Pono - Neil Young

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

low res MP3s are one issue, although I think the bad old days of 128kbps napster files continue to gradually fade away. iTunes downloads are still lossy but the algorithm is far superior.

This is completely false, in fact the perceptual coding is extremely similar between the different compression formats. BTW, the original Fraunhofer IIS mp3 codec is still the best.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by zamler

This is completely false, in fact the perceptual coding is extremely similar between the different compression formats. BTW, the original Fraunhofer IIS mp3 codec is still the best.

We're on extremely shakey ground now, since as you've noted, it's perceptual based lossy encoding, but AAC is pretty much universally regarded as being superior to MP3 at the same bitrate, in both direct and blind listening tests.

From a technical perspective, the AAC format is definitely engineered to build upon and improve the techniques pioneered in MP3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance...ments_over_MP3

It specifically addresses these issues in the older MP3 standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3#Design_limitations

Both are MPEG standards; MP3 is MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 Audio Layer III, AAC is an MPEG-4 standard audio type.

Regardless, I'd say once you're dealing with 256kbps or higher encodings in either format, the differences are probably very, very minor, and at that point you're probably better choosing the format based on you device choices more so than technical superiority.

[zamler]

You said the algorithm is "far superior" which I simply don't agree with. That said, I don't like highly compressed audio at all. It serves a valuable purpose for most scenarios, but the fact that highly compressed music has become the norm is disappointing to me. Most people have absolutely no idea what good sound is, and for whatever reason most don't care either.

BUT when they do hear a truly great audio system, it changes the perspective, and what they were used to suddenly sounds really poor.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by zamler

You said the algorithm is "far superior" which I simply don't agree with.

That's why I said perceptual There is no question that AAC is better algorithmically. The transient signal response/accuracy alone makes it better, especially with instruments or sounds that have a lot of attack, but then you factor in error correction, support for a far greater number of discrete channels, sampling rates of up to 96kHz (vs 48kHz for MP3), which allows for a more sophisticated psychoacoustic model (because it has more data to work with), and it's not even close.

Originally Posted by zamler

BUT when they do hear a truly great audio system, it changes the perspective, and what they were used to suddenly sounds really poor.

A high bitrate MP3 or AAC file played back on a great audio system will trump CD quality audio on a poor one nearly every time. The high end gear will make the limitations of lossy audio more apparent, but it'll still sound better on the whole than a low end system. Almost entirely because of the speakers. But that's neither here nor there with respect to MP3 vs AAC.

[zamler]

The high end gear will make the limitations of lossy audio more apparent, but it'll still sound better on the whole than a low end system. Almost entirely because of the speakers. But that's neither here nor there with respect to MP3 vs AAC.

No, it means everything and is a critical point. It makes no difference how good the source is if you can't take advantage of it. On most audio equipment people listen to, they will hardly (or not at all) be able to distinguish between a high quality source and an average, compressed one. If you want to properly compare various sources, you need a system that is capable of fully exposing a poor audio source, and one that can fully realize a great one.

I personally really like what Niel Young is trying to accomplish but his project will probably fall on "deaf ears" for the most part. BTW, to me it is extremely important (I can't state this enough) to look past the technical aspects of audio equipment, which is the exact opposite of what most do. Since the beginning of time people have bought equipment because of wattage, harmonic distortion, S/N ratios the list is endless. But I can honestly say that best sound I have ever heard was from a system that was very low wattage, probably had "very high" distortion comparatively, the source most certainly had background noise (analog recording) and a whole bunch of issues that would make someone hyper focused on tech specs cringe.

But it didn't matter, the sound was emotion stirring and spectacular. And that is the whole point of music in the first place, which is greatly lost by the crap compression formats we are forced to deal with. Compression outright sucks, doesn't matter if in theory I can't hear what was thrown away. Maybe my ears can't, but my body can, the surroundings can. Go to a live orchestra and tell me it doesn't make a difference, I bet I can't actually "hear" most of the sound coming from the instruments and on a technical level the sound is the same as a well engineered recording. But in no way can any recording do the live performance justice. At least a high resolution recording will make a good attempt.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by zamler

On most audio equipment people listen to, they will hardly (or not at all) be able to distinguish between a high quality source and an average, compressed one. If you want to properly compare various sources, you need a system that is capable of fully exposing a poor audio source, and one that can fully realize a great one.
....
But I can honestly say that best sound I have ever heard was from a system that was very low wattage, probably had "very high" distortion comparatively, the source most certainly had background noise (analog recording) and a whole bunch of issues that would make someone hyper focused on tech specs cringe.

