|
|
Post by levon on Mar 12, 2014 8:40:53 GMT -6
Seems like he's getting serious now building a high-quality portable music player. No more MP3s. This gets exciting. Pono at Kickstarter and Pono |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 12, 2014 11:11:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 12, 2014 12:10:59 GMT -6
I'm glad he got the labels to remaster catalogs with a lighter touch before the tape goes too far...
But, I can't take the Boomer narcissism that underlies the whole thing...will there be a dynamic master of Maroon 5's first available? Fumbling Towards Ecstasy? Maybe Jonatha Brooke's 10 cent wings? Maybe Kevin Gilbert's Thud? The answer is of course not--this is a whole new example of Boomers thinking music used to be better...
I've HEARD a good bit of these 24/192 masters....I find nothing more absurd than some SERIOUSLY loFi 1971 recordings being mastered at 192...or the PRince stuff from the early 80s...I LOVE Prince....I grew up on that vinyl...and while on my playback system, I can tell a SLIGHT difference in the new 24/192 master compared to my 1987 CD....not much...not enough to feel good about the amount of money I spent on them. Which ISN'T to say it's not a better thing that some mp3 of a crushed remaster you might be able to buy now...but...
The Eagles catalog is stunning. Mobile Fidelity handled the Billy Joel, SRV, and Jame Taylor catalogs--and WOW....beautiful masters....but, if you listed my entire collection and sorted by year (and I have...simply because I was curious and iTunes makes that EASY)--5/6th of the collection is post 85, which is about where all these Pono inspired remasters stop. and I'm NO spring chicken--keep in mind. So, this is effectively a high rez Boomer pay per view. The Doors new masters (again on SACD) sound fabulous....but, they're still the Doors. No one who doesn't like the Doors will give a fuck. And the ones like Norah Jones and Counting Crows actually DON'T sound better than the previous masters, IMO. Norah's SACDs sound great....but, her DVD-Audio (192khz) from a decade back sound as good or maybe better....the new master of the First Counting Crows actually has defied my rule--where the MFSL CD is like 2db louder--and ACTUALLY better. Turns out, mastering saved us from the absurd "donk" of that snare drum by clipping a few DB off the top....the guitars sound better on SACD, which they will do to the better transient response...the bass, though--the couple DB of limiting bumped it up a couple DB...and made for a better balance.
Anyway....this isn't remotely new. This push has been on for some years....some remasters have done wonderful things...some not so wonderful...and none of them bound to this absurd little portable player's tech. I think when you make a "better sounding iPod"--you have failed by success. By decade+ old SACD/DVD-A hybrid player sounds better than my new expensive ass Oppo (which uses the same DAC FWIW)...at playing high rez....ironically--the oppo DAC sounds LIGHT years better at playing Redbook and HDCD. The very tech this project is panning! I spent that money BECAUSE I have 2500+ CDs and HDCDs...that all got an upgrade with the new player...and the 100+ high rez sound fine....great...but, if not quite as good as a player intended for them from the day.
I thank Neil for getting some old stuff remastered....but, there are two decades of music recordings that were RUINED by loud mastering....that would've shown FAR more benefit from remastering, IMO. Because, as much of a proponent of DSD and double rate as I am--the content is king. The Elton SACDs are unlistenably bad---because they're crushed. DCC and MFSL have issued better sounding masters on redbook of many of these classic titles than the 24/192 and DSD masters--despite the flaws in Redbook.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 12, 2014 12:21:16 GMT -6
They should seriously fire and get their money back from the industrial designer that designed the Pono.. Cripes that thing is terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 12, 2014 12:24:18 GMT -6
So this is really only a format for older remastered work? I was under the impression that this was just for old stuff, but couldn't really find confirmation on their page of what music would be available. Nobody is going to be sticking 192k Pono Ke$ha on their Ponopods then?
