Slashdot Mirror


Neil Young's "Righteous" Pono Music Startup Raises $1 Million With Kickstarter

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Jose Pagliery reports at CNN that the 68-year-old rock star unveiled his startup, Pono, at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas raising $1.4 million in a single day. Young has developed a portable music player that stores high-resolution recordings and promises to deliver all the delicate details that get chopped out of modern-day formats, like MP3s and CDs. 'Pono' is Hawaiian for righteous. 'What righteous means to our founder Neil Young is honoring the artist's intention, and the soul of music. That's why he's been on a quest, for a few years now, to revive the magic that has been squeezed out of digital music.' With 128 GB of space, the PonoPlayer can carry about 3,200 tracks of high-resolution recordings while an MP3 player of the same size can hold maybe 10 times that many songs. Young says the MP3 files we're all listening to actually are pretty poor from an audio-quality standpoint and only contains about five percent of the audio from an original recording. But isn't FLAC already lossless? What makes Pono better?"

71 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Title by bragr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Had to read that twice.

    1. Re:Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      To be fair, a 68-year-old rock star making some righteous porno music may do quite well on kickstarter.

    2. Re:Title by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Old man, take a look at my life..."

      Grew up with Neil Young and his music. Grew old with Neil and his music, wit, and weirdness.

      Neil Young Rocks.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Title by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      Once again, Slashdot fails to deliver on its promise of "Nudes for Nerds" . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Title by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      "Old man, take a look at my wife..."

      FTFY (porno music)

  2. Is it just me? by eclectro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I spent five minutes trying to figure out if Slashdot once again misspelled something, i.e. "porno."

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  3. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like snakeoil. So that means it'll be eaten up by the idiotic audiophile crowd.

    1. Re:LOL by georgeaperkins · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whether it is snakeoil or not remains to be seen. However, the hardware spec featuring a well regarded ESS Sabre digital to analogue converter and seperate output stages for headphone and line-level loads looks well thought out. The prospect of an extensive high-resolution music catalogue to support the hardware capabilities shows some potential. Over hyped? Yes of course. Celebrity endorsed rip-off? Maybe not - I think this is genuinely a product spawned from an artist's vision. Final thought. Over $1M in 24 hrs, How bloody amazing is Kickstarter?

    2. Re:LOL by roca · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, we already know it's snake oil. See for example Monty's writeup:
      http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmo...

    3. Re:LOL by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Awesome link, thanks.

      Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space.

      There are a few real problems with the audio quality and 'experience' of digitally distributed music today. 24/192 solves none of them. While everyone fixates on 24/192 as a magic bullet, we're not going to see any actual improvement.

      First, the bad news

      In the past few weeks, I've had conversations with intelligent, scientifically minded individuals who believe in 24/192 downloads and want to know how anyone could possibly disagree. They asked good questions that deserve detailed answers.

      I was also interested in what motivated high-rate digital audio advocacy. Responses indicate that few people understand basic signal theory or the sampling theorem, which is hardly surprising. Misunderstandings of the mathematics, technology, and physiology arose in most of the conversations, often asserted by professionals who otherwise possessed significant audio expertise. Some even argued that the sampling theorem doesn't really explain how digital audio actually works

      If I had a nickel for every time an audiophile tried to explain to me that CDs can't capture "fast transients" or "20 kHz square waves", I could afford some genuine Snake Oil[tm]! Hint: the ear is mechanical, not magical, and the eardrum can only move so fast. Anything steeper than the rise rate of a 20 kHz sine wave just ain't happening.

      I just want a proper DAC without audiophile markup! My home amp has 7 of them (the chip is about $25 per, not breaking the bank), but each one is a 20 watt heater so I can't use it in my bedroom in the summer. I'd love to find a nice 2-channel DAC to use with a headphone amp for <$100, with HDMI and SPDIF in - anyone seen one?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:LOL by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Define proper DAC? Just saying that makes me think you actually *do* want the audiophile markup.
      That Cirrus Logic 60c Audio DAC clearly isn't very good! It's too cheap!

      Reality: The DAC is *not* the limiting factor in audio. In fact there really aren't many limiting factors apart for Chinese crap.

    5. Re:LOL by sharknado · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe. But don't forget that the analog to digital conversion is itself a lossy process, so the only REAL way to listen to music is to carry around a record player in a briefcase. That's what all the real audio hipsters are doing.

