.  The ones who know what they are doing do not often fall prey to that.  At least speaking for myself (acoustician and audio consultant for a time, who has studied with James Boyk at Caltech, Isadore Rudick and others at UCLA, and was offered the job of technical director at Stereophile in 1988), I tend to be hesitant to conclude any differences exist unless I can double check myself (like an informal version of the formal replication required in science journals.)  Turns out, BTW, that my wife hears differences even faster than I.  I could tell stories!....  

 

[musicday]

Pono will be just like Year Player no screen right? It may support more then one codecs tho.
Anyway there is lot of quality Daps out there for every single one of us.

 

[tds101]

Pono will be just like Year Player no screen right? It may support more then one codecs tho.
Anyway there is lot of quality Daps out there for every single one of us.

Ok, what is "Year Player"?

 

[putente]

Quote:

Ok, what is "Year Player"?

 
 
I think he was refering to the Tera Player... 

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

Just serached for Pono and found this thread after seeing N.Y. on The Daily Show. Interesting concept but I'm a bit skeptical after pulling out my old Technics turntable and hooking it up and listening to some olf my old 70's-80's era vinyl. I was really kind of disappointed. Will certainly be interesting to watch and see what,  if anything, happens after living through so many format wars in my lifetime.

Likely kit related. Most TTs are not special as well, especially direct drives.
 
Here's a 192 file recorded from vinyl. I believe this is out of print and also a small portion of the performance so should be OK. Early 60s analog vinyl dubbed on excellent kit. 
 
PM me with your email if you want it.

 

[Sebhelyesfarku]

Quote:

CD is not 1411kbps effective data rate.  An AIFF file includes redundancy.  I believe that redbook uses "eight-to-fourteen modulation" (goes way back to space telemetry, IIRC) as a way of error avoidance (by spatial diversification of redundant data) and correction (not interpolation or approximation).  Look it up for me...  I'm not sure I'm precisely right.  But the effective data rate of redbook is better represented bit rates of "apple lossless" (no redundancy) which in my experience is around 800kbps. 

 
16/44.1 WAV or AIFF from CD rip is effective 1411kbps, no redundancy there in the meaning of error correction.