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 12, 2014 12:27:41 GMT -6
Also, from the look of it, they're going to make a ton of money from this launch, then it'll rapidly die. Perhaps, I'll be wrong though.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 12, 2014 12:56:45 GMT -6
So this is really only a format for older remastered work? I was under the impression that this was just for old stuff, but couldn't really find confirmation on their page of what music would be available. Nobody is going to be sticking 192k Pono Ke$ha on their Ponopods then? The remasters for this have been taking place for over a year or two. They resulted (depending on who did the masters and who owned them) being released as HDTracks downloads...or limited SACDs...or some vinyl 180gr pressings...or sometimes all of the above. It is 95% all tape productions. Take the case of Billy Joel's catalog--they STOPPED after an Innocent Man....because the next record was tracked digitally. Same with James Taylor. Same with Prince. The handful of "more modern" releases are all tape--Pearl Jam, Norah Jones, Counting Crows first....so, no Never Die Young from Taylor...no Hourglass (though I have the original SACD of that)...no Sign of the Times or Gold Album from Prince. Nothing once digital entered the equation. The only "NEW" release I'm aware of is his buddy David Crosby's new record, recorded at 192 specifically for the project. While it does sound wonderful--Croz said Neil insisted they do the whole thing at 192 for the project...it would've sounded wonderful at 88.2 or 96khz...and saved everyone drive space and bandwidth. According to THEORY...it would sound better...but, I've never heard 192 as inferior--just simply not better--thus why bother? |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 12, 2014 12:59:37 GMT -6
I wonder how many kids with their Beats headphones are grabbing this up thinking that the newest Ja Rule is going to sound killer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 21:04:57 GMT -6
This is a total joke and I hope people avoid it like the plague. I want to see Neil pass an A/B test, film it and put it on youtube. He's an old guy who thinks he knows something about something he probably knows NOTHING about (I'm basing on the fact that he would even develop this). How is Pono going to be a better format than a 24bit Wav file? That's the master, we call it a master because that is what we created. It's almost as ludicrous as suggesting your new photocopier will create something better than the actual Mona Lisa out of the actual Mona Lisa. It's perverse and stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 21:25:30 GMT -6
Oh god it's not even a new format, it's an audiophile grade ipod with less storage and using FLAC. Again, FLAC is not the master file therefore the master is the highest res you can get. Jeez this guy. The kickstarter video was hilarious, loved watching Mumford and Sons claim to hear a massive difference listening on shitty earbuds, even car stereos, come on guys. Just how stupid do they think the general public is? They're gonna see three things 1. It's not an Ipod, does anyone know the competitors to Kraft Dinner? I didn't think so. 2. Less storage, big deal as people move their whole libraries over. 3. It's ugly, Apple is pretty. In addition to these three main points it's also $400 a player.
GOOD LUCK SELLING YOUR SNAKE OIL
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 12, 2014 21:34:27 GMT -6
Jordan you are missing the point.
you can take high res files from tape. that is why it is usually tape sessions that are mastered to high res.
flac is used because it is free and is lossless. it is the default high res medium
bands that are current and not part of the "Pop" world are releasing their own music in high res. because they are recording in high res or full analogue. there is an entire sector of the industry that is not ipod/iTunes related.
bandcamp for example.
finally although there are a ton of people whom believe les res is as good as it gets there are also a ton of people who don't agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 12, 2014 22:20:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 12, 2014 23:12:50 GMT -6
now that's where it gets real. |
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Mar 13, 2014 8:59:40 GMT -6
I hope this is successful. Not to sound negative, but I think the only people interested in this is us and audiophiles(are we audiofiles?) I don't think the world needs a new music player for your average consumer. I think your average listener doesn't even know about the dissadvantages of cd/mp3. But if this informs the consumer of better options than mp3 and has marginal success and educates people about quality, then Apple will finallly roll out the high res format they've mentioned. Most people still want to use Itunes and iphones. If anything, this will improve the quality of Iphones DAC and Itunes file format in the future. I hope this product is successful, i dont know if I would buy a media player at this price point.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 13, 2014 9:43:35 GMT -6
Yes, all Pono has to do is change how people think about listening to music. Do this, and it is a success. I hope it succeeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 13, 2014 18:06:26 GMT -6
Nobody wanted HD TV until they saw HD TV, even when it was out, the technology took a while to catch up, and for people to catch on, now virtually everyone has flat screen HD TV's and HD service, I welcome any form of higher resolution and wider dynamic range into recorded music with open arms, it's long over due
i do agree with pop that 192k is excessive, but whatever
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 13, 2014 18:29:55 GMT -6
Nobody wanted HD TV until they saw HD TV, even when it was out, the technology took a while to catch up, and for people to catch on, now virtually everyone has flat screen HD TV's and HD service, I welcome any form of higher resolution and wider dynamic range into recorded music with open arms, it's long over due i do agree with pop that 192k is excessive, but whatever Great post. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 13, 2014 18:40:40 GMT -6
This Pono thing has me thinking about PT sample rate. Am I shooting myself in the foot by recording at 48K, all because 30 years from now a bunch of people are gonna want to listen to the classic album that I haven't yet written, and if I track at 48, will people say, "cool tunes, but man, the recording engineer was an idiot! They should have fired that guy for tracking at such a crude sample rate! Everybody knows that 192 is THE rate! Even then . . . Must have been an old man producing the band. What's his name, anyway? Oh, the guitarist with the stupid last name that no one can pronounce. What an asshole!"