    6. Re:LOL by Desler · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should actually read the entire article?

    7. Re:LOL by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      There is definitely merit to keeping the undertones though. Although you can't hear them, you certainly CAN feel them if you have the right equipment. It wouldn't be useful for a portable player (I strongly doubt you'd get anything useful from a pair of earbuds or even some really uber expensive headphones) but audio formats shouldn't discard them.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    8. Re:LOL by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yah, well, obviously you are not an electronic engineer and don't understand sampling, filtering and audio signals.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    9. Re:LOL by Pushpabon · · Score: 2

      Too bad the vinyl itself is sonically slightly inferior format to high-enough resolution (CD and above) digital audio. Not to mention being limited to 18-22 minutes per side is a ridiculous and arbitrary constrainment on the artist's creativity and vision. The digital age gives audio its true potential. Do not mistake the stupidity of the loudness war or the lack of distortion produced by tubes to mean that digital is somehow less. I guess a true purist would insist on listening to the original DAT masters or whatever instead of second or third generation vinyl copies.

    10. Re:LOL by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2

      I just want a proper DAC without audiophile markup!

      Check out the ODAC. Built to be cheap, and objectively transparent at the jack, unlike most DACs which just quote the specs of a high-end DAC chip inside of them and ignore a mess of other crap on the PCB that degrades the signal.

    11. Re: LOL by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      That's fine and all, except those tiny speakers simply aren't big enough to move enough air that you'd actually feel resonating in your body, which is the only benefit you'd gain in the undertones. It's just not happening. When it comes to sound, you either hear it or you feel it (or both,) and headphones aren't big enough to allow you to feel tones that you are incapable of hearing, making them worthless for that purpose.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    12. Re:LOL by Megol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > If I had a nickel for every time an audiophile tried to explain...

      I used to share this view but eventually I concluded that "CD Quality" is not as good as it gets.

      This is the classic ludic fallacy that nerds are prone to - confusing theory with reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      Nyquist's theorem has some assumptions that do[not] hold in the real world and which actually impact real world sound quality.

      1. It assumes there is no signal above the cutoff (1/2 the sampling rate). If this assumption is not met ie in the real world, then annoying 'aliases' appear in the sampled signal. To fix this, you have to have a low-pass filter. The low-pass filter, by its nature (physics) has to start cutting out signal well below the theoretical cut0off. So there is inevitable loss of signal well under the cutoff.

      Well not really if using digital filters but even with analog filters (which are worse BTW unlike some "audiophiles" think) this isn't a problem in practice if implemented competently. And recording studios are.

      Nyquist's always holds, thinking otherwise is just deluding oneself with magical thinking.

      2. It assumes perfect, 100% accurate samples and reconstruction. Instead we have imperfect 16 bit resolution samples and heuristic sampling and playback. Reconstructing a good playback signal is a bit of an art. The main impact is the loss of dynamic range. Engineers are forced to limit the dynamic range of the music to avoid excessive loss of accuracy and/or clipping.

      This is just more of the same delusion. Even a simple, inexpensive DAC in a reference design is capable of reproducing the signal with much higher precision than required given the destination - the very imperfect human ear.

      16 bit isn't imperfect given that it scales from the lowest detectable audio level to a level that would cause hearing loss.

      I am not a golden-ears person myself but I have friends who are, and gradually they have convinced me that there is a real loss from 16 bit 44kHz samples versys vinyl. I find mp3s unlistenable. Flac and also implicit higher sample rates on DVDs I find OK. I like the lack of noise on digital recordings (no tape hiss or surface noise). But I would happily replace my CDs / flac with higher resolution sound.

      Why? Do you like to waste bytes? Neither you nor your "golden eared" friends could ever detect any difference anyway.

      The problem is a generation brought up on mp3s expects more of the same.

      More of the same? Do you mean high quality sound?

    13. Re:LOL by NulDevice · · Score: 2

      The fact that People Who Should Know Better keep pushing this idea drives me bonkers. I saw a talk by George fricken Massenburg where he went on and on about how we should all be downloading 24/96 audio and I'm thinking two things: 1) Are you nuts? and 2) geez what sort of data plan do you have for your phone?

