[limpidglitch]

   
-I've just done pretty much the same thing - except I chose 'After The Gold Rush' instead, it being one of my definite NY favourites.
 
While it does sound good (as you'd expect!), the really surprising bit is that the Foobar2k Dynamic Range plugin claims that the effective DR on the 24/192 version is slightly lower than that of my ancient CD rip. Not enough for me to notice a marked difference during initial listening - but surprisingly enough that I will see if I can find some other way of evaluating the DR. Hm, perhaps some Sox incantation can help me out.
 
It will be interesting to do a couple of ABX tests after work to see whether I can really tell the two versions apart; first impression is that it should be easy, as the noise floor on the 24/192 is significantly lower - perhaps I should add noise to the 24/192 at the same level as on my CD rip, so that I cannot use that rather simple cue to tell the versions apart.
 
This is going to be fun.

 
Have you tried this, or any other LUFS meter?

 

[OddE]

 
Have you tried this?

 
-Thanks, will try it out later tonight.
 
Good thing I have a credit card issued in the US; I only noticed upon checking out that the Pono Store was only available to USAnians at the present.

 

[RRod]

 
It will be interesting to do a couple of ABX tests after work to see whether I can really tell the two versions apart; first impression is that it should be easy, as the noise floor on the 24/192 is significantly lower - perhaps I should add noise to the 24/192 at the same level as on my CD rip, so that I cannot use that rather simple cue to tell the versions apart.

Be careful with volume and ABX testing. The volume should be set before starting the test proper (typically to the loudest one would actually enjoyably listen to the *entire* track), and then never touched until the trials are all done. People hearing noise-floors are typically jacking up the volume at soft parts, forgetting than the loud parts would then blow their ears out.

 

[OddE]

Be careful with volume and ABX testing. The volume should be set before starting the test proper (typically to the loudest one would actually enjoyably listen to the *entire* track), and then never touched until the trials are all done. People hearing noise-floors are typically jacking up the volume at soft parts, forgetting than the loud parts would then blow their ears out.

 
-Thanks for the reminder, but aye - I can hear the noise floor of the 16/44.1 recording (or, more precisely - the noise floor of the original production master) during quiet parts with the amp set to comfortable listening levels.
 
I have no intent of making my eardrums meet in the center of my head in the name of science...

 

[RRod]

   
-Thanks for the reminder, but aye - I can hear the noise floor of the 16/44.1 recording (or, more precisely - the noise floor of the original production master) during quiet parts with the amp set to comfortable listening levels.
 
I have no intent of making my eardrums meet in the center of my head in the name of science...

 
Ah I see. Then it will be interesting to see if the 24/192 remaster indeed did anything more than just some noise reduction. Awaiting your results!

 

[Greenears]

   
-I've just done pretty much the same thing - except I chose 'After The Gold Rush' instead, it being one of my definite NY favourites.
 
While it does sound good (as you'd expect!), the really surprising bit is that the Foobar2k Dynamic Range plugin claims that the effective DR on the 24/192 version is slightly lower than that of my ancient CD rip. Not enough for me to notice a marked difference during initial listening - but surprisingly enough that I will see if I can find some other way of evaluating the DR. Hm, perhaps some Sox incantation can help me out.
 
It will be interesting to do a couple of ABX tests after work to see whether I can really tell the two versions apart; first impression is that it should be easy, as the noise floor on the 24/192 is significantly lower - perhaps I should add noise to the 24/192 at the same level as on my CD rip, so that I cannot use that rather simple cue to tell the versions apart.
 
This is going to be fun.

 
Curious if anyone knows:  Are 16 bit versions of the Pono remaster of After The Gold Rush and Harvest available anywhere?  Because that is the real heart of the question whether the 24 bit format is needed at all.

 

[bigshot]

  I can hear the noise floor of the 16/44.1 recording (or, more precisely - the noise floor of the original production master) during quiet parts with the amp set to comfortable listening levels.

 
After The Gold Rush was recorded on tape. That is the master tape hiss you're hearing. Digital audio has a noise floor that is much lower than tape, but when you have a digital copy of an analogue recording, you don't just get perfectly reproduced music, you get perfectly reproduced analogue noise too.

 

[OddE]

   
Curious if anyone knows:  Are 16 bit versions of the Pono remaster of After The Gold Rush and Harvest available anywhere?  Because that is the real heart of the question whether the 24 bit format is needed at all.

 
-My guess - mind you, guess - would be that the Official Release Series of remastered reissues are the same masters as are being used for the Pono store. It would not make much sense to go through all the work of preparing the remasters in 2009-2010 or so only to repeat the process a few years later.
 
Come to think of it, that would be fun to find out. I'll order ATGR ORS right away.

 

[bigshot]

I would bet that they *deliberately* remastered them to make them sound different in the Pono store. They have to justify the format.

 

[RRod]

   
Curious if anyone knows:  Are 16 bit versions of the Pono remaster of After The Gold Rush and Harvest available anywhere?  Because that is the real heart of the question whether the 24 bit format is needed at all.

 
It's easy enough to make one's self. Since it's tape material to begin with, you won't even have to worry about dithering. The question really wouldn't be if 24bits is needed, but how much less than 16bits you can get away with in relatively non-dynamic material (sorry NY).

 

[reginalb]

  I would bet that they *deliberately* remastered them to make them sound different in the Pono store. They have to justify the format.

 
A good thing if it's a better master. 

 

[bigshot]

More likely to just be a different master.

 

[OddE]

  I would bet that they *deliberately* remastered them to make them sound different in the Pono store. They have to justify the format.

 
-They have to justify it to a very forgiving audience; I suspect 'Because 24bit.' will do as justification. If that doesn't cut it, they can add 'Oh, and because 192kHz'. As an added bonus, they can say that the music is much more organic, airy and close to the analog masters etc, etc - and no-one but us heretics will try to hold them to it.
 
I have the utmost respect for the musician Neil Young; several of my all-time favourite albums are his; neither do I doubt that he is sincere when he claims that he wants to provide the best possible quality recordings to the fans, etc, etc - but it is also my firm belief that he has had too much of the hi-res kool-aid. To be fair, though, he's been on the better audio quality bandwagon since the seventies or so - quite ironically, really, as a few of his most celebrated albums sound more or less like they were recorded onto a dictaphone tossed in an empty oil drum in a corner of the studio. (Yes, I am exaggerating.)
 

 
After The Gold Rush was recorded on tape. That is the master tape hiss you're hearing. Digital audio has a noise floor that is much lower than tape, but when you have a digital copy of an analogue recording, you don't just get perfectly reproduced music, you get perfectly reproduced analogue noise too.

 
-I figured as much, but apparently botched the attempt at getting that point across.

 

[Bytor123]

  More likely to just be a different master.

How can one tell if it is a different master apart from listening? Is there anything descriptive in a file download, or is there information on a CD cover/vinyl cover where one could see information about this? Or is this a daft question (very likely)?

 

[Metalsludge]

Article on Slate about the Pono, generally concluding that it is worth no more than any Apple product because hi-res is not a superior format in any useful way: 
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2015/02/ponoplayer_review_neil_young_s_new_streaming_device_sounds_no_better_than.html
 
The article says less about the player and more about the debate between hi-res and redbook audio files though. 
 
I was disappointed when the comments section had the usual generalization being thrown about on how audiophiles are all people who buy $10,000 cables and who all insist that hi-res is better. (When there is actually much debate on that issue in the community.), but of course that sort of thing is typical of Internet comments on the field.