1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

The scientific merit of Pono

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by ab initio, May 7, 2014.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
21 22
  1. Steve Eddy

    Fortunately, even if he did mean 2 amperes, that juice would be flowing into the voice coils of your Sennheisers, which would instantly vaporize. So the only thing you have to worry about with respect to your ears is their catching on fire. :p

  2. dprimary

    Sorry I only have some small amplifiers laying around 1700 WPC into 4 ohm, I could bridge them for 3400 into 8 if that would help. [​IMG]
    Seriously back when most headphone had 600 Ohm impedance it was pretty common to drive them with a power amp in studios. At 600 Ohms the amp's wattage dropped fast we would have some large power resistors in series with the headphone feeds and used 4 pin XLR's to feed volume control boxes that had independent left and right volume controls. We had to use something like 1k 10 watt wire wound potentiometers as the volume pots. For large sessions you might need to run 12 -15 sets of headphones
  3. StanD
    I hate it when I get smoke in my ears.
  4. StanD
    Gee that seems like overkill, 10 W would mean having 100 VRMS across the pot all the time. Did you use L-Pads?
    I'll bet you wouldn't need that with a Pono. [​IMG]
  5. Steve Eddy

    Yeah, it will stunt their growth. :D

  6. StanD
    Look at the bright side, on ear headphones become over ear headphones. [​IMG]
  7. Steve Eddy

    Ha! Indeed! :D

  8. StanD
    I had an idea for a new product. Headphone cables with built in Lightening Arrestors. Just think of all the marketing myths that could be fabricated.
  9. Steve Eddy

    Brilliant! Fear is a great marketing tool. :D

  10. dprimary

    It was something like this, except we had to build them.  http://www.procosound.com/download/datasheets/HJ4P_specsheet_1004.pdf
    You could drive few sets of headphones off each box and there was protection resistor to each set of headphones. Almost everything was 600 Ohm back then. You need about 10volts to drive something like AKG 240's loud enough for tracking. When you need to drive 15 to 40 sets of headphones it starts to add up. I have never blown a pair of old AKG's completely worn out a few dozen but the drivers always worked.
    By the late 80's multichannel headphone amps appeared on the market and that worked in most cases. But since pro co still sells a box some people must still do it the old way.
  11. miceblue
  12. RRod
    Read that earlier. It's exactly the opposite way in which people are actually going about liking the Pono: here's a guy with tons of experience doing rigorous testing* on mid-to-high-end equipment who can eek out, as he admits, *minor* differences in sound quality between these high-end DAPs. The Pono marketing would have you believe that 2 seconds of listening with iBuds will yield *hyooge* improvements to what the average consumer will hear from his iPhone.
    *except when he's un-rigorous about his blind testing
  13. miceblue
    I thought it was interesting that even he had a hard time picking out details between the Pono and iDevices.

    But I guess in typical audiophile fashion, any small difference between two pieces of equipments means a big deal in the community.
  14. castleofargh Contributor
    I just whined because that's what I do ^_^.
  15. DiscoProJoe
    I came across the Pono website a few months ago and saw their video, etc. But since I personally can't notice any difference between MP3 at 192 kbps vs. CD quality, I thought this whole "Pono Player" thing was just a big marketing gimmick on the part of the major American music labels to sell people a bunch of crap they don't need.
    And I seriously doubt Neil Young was the one who originally thought of the idea for the Pono Player. It probably was the major American labels that came up with it, and they needed a frontman to promote it.
    If you'd like to see something hilariously manipulative, check out this YouTube video where they advertise a FLAC download website, featuring the original version of the song "Hotel California":
    Sounds like all they did with this YouTube gimmick clip was boosting the volume and treble a little. For comparison, I downloaded a 320 kbps MP3 of this song from Melodishop, converted it down to 192 kbps, and listened to it. All I had to do was boost the volume and treble on my stereo a little, and I couldn't notice a lick's worth of difference in sound quality versus this "audiophile flac" clip on YouTube, played at 1080p.
    Penn & Teller seriously could do a "Bullsh*t" episode on stuff like this.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
21 22

Share This Page