Hey, you got to have a dream or two . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by henge on Mar 13, 2014 18:47:20 GMT -6
Whoa! For a second I thought he made a Porno!
This would be a great player to take into the car to check mixes. As a high quality portable playback device it's a good idea although way too expensive imo. Not a fan of the looks. I'll be very interested too see if the general public cares about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 13, 2014 19:15:57 GMT -6
Whoa! For a second I thought he made a Porno! MILFs Never Sleep |
|
|
|
Post by lcr on Mar 13, 2014 19:28:49 GMT -6
This Pono thing has me thinking about PT sample rate. Am I shooting myself in the foot by recording at 48K, all because 30 years from now a bunch of people are gonna want to listen to the classic album that I haven't yet written, and if I track at 48, will people say, "cool tunes, but man, the recording engineer was an idiot! They should have fired that guy for tracking at such a crude sample rate! Everybody knows that 192 is THE rate! Even then . . . Must have been an old man producing the band. What's his name, anyway? Oh, the guitarist with the stupid last name that no one can pronounce. What an asshole!" Hey, you got to have a dream or two . . . Please let's not turn this into a sample rate debate, but I went 96k a year ago and like the results. What convinced me was a article I read about how plugins will perform more accurate, less upconverting, it does tax your machine harder. I even turned it up to 32 bit float 96k a few months ago, im not gonna switch back. |
|
|
|
Post by Rock Kennedy on Mar 13, 2014 19:56:59 GMT -6
All of a song's emotions are found where the 170-180k frequency band intersects bits #29, #31, and #32. In fact, those bits are reserved for emotional content. It is true that you can't hear the material in this range, but you can feel it in your heart. If you think you have had an emotional response to a song recorded with 24 bit audio, you are only fooling yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2014 20:06:03 GMT -6
All of a song's emotions are found where the 170-180k frequency band intersects bits #29, #31, and #32. In fact, those bits are reserved for emotional content. It is true that you can't hear the material in this range, but you can feel it in your heart. If you think you have had an emotional response to a song recorded with 24 bit audio, you are only fooling yourself. Totally agreed. I work at 44.1k 24bit  MY WORK SUCKS BECAUSE OF THAT. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 13, 2014 20:19:34 GMT -6
All of a song's emotions are found where the 170-180k frequency band intersects bits #29, #31, and #32. In fact, those bits are reserved for emotional content. It is true that you can't hear the material in this range, but you can feel it in your heart. If you think you have had an emotional response to a song recorded with 24 bit audio, you are only fooling yourself. Funny, but bit depth represents dynamic range, dynamic range has a direct impact on human auditory triggered emotion, and a lot of guys hear a significant diff between 16 bit 44.1 and 24 bit 96k, but thanks for pointing out we're all fooling ourselves 8) |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 13, 2014 20:21:36 GMT -6
All of a song's emotions are found where the 170-180k frequency band intersects bits #29, #31, and #32. In fact, those bits are reserved for emotional content. It is true that you can't hear the material in this range, but you can feel it in your heart. If you think you have had an emotional response to a song recorded with 24 bit audio, you are only fooling yourself. Totally agreed. I work at 44.1k 24bit MY WORK SUCKS BECAUSE OF THAT. Lol Jordan, nobody said ur work sucks dude, relax man |
|