You're kinda all over the map. You prefer MP3 to AAC, even though AAC is technically better, but hate lossy music in general; and feel you need high end audio gear to begin to appreciate good recordings, but the best sound you listened to was on a less than ideal system with less than ideal recordings.

Originally Posted by zamler

BTW, to me it is extremely important (I can't state this enough) to look past the technical aspects of audio equipment, which is the exact opposite of what most do. Since the beginning of time people have bought equipment because of wattage, harmonic distortion, S/N ratios the list is endless."

There's zero point to discussing Pono, MP3, or AAC formats with respect to the output gear, since its the #1 variable the producers can't control. You say you don't buy on specs, but that's 100% what a discussion about Pono is about. There's no magic going on - when you're dealing with digital recording formats it is 100% specs, some physics (if it involves lossy), and tons and tons of math..

I overall 100% agree with you - you have to go with what sounds good in the real world. As a guitarist I know this intuitively - certain gear has something going on regardless of specs, and its very, very often not because its high fidelity. But again, in a discussion on recording formats, the discussion necessarily has to be spec based - we're not talking about how we intend to reproduce that spec audibly, and the output of Pono or an MP3 player is the same regardless of what gear you later amplify it with.

[Montag]

I don't understand what this accomplishes that FLAC doesn't already do for free. Terrible brand name and nobody can even tell the difference.

While I do agree that music is about eliciting emotion; in my experience, I can listen to a Beatles album on cassette and still get an emotional response out of it.

I also agree that listening to a live orchestra is a whole other ballgame but there are so many other factors involved besides fidelity: volume, atmosphere, etc.

One overlooked aspect about music these days is that if you are listening to music on your computer; the fan noise gives you a noise floor that really colors the sound. I'm sure that if you played an mp3 through a appropriate PA system in a quiet concert hall with excellent acoustics; it would sound amazing.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

You're kinda all over the map. You prefer MP3 to AAC, even though AAC is technically better, but hate lossy music in general;

I was not very clear in my post, I was saying the Fraunhofer codec was the best of the mp3 versions, not that the codec was superior to all other audio specific compressions. I don't hate lossy music per say, I hate the fact that low bitrate lossy music is the defacto standard. The compact disc has been for sale since 1982, a format that is better than the most popular ones used now. We are talking about a time frame of over 30 years.

...and feel you need high end audio gear to begin to appreciate good recordings, but the best sound you listened to was on a less than ideal system with less than ideal recordings.

Exactly right. The recordings were technically less than ideal, but the warmth, space and clarity were outstanding. The system was designed for music, low wattage and a valve amplifier, acoustically treated room. This combination yielded the sweetest, most transparent sound I have ever heard from any audio system. As I said, if you were to list the specs of such a system it would look incredibly underwhelming. The source material was Smackwater Jack, DSOTM 4.1 DVD-audio, some Fleetwood Mac, and a few other recordings I was not familiar with. But pretty much all of them were mastered using analog equipment. You could very easily hear tape hiss and other so called undesirable artifacts.

But it didn't matter, I'm sure in no small part due to the efforts of the audio engineers. Back then I believe because the engineers were dealing with the limitations of their sound equipment, they were more diligent is producing the best quality sound. If these same engineers were afforded modern digital equipment but all other factors the same, would they have made a better sounding record? Probably yes.

There's zero point to discussing Pono, MP3, or AAC formats with respect to the output gear, since its the #1 variable the producers can't control. You say you don't buy on specs, but that's 100% what a discussion about Pono is about.

Different discussion. A digital audio format is obviously about the specs, the more bits you use to sample and store, the better it will sound when you convert back to analog, with diminishing returns of course. But then it gets really muddy, a 200 watt amplifer doesn't automatically sound better than a 20 watt, but my point was the casual buyer tends not to think this way. Auto equipment is notorious for selling on specs, in fact the listed wattage of some of these amplifiers exceeds the available power limit of the wiring and fuse.

There's no magic going on - when you're dealing with digital recording formats it is 100% specs, some physics (if it involves lossy), and tons and tons of math..