      And just yesterday I read an article by some highly regarded pro mastering engineers who started spouting about how 384khz (!) audio was the only useful format because "your brain doesn't need to interpolate." That's some hardcore misunderstanding of digital audio AND physiology. And while I can see that maybe there's a place in mastering engineering for higher sampling rates when using some sort of digital processing that doesn't oversample well or is somehow lossy near the nyquist, there's generally the problems that virtually no commercial sample rate converter is perfect enough to not introduce more noise going back down to 44.1 than you would eliminate with hi-res audio, and any of the ultrasonic frequencies you'd be preserving are like 10x beyond the hearing range of porpoises and bats. That's like worrying about whether your camera is properly processing all the interactions from gamma rays.

      --

      ----
      "I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."

    14. Re:LOL by lgw · · Score: 2

      Look at cables. A $0.50 patch cord is a mistake (especially if the center pin breaks off in your gear, as has happened to me). A $2.50-$5.00 patch cord gives all the practically useful quality (often e.g. $5 Dayton Audio cables obviously came from the same factory line as $50 Monster cables). The difference is worthwhile.

      For DACs, there is a similar quality difference about the cheapest possible crap. TI (IIRC) makes a nice one for about $20/channel (I'm sure it would be cheaper if they sold more), but they're not mainstream because they're very power hungry. Paying $1000 for a 2-channel DAC is as absurd as Monster cables, but paying $50-100 (depending on how much work the digital section does - SPDIF is easy - and if they were more common they could be half that price) is worthwhile.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. It IS FLAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If the submitter/editor had bothered to do even the slighted research into "Pono", they'd have found that it's just a branded FLAC.

    1. Re:It IS FLAC by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pono music is an ecosystem to sell music in FLAC audio file format: 1) production of FLAC files from existing recordings, 2) a dedicated player, and 3) a web store to sell FLAC files.

      The problem with FLAC is how does one get FLAC? you could use your own encoder to record a CD in FLAC. But then you just have CD quality Why not reach back to the studio quality if you are going the FLAC route?. Cause you don't have access to that. But now you do-- the PONO ecosystem does that. And if you wanted to play that FLAC file, well your mp3 player might not play it and if it does it probably has a lot less memory than you would like. soe PONO players are chubbier in memory. And finally what if you are one of those people who likes to roll there own and prefers to just buy it pre recorded. Well agains the PONO ecosystem is there for you.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    2. Re:It IS FLAC by Wdomburg · · Score: 5, Informative

      HDtracks, eClassical, Linn, Bandcamp. All carry 24-bit, high resolution audio.

      This expands the ecosystem; it doesn't create it.

    3. Re:It IS FLAC by Swampash · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've already got a bunch of devices that play lossless audio: my iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

    4. Re:It IS FLAC by ratnerstar · · Score: 3, Funny

      The problem with FLAC is how does one get FLAC?

      Shit, I get FLAC all the time for my music. Especially if I play it really loud.

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    5. Re:It IS FLAC by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      Except that in every objective test the iOS devices show a near 0 THD, nearly flat recency response and a nearly perfect dynamic range. While perhaps "technically better" is the case with the Pono, the simple, physical, physiological and demonstrable fact that 100% of humans can not hear the differences you are taking about in any testing case means the different and "bitterness" is simply snake oil. Right up there with Monster 'monitor interconnects' and speaker isolation stands.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    6. Re:It IS FLAC by asliarun · · Score: 2

      HDtracks, eClassical, Linn, Bandcamp. All carry 24-bit, high resolution audio.

      This expands the ecosystem; it doesn't create it.

      Most of these online shops are not really an ecosystem. And that is really the problem.

      Everyone keeps getting into the endless audiophile debates. You have one camp that disses everything that has the audiophile and calls it snake oil. Then you have the audiophiles that go into objective vs subjectives debates, and what not. Then you have the tech folks (and we have plenty) who want to correct everyone else and go into Nyquist/Shannon, signal processing, even harmonics, DAC internals, ESS Sabre chips, oversampling, and what not.

      The real tragedy in all this is that we *still* don't have a good "ecosystem" that lets people download or stream studio quality music *with enough choice*, and be able to play back the music with sufficient fidelity that respects the quality of the source music.

