[miceblue]

Well the mastering is probably different for whatever version they have.

Also, YouTube chops off all audio frequencies above 16 kHz due to their video compression process.

 

[RRod]

Well the mastering is probably different for whatever version they have.

Also, YouTube chops off all audio frequencies above 16 kHz due to their video compression process.

 
Looks like it's a bit selective; here's the spec of that song:

 

[miceblue]

Looks like it's a bit selective; here's the spec of that song:

That's the spectrogram from the YouTube video? I get this when recording with Soundflower.

 

[RRod]

That's the spectrogram from the YouTube video? I get this when recording with Soundflower.

 
I DLed it with youtube-dl (which autoselects the highest quality version), then extracted to wav with ffmpeg. Either it's adding content (doubtful), Soundflower is taking it away, or you have a lower quality version off youtube.

 

[stv014]

Some of the extra high frequency content in the YouTube version, which is apparently in 192 kbps AAC format, looks like clipping. But it definitely has useful content up to 18 kHz, while the Soundflower recording only goes up to 16 kHz.

 

[RRod]

  Some of the extra high frequency content in the YouTube version, which is apparently in 192 kbps AAC format, looks like clipping. But it definitely has useful content up to 18 kHz, while the Soundflower recording only goes up to 16 kHz.

 
Ah possibly. I just uploaded some white noise normalized to -12dB to YouTube to test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqZNCXumk7U
 
Looks like it kept up to a bit past 21k.

 

[bigshot]

Not all YouTube codecs are the same. In the early days, they used AAC 128, then they bumped it up to 192 a couple of years later. Now I think they are at 256. YouTube right now is excellent video and sound quality.

 

[castleofargh]

the codec goes with the video resolution. at some point to get good sound for a song you had to upload and look at it in "HD", while looking at it in 240pixel would play some crap low res mp3 or aac. I suspect it is still true.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Here we go again.  Can't test this out, have to just believe. Seriously?  I'm guessing they already know that a DBT or AB/X could not be passed, so they have to claim it is not effective.  That tells me everything I need to know, for now.
 
a) Brickwall filtering creates massive time smear. b) The human ear/brain is already known to be exquisitely sensitive to time smear. c) DBT and AB/X are really only sensitive to differences in frequency response. Using these tools for anything to do with music is like pounding a nail with a screwdriver. Ain't gonna work.
 
Edit: How can my ears/brain be keenly sensitive to time smear, but not if I listen without bias?

 

[StanD]

  Here we go again.  Can't test this out, have to just believe. Seriously?  I'm guessing they already know that a DBT or AB/X could not be passed, so they have to claim it is not effective.  That tells me everything I need to know, for now.
 
a) Brickwall filtering creates massive time smear. b) The human ear/brain is already known to be exquisitely sensitive to time smear. c) DBT and AB/X are really only sensitive to differences in frequency response. Using these tools for anything to do with music is like pounding a nail with a screwdriver. Ain't gonna work.
 
Edit: How can my ears/brain be keenly sensitive to time smear, but not if I listen without bias?

Some of those golden ears follow the maxim, "If you don't succeed at first, try try again....and again....and again..or just imagine it 

 

[DiscoProJoe]

c) DBT and AB/X are really only sensitive to differences in frequency response.

 
Ha ha, I wonder who came up with that one?  If one music file is in stereo and the other one is in mono, one has a dynamic range and S/N ratio of >70 dB and the other a mere 2 dB, and one has < 1% distortion while the other farts out a whopping 50% distortion, then I guess we couldn't notice any difference, eh? 

 

 

[LuckyNat]

What a damned wierd thread!
 
ALL DAPS play high-rez files these days so what is the OP's beef with the Pono in particular? Crazy...
 
A&K wouldn't be anywhere if their devices couldn't play 96,192, DSD etc.

 

[reginalb]

  What a damned wierd thread!
 
ALL DAPS play high-rez files these days so what is the OP's beef with the Pono in particular? Crazy...
 
A&K wouldn't be anywhere if their devices couldn't play 96,192, DSD etc.

 
I think you will find that this section of the forum isn't quite as enamored with A&K as some other sections, either. 

 

[castleofargh]

  What a damned wierd thread!
 
ALL DAPS play high-rez files these days so what is the OP's beef with the Pono in particular? Crazy...
 
A&K wouldn't be anywhere if their devices couldn't play 96,192, DSD etc.

 did you actually read the OP's post?

 

[LuckyNat]

I never replied to this, but for the record it's a strange question because it's the OP's post that I commented on and led me on to read further posts and conclude it's a damned weird thread.
 
It was as if high-res was only invented by Neil Young when it has been around for decades. I think what Pono did with Young's profile, was get the talk of high-res into the general media and therefore introduce high-res to the average person who probably still thinks that 128kpb MP3 off their phone sounds great - hence all the weird commentary on Pono whilst having never critised high-res at any point in the last 20 years...
 
Pono sounds great and is compatible with a good range of resolution formats - don't have to miss out just because you've ended up with a DSD version or 96/24 version of something, a vinyl rip perhaps. The main thing about it is the Ayre hardware in my opinion. The shape is also unusually great for holding - something you miss slightly when going back to the 99% of flat devices.