There is still a lot of art that goes into digital audio along with the science. For example, when the compact disc first hit the market, I remember the discussions centering around jitter and the like and how a particular transport would yield better audio versus a cheap one. We saw units with heavy chassis and even clamping mechanisms to hold the disc tightly to the platter. Really these things did basically nothing to actually improve fidelity.

Where the science meets art came in is in the DACs. I remember very clearly when Pioneer came out with a lower end laser disc player that sounded as good or better than anything they had in their Elite lineup. The transport was cheaper, didn't have the massive honey comb chassis etc. but it didn't matter, the 10 bit 96kHz/24-bit DACs they used were tremendous. I vividly remember comparing several units back to back and this particular unit had the best sound of all of them. I had heard the various high end CD players before, but this was the first time where it really hit me, digital is not more or less all the same, something that many believed strongly. The DVL919 (I think, sorry I can't remember the exact model number) had a GREAT dynamic and clean sound to it, jumped out at you as soon as you played your favourite tracks.

I overall 100% agree with you - you have to go with what sounds good in the real world. As a guitarist I know this intuitively - certain gear has something going on regardless of specs, and its very, very often not because its high fidelity. But again, in a discussion on recording formats, the discussion necessarily has to be spec based - we're not talking about how we intend to reproduce that spec audibly, and the output of Pono or an MP3 player is the same regardless of what gear you later amplify it with.

Agreed. Last point I would like to make is, ALL recordings are lossy, every single one. It is not possible to capture the entire set of waveforms and reproduce them 100% faithfully. However, something like DTS master audio is about the highest you need to go on an technical level, diminishing returns kick ramp up exponentially if you go with higher sampling rates. What I'm trying to say is, what is available through iTunes is far, far and way worse than the ideal, which is exactly what Niel Young is trying to change, I hope he succeeds brilliantly.

[MickMcGeough]

Early reviews appear to be ... meh ...

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/...-of-snake-oil/
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-on...496883039.html

Folks at head-fi are mixed. Highly trained ears there - most seem to say it isn't good enough to replace their existing mobile rigs.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/737093/the-...essions-thread

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by MickMcGeough

Early reviews appear to be ... meh ...

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/...-of-snake-oil/
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-on...496883039.html

Folks at head-fi are mixed. Highly trained ears there - most seem to say it isn't good enough to replace their existing mobile rigs.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/737093/the-...essions-thread

I'm not surprised at the blind test results. I just got a 1970s amp and there's a knob that changes the EQ from compressing the dynamic range to flat.

It's all about the EQ and mastering and it sounds like Pono's going to great lengths to remaster their songs and probably going for an open range and equalization. Neil Young has even said that there are no treble or bass controls on the Pono because he wants you to hear what the artist originally intended.

It sounds to me like the iPhone people are hearing modern versions of these songs which have been remastered to death to sound good on small headphones (regardless of quality) and mobile and laptop speakers. The dynamic range is going to be compressed to emphasize highs and lows and for many people in this age, that feels like good music to their ears because it gives you deep bass and crystallized treble. People are accustomed to hearing songs that way now.

It's about how you are hearing it. If I turn up the knob and compress the EQ, it sounds good on headphones but bad on actual room-filling quality speakers.

I would still never buy Pono.

[Hack&Lube]

Also, they've always said the Pono is that triangle shape that prevents you from putting it into your pocket because it allows better audio components.

Tear-downs reveal this is not the case. The only tall components are two chemical capacitors standing upright (I wonder if they are Nippon-Chemicon or something) and a round battery. The rest is empty space. They could have definitely made the design a lot more flat. The contents don't justify the price.

I think they should have learned from Apple and printer manufacturers. Sell the device affordably (but still at a classier price point so it doesn't seem so cheap) and then make money off song sales.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It's all about the EQ and mastering and it sounds like Pono's going to great lengths to remaster their songs and probably going for an open range and equalization. Neil Young has even said that there are no treble or bass controls on the Pono because he wants you to hear what the artist originally intended.

Not really. The vast majority of the Pono catalog is simply the same masters as the CDs and files that are available elsewhere. Some of the files are higher resolution, but the actual masters are generally the same as any other release. It's not like most major artists and their labels are going to hand over their tapes so Pono can make a special remaster to sell to a relatively few people. Nor is Pono likely in a position to pay for unique remasters of everything they sell. At this point it's mostly just Neil Young's own albums that have been remastered for Pono.