      This doesn't exist. Period. Instead you have this massively screwed up system where you either have esoteric knowledge of audio playback, audio components, internal workings, be able to differentiate between various capacitor types, analog circuitry, DAC chips, speaker drivers. Then be able to differentiate bullshit from fact, spend a ton of money with failed experiments swapping out audio components. Even then, the main battle remains. Hunt around or ask around for source music that is well mastered or well recorded. And guess what - most of the music will not even be in the genre you like or artists you like. Then figure out how/where you can legally download or purchase this music.

      So all power to Pono and Neil Young's initiative if they are truly able to pull off this ecosystem. If they can let people access and listen to studio quality music and listen to it "at near studio quality" - that is nothing short of a revolution.

    7. Re:It IS FLAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One possible reason for a studio to record at greater resolution than is necessary for playback is so as to avoid unwanted audible artifacts generated by the editing process.

    8. Re:It IS FLAC by amaurea · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently this link hasn't been posted enough times yet. It addresses both your first question (partially) and your second question (in huge detail).

      The video you're comparing to is being treated no better than audio. It's simply that human eyes are much better than human ears, so to give a comparable experience much higher bitrates are needed for video than audio.

    9. Re:It IS FLAC by residents_parking · · Score: 2

      Out of interest I DLed some of these "high resolution" products, then analyzed them in Adobe Audition. Some were indeed from the analog master, I could tell by the extended top end going to ~30kHz. So perhaps there is some justification going to 96 (not losing anything), but not 192. These also had a noise floor around -70dB, making a mockery of 24 bits. Others turned out to be nothing more than the 44.1 digital master resampled to 24/192.

  5. Doesn't solve the big problem by Jamu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The big problem with music on MP3s and CDs isn't the sample rate, or even the bits used to sample. To sell CDs and MP3s the recording is made as loud as possible and this causes distortion in the sample values. There's no point having 16-bits or 24-bits if the recording doesn't make good use of the full range of values.

    --
    Who ordered that?
    1. Re:Doesn't solve the big problem by StripedCow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the real problem is that all the tracks are pre-mixed into a single stereo track, leaving us customers with only a single volume knob to turn.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  6. Reality check by jaffray · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Reality check by clockwise_music · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't believe that $2,000,000 has already been pledged. I assume by "audiophiles".

      Hey guys, 99% of mastering these days has been brickwalled. The recordings that you're buying and downloading before encoding, at the mastering stage has already had all "the nuances, the soft touches, and the ends on the echo" removed. You can't get that back. In fact, all this device will do is make these artifacts more obvious.

      Getting a 30 gazillion kbps FLAC file is utterly pointless when the same data can be represented in a 320kbs mp3 file.

      I can personally guarantee* (*worth nothing, not redeemable for anything) that sound studios will not start producing multiple mixes just for the audiophiles. It's just not going to happen. People do not care about this stuff and are happy with their iphones/androids, so the sound studios are not going to bother.

    2. Re:Reality check by Megane · · Score: 3, Informative

      tl;dr: the only useful purpose for 24/96 or 24/192 is extra bit depth for mastering and mixing. Otherwise the ultrasonic frequencies that you can't hear anyhow can actually interfere with each other and cause audible distortion.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Reality check by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can personally guarantee* (*worth nothing, not redeemable for anything) that sound studios will not start producing multiple mixes just for the audiophiles.

      They already have started, in fact. It's very common for the vinyl edition of an album to be less of a loudness wars catastrophe than the CD or MP3 digital downloads because vinyl customers tend to overlap with audiophiles. Two albums I can name off the top of my head where this was done are R.E.M.'s Accelerate and Rush's Clockwork Angels. After buying the CDs and hearing how they were brickwalled, I was happy to have supported the artist by buying at least something, but then I went to a torrent site, downloaded a vinyl rip and now play that exclusively on my home stereo.

    4. Re:Reality check by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Linn and Naim (... very good hifi producers)

      More like "purveyors of bullshit". One of their shared key design parameters is "Pace, Rhythm and Timing" (abbreviated "PRaT") and they apply this to amplifiers, DACs, digital music storage etc. etc.

      If you think your amplifier influences the "Pace, Rhythm and Timing" of your music, you need a straightjacket.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    5. Re:Reality check by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then we had CD's quality is better then tape, but not quite up to the record.

      That is bullshit on a huge scale.

      The CD can do everything that even a pristine record can do, and more. You can perfectly replicate the sound of a record using a CD, but you cannot perfectly replicate the sound of CD using a record. That makes CD the clearly superior format. CDs are cheaper to produce, more portable, do not degrade with repeated playback, can replicate any frequency from 0-22kHz with instant impulse response and more than enough dynamic range to reach from 0dB to the threshold of pain on the same track.

      Records have only one advantage, and that is more space for artwork on the cover. On every single parameter apart from that, the record is an inferior and useless format. Just let it die, already.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  7. Oh audiophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Oh audiophiles, please never change! It is so easy to laugh at your pseudoscience!

    1. Re:Oh audiophiles by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

      Yeah well, there is a lot of crap in audiophilia but there is equally a lot of crap rejecting it blindly.
      In theory a dirt cheap cd or blu ray player and an expensive one have very similar paper specifications for audio. That is what scientific measurements would tell you.

      However if you listen on a good system the sound quality difference between the cheap and the expensive player is immediately obvious, without needing to be an audiophile maniac.

      Similarly I compared a few D/A convertors, as I had a few sources with only optical out (such as an Apple TV, and a blu-ray player with only hdmi and optical) and an old but good analogue-only amp. Well, there was a subtle difference between the models up to say $800. I could always pick the same one which was a bit better than the other 2 I compared against. Not much difference but it was there.

      The only reason you could pick between them was because you already knew which one was playing. Try a true double blind ABX test, you will be surprised at the results.

      Here's an example: http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_ppec...

      A high-class hifi system set up against a cheap Sony DVD player (boo!) and a Behringer amplifier (hiss!), using cheap-ass cables (the horror!), all placed on a rickety chair (madness!). And yet, even seasoned audiophiles were not able to hear a lick of difference.

      Audiophilia is bullshit, pure and simple. If fidelity truly was the only goal, everyone would be using a set of Adam A7X or S1X monitors and a digital source. But audiophilia is a rich man's disease where the only objective is to outspend the other suckers.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  8. Too pricey, odd shape? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 3

    I read the other day that these units are going to go for about $400 a piece. While I myself am an audiophile at heart, I just can't see the use cases for this that makes it worth the money.

    For a start, when I'm on the go, unless I'm in a plane (which I'm not very often), I can't use noise-cancelling headphones or I have little situational awareness, and the benefit of this higher fidelity is lost. If I'm sitting at my computer, I'd rather access my library through the computer via a nicer interface and still be able to hear the audio for videos I play etc., and I don't have to worry about plugging in or running down batteries.

    So I'm left wondering where are the occasions when I'd really benefit from the higher quality on the go, how frequently do they arise, and is it worth the money for more pristine sound in just those cases?

    Also, the damn thing is triangular. Where am I supposed to be putting this? It's not going in a pocket alongside my smartphone...

    For me, it's nice that someone is trying to produce a product with a higher audio quality, but I don't see myself buying one.

    1. Re:Too pricey, odd shape? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2

      I think the idea is to create demand which will bring the pricing down over time. What will start out as a niche device could easily become the new standard.

      Well, it has some other challenges in that regard too:
      * If MP3/AAC/AAC+ is "good enough" those devices will always have cheaper storage and will undercut the Pono, even if its price does come down. And my phone already supports all those formats out of the box, and can pull the content from the cloud with album art.
      * I wonder how the battery life is, becauseas an enthusiast I've used devices that support FLAC before, and without hardware support like most products have for MP3 I found that they tend to run hotter and battery life is shorter.
      * All major online stores deliver music in lossy formats. Most people have libraries of MP3s. Those libraries don't swallow their hard drive.

      Again, don't get me wrong, a lossless world would be nice, but I think lossless has to at least arrive in the online stores first, and I doubt this device will be what drives that, given its initial price point and zero market share.

      Also, Neil Young have never given a fuck about what other people think.

      Well, he has to care about what his target market are actually willing to fork out for in sufficient numbers. I guess we'll see.

    2. Re:Too pricey, odd shape? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also, the damn thing is triangular.

      Actually, no. The Pono's shape would be properly described as prismatic .

      Great. A geometry Nazi.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  9. Re:Five percent? by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yup.

    The Loudness Wars rendered most of this moot. :(

  10. So much marketing, so little fact by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Caveat: self-identifying audiophile here, happy to admit I've spent way too much money for very little gain.

    What's the output voltage and impedance? Crosstalk? Noise? THD? Dynamic range? If I plug to charge via USB while I'm playing it, will it isolate the noisy power line? You're trying to sell something "audiophile" without mentioning any of this? Really?

    He makes a big deal about 192kHz audio. If you're targeting human ears, this is just a waste of space. I'd say the perfect format would be 48kHz/24bit. 48kHz to have plenty of room for a nice frequency cutoff, and 24-bit for music with a high dynamic range, like film scores and orchestral.

    How about some features anyone can enjoy, like support for ReplayGain and gapless playback? Maybe make your store highlight music with a high dynamic range instead of offering a 24-bit copy of something with 8 bits of range and frequencies we can't hear?

    I would absolutely love to have a compact, objectively transparent player that I can bring with me to the office or anywhere else. I just can't help feeling this won't be it. Too jaded?

    1. Re:So much marketing, so little fact by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2

      FLAC has native support for gapless playback, but the player still needs to explicitly take advantage of it by not waiting until your current song finishes to start decoding the next one.

      Gapless is more common among FLAC players, I guess simply because if you care enough to support FLAC you've probably got a higher chance of caring about the rest of the feature set, but it's far from guaranteed.

    2. Re:So much marketing, so little fact by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      What's the output voltage and impedance? Crosstalk? Noise? THD? Dynamic range? If I plug to charge via USB while I'm playing it, will it isolate the noisy power line? You're trying to sell something "audiophile" without mentioning any of this? Really?

      He makes a big deal about 192kHz audio. If you're targeting human ears, this is just a waste of space. I'd say the perfect format would be 48kHz/24bit. 48kHz to have plenty of room for a nice frequency cutoff, and 24-bit for music with a high dynamic range, like film scores and orchestral.

      Not to mention, 3.5mm TRS jacks.

      Good sets of headphones from the big audiophile companies (e.g., Grado) have 1/4" TRS jacks. The "consumer" level Grados (SR-60i, SR-80i) have 3.5mm TRS jacks, and a 1/4"-to-3.5mm adapter (and we're still talking about headphones costing less than the Beats crap you can get at any store). The next step up, the SR-125i, is still below the price of the Beats crap, but only 1/4" TRS. (Great, did I just mention audiophile class headphones costing less than consumer level crap? Sure you can get $2000 Grados, but damn the low end is well priced).

      Next - it has line level analog outputs. But again, 3.5mm TRS?! At a minimum, you'd want traditional RCA jacks for linelevel (better channel isolation than TRS).

      And above all, you'd think it would have true audiophile features like XLR balanced (differential) outputs - less noise than line level.

      USB isolation is interesting, because well, USB chargers are crap. They can emit tons of noise - so much so that poor quality ones disable touchscreens on phones from all the noise.

      And some other problems - they don't have a list of what music they have - I mean, there's a few soundtracks I'd love to have in higher quality, but I can't browse what they have because their site isn't up yet. So far, all I see is a bunch of music that I'm honestly not interested in.

      And face it - the music audiophiles listen to is classical (or for me, soundtrack scores, which are orchestral). I better expect some dynamic range to the thing. Classical music is hard to reproduce - you've got delicate sounds of instruments mixed in with others. A common place rock or pop song well, high res audio doesn't really improve things at all.

  11. The MP3 files are just fine by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    except for that last 1/10% who think they can hear a difference, or the 1/10000% who actually can.

    Honestly, it's music we don't need. This is like arguing over whether x264 is sufficient to carry all of the visual information in a motion picture. It's not even close - the best BluRay throws close to 99.9% of the information away, but Neal's reckoning. Thing is, you can't tell. You can't tell in a good set up in a controlled environment, much less in a room where the visual/acoustic treatments aren't designed solely for the experience.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  12. Re:you've got to be kidding me by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 4, Informative

    'Polynesian' is language family spoken in various Pacific countries such as New Zealand (Maori), USA (Hawaiian) and Chile(Rapa Nui).

  13. Coastline Paradox & Audiophilia by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Young says the MP3 files we're all listening to actually are pretty poor from an audio-quality standpoint and only contains about five percent of the audio from an original recording.

    Obviously Young doesn't understand The Coastline Paradox. At a sufficiently high resolution of measurement, a wave contains infinite information. Any finitely sized digital recording actually contains 0.00000% of the information in the original signal.

    Of course, that's only if you include all the information that our brains are incapable of distinguishing. The interpretation of waves by our brains is an inherently fuzzy process, and beyond a certain resolution there is no perceptible difference between a flawed and a perfect recording (even if you had the equipment and sound room to produce a sufficiently high quality set of vibrations in the air to reliably communicate that tiny difference to your tympanic membrane (you don't)).

    Or, more succinctly: Extreme audiophilia is bunk.

    1. Re:Coastline Paradox & Audiophilia by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      LPs sound better when they remind you of how the music sounded when you were listening to it as a child, with your mom or dad, when they're cleaning or reading the newspaper. Its nostalgia, or iterating over good audio memories, or whatever you want to call that.

      People who are too young for that experience and claim to prefer LPs just decided to develop a taste for the noise, in the same way a determined cigarette smoker might fight through the initial coughing fits to get "hooked on the flavor".

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  14. Really silly by jmv · · Score: 2

    Now only is 192 kHz/24 bit silly in general, it's even more silly for a portable music player, that's usually used in places with a higher background noise than your living room. Listening to music above 100 dB SPL in a cafe with noise at 50 dB SPL means you only need an SNR of 50 dB, just slightly more than 8 bits.

  15. Does it come with... by Swampash · · Score: 2

    a Monster cable?

  16. Re:Monster Cable Pono Edition by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Neil Young sellling Diamond dust? Can't we just call him Neil Diamond instead?

  17. More about storage by canadiannomad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My biggest complaint about the mp3 music player industry is: Why are they still over selling 1/2/4GB devices!?!?!?!?!?
    Honestly, I can't even imagine why Apple, Sony, Philips and other large brands that I find in my average tech store even bother to have/sell, but actively promote these minuscule devices. At least 128GB approaches a reasonable size for today's music collections.
    To me it is similar to Linus' rant about laptop monitors.

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  18. Re:you've got to be kidding me by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 3, Informative

    Didn't I write "language family"?

  19. Re:And the deaf will deny by gmf · · Score: 2

    And the dumb will deny that anyone can understand the sampling theorem and the anatomy of the human ear because they can't.

    I pity the dumb.

  20. Something tells me.... by Dareth · · Score: 3, Funny

    Something tells me....he is going to catch a ton of flac over this.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  21. Re:Well by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have you ever tried to raise capital in a socialist system? Capitalism makes capital common and available.

    Capitalism keeps capital in the hands of the capitalist class, that's it's whole reason for being. The idea behind socialism is to make capital -- not to be confused with money, but the actual "means of production", and so not something that has to be "raised" -- available to workers without having to get some parasitic aristocrats involved. Unfortunately, Marx was not an empiricist and his version of socialism lends itself to abuse by authoritarians; but even his fscked-up version took an agrarian nation barely out of feudalism (Russia still had legal serfdom until 1861!) and turned it into a space-faring nuclear superpower -- and that in spite of bearing the brunt of the cost of stopping the Nazis. Stalin sucked and Marxism has serious flaws, but the whole "OMG socialism failed!!1!" meme doesn't hold up to serious examination.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  22. Double blind tests? by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I challenge any 68 year old rocker to a double blind test to hear the difference between MP3 and Pono.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re: Double blind tests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do any of you guys have ears? If you have heard live music vs an mp3, the loss of audio info is very obvious. Many mp3 files--especially rock music--are horrible. Neil is not in this to make money. He's got plenty. He's passionate about music.

    2. Re:Double blind tests? by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

      14kHz? I'm rather much younger than Young and I can't hear the diff between MP3, CD or vinyl on my old fashioned high power hifi anymore. HiFi is for young whipper snappers only...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re: Double blind tests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MP3 is not inherently bad. A lot of early MP3s are crap. Encoded in CBR at 128 kbps or less. Even using VBR at the same bitrate yields a far superior sound and typically slightly smaller size. Sadly, I didn't discover that in college until I'd nearly ripped all of my CDs (quite a labor intensive process back then). Most music, humans won't notice a difference between 44khz and 48khz sampling, either. To notice the differences, you need "noisy" music. Music that has a large variance of frequency ranges and volumes that changes often. That is where you really see improvements from increased sampling and bitrates. Much how you see far less pixelation and artifacting in an action movie comparing a bluray to a dvd.

    4. Re:Double blind tests? by QRDeNameland · · Score: 2

      mp3 at less than 512kbps

      The maximum bitrate for mp3 is 320 kbps.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    5. Re: Double blind tests? by Gunboat_Diplomat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do any of you guys have ears? If you have heard live music vs an mp3, the loss of audio info is very obvious. Many mp3 files--especially rock music--are horrible. Neil is not in this to make money. He's got plenty. He's passionate about music.

      A number of double blind tests show that almost no one are able to hear the difference between properly encoded 320kbps and original, including those that are absolutely convinced that they do. The mind is a beautiful thing.

      The main problem with Neil is that he is mixing up different issues. Is overly dynamically compressed music a real problem? Absolutely. But that is the mixing and mastering, not related to format. Are there bad low-bitrate MP3 encodings out there? Absolutely, but with higher bitrate and better encoders being the norm it is a problem going away on its own. Are there any reasons at all to go lossless? there is one; if you want to keep the ability to re-compress to different formats/bitrate, then you can avoid compounding of compression artefacts across multiple generations (sort of like how you shouldn't jpeg a jpeg).

      And don't get me started on the various snake oil attempts to describe why higher bitrate and higher samplingrates are needed, actually, just read this: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmo...

    6. Re: Double blind tests? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do any of you guys have ears?

      128kbs MP3 (which used to be the "standard") is crap, yes.

      320kbs MP3? I doubt many people can hear the difference.

      After I got tired of clicking through the links to "What makes pono better" I eventually googled it on Wikipedia and found out it's FLAC. Aren't we already using FLAC? I know I am.

      Bottom line: He's comparing 128kbs MP3 to FLAC. Nothing to see here, keep moving...

      If you have heard live music vs an mp3, the loss of audio info is very obvious.

      Who's talking about live music? Of course live music is different.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re: Double blind tests? by Thavilden · · Score: 2

      Vinyl masters may still suffer from dynamic compression.

  23. Re:Five percent? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    Working entirely at low level, you have other options, too. If you have a big home theater, where the distance between main speakers (subwoofers don't really count) varies by more than about 5 feet, you might benefit from a properly-configured delay unit, so the sound arrives at your ears at the proper time, according to its spacial location in the source.

    My "crappy receiver" does that already. Perhaps you should look at what a $600 receiver gets you these days.

  24. iPod Shuffle? by rsborg · · Score: 2

    My biggest complaint about the mp3 music player industry is: Why are they still over selling 1/2/4GB devices!?!?!?!?!?
    Honestly, I can't even imagine why Apple, Sony, Philips and other large brands that I find in my average tech store even bother to have/sell, but actively promote these minuscule devices. At least 128GB approaches a reasonable size for today's music collections.
    To me it is similar to Linus' rant about laptop monitors.

    A nano/shuffle's entire purpose is to support your workout (shuffle = music, nano adds radio, podcast, and recently BT headphones). It's for folks who have a decent but not large selection of music that just want to use it for a specific purpose.

    Nowadays, with streaming radio and decent data plans, the smartphone is definitely better and doesn't even need more than 32 much less 128GB.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  25. Re:The benefit if this is flac rips from the sourc by Sledgy · · Score: 2

    A rip from the MASTERS (I assume you mean final mix) is only sometimes a good thing, after hearing my own bands recordings before and after mastering I want a mastered version please. Mastering is an important step in the recording process, of course we master for quality ensuring there is no clipping or un-necessary compression, however some compression can be necessary to get a good result.

    FLAC rips from vinyl do not come close. When a track has been mixed it is mastered for the different media that it will be delivered for. A vinyl master has a shelving filter to remove low frequencies (leaving them in will cause the needle to skip or bounce on the LP), vinyl also has a much smaller dynamic range than a CD and a high noise floor. Next the sound of vinyl is actually very tinny and lacks bass (put your ear near the needle to hear this), this is made up by boosting base frequencies either in the player (or via an LP input that some older stereo's included), so the sound has already been heavily messed with before it's even gotten to your A to D converters.