Is Pono no more?

You said - and I quote - "there just weren't enough of" people kicking in "seed money for this project".

There obviously were enough. The project launched. The download store opened. All pledged hardware was delivered.

You and I must have different concepts of what "seed money" means.

 

Pono? It seems like ages...

 

If Tidal fails (which seems a strong possibility) them MQA is toast.

If not, then I think some other streaming company could reasonably offer a true high res service as competition (e.g Qobuz, etc)

Either way, it's probably a very niche market.

 

What would be nice is if one of these streaming sites allowed you to simply build your own library, you pay for a download/stream access, you own it for life, and you can stream it through their service for a very small fee, instead we're going to get a system where you have to pay lots of cash to hear music you never own, and they probably won't even implement high end audio.

 

(Hi TD!)

 

So you meant chatter within companies I assume.

Rhapsody and the like had a different download model, since it originally was DRM-based WMA files, not MP3 - if memory serves, eMusic was the only non-DRM download offering at the time for retail music. Eventually some moved to an MP3 download model ie. Microsoft but it seemed like many of these never really got a foothold like Apple did.

Always seemed like an almost "fly by night" situation and I'm surprised Napster/Rhapsody's offline downloads lasted as long as they did. They are basically streaming / streaming download only now as MS killed off their Plays4Sure servers last year.

Agree with the early days - too many companies folding and entire DRM-based libraries gone, as a result.

I can see the appeal of streaming however for consumers, especially with data plans improving. With TMo, as an example, you can get an unlimited plan or Music Freedom and stream all day long if you wanted to. It's like renting an apartment - some people simply don't care about owning the license and if the service always offers what they need then they'll pay a small fee per month for that convenience.

I've actually thought about this recently as I'm not a young man anymore. Not sure how much I need to curate my own collection at this point where I need to own for the long-term, but for now I'll continue to purchase downloads / CD's / vinyl for music I like. Long-term is of course TBD.

 

Seems a bit over-the-top to call what Neil did "begging." I'm speaking as someone who never invested in Pono, never got one after it launched, and who feels no need to do so now. I enjoy my Fiio, thanks. Also, at the time this whole thing launched, I was also married to my iPod, but even on that, the difference between an MP3 rip (even a good one) and ALAC was staggering.

While listening is a subjective experience, I've played the different rips to people who even admitted it wouldn't change their listening habits, but who were floored by the difference in formats. The difference is also there in a 1s and 0s sense if you really want objective measure here.

I still consider eMusic a missed opportunity. I maintained a subscription with them even over months where I struggled to find things in their catalog that I wanted because I appreciated their business model and the freedom to re-download previous purchases. The previous purchase downloads went away a few years ago and their site is a mess at this point, so the interest just isn't there to keep supporting what they do. Still, at the time, it was innovative.

 

Yes.

I'm a Zune user, you insensitive clod! [jokes]

Rhapsody sold DRM-free MP3 before finally closing down sales for good. (And they had a number of digital exclusives for the period, like Amnesty International stuff and the Joe Strummer/Mescaleros box, so they were trying hard). But I think the Microsoft/Zune/WindowsMediaPlayer ecosystem was probably the last to die.

I had a Robbie Basho Tribute album (Deluxe Edition w exclusive tracks) that stayed authorized on my Ibiza Rhapsody until the hardware died, and it was long gone form the desktop site. (DRM bugs rule!) Couldn't even access the title on the desktop. Still haven't seen the full lineup with all bonus tracks in a long time.

 

Although I've heard a fair few people say the difference between mp3 and lossless is "staggering", this tends to only be true of poorly-encoded material, or mp3s that drop below a moderate bitrate. The rest of the perceived difference is essentially down to placebo effect (not that that is necessarily a bad thing).

Scientific studies of this subject consistently and robustly demonstrate that people can't even pick out the difference between moderate-bitrate mp3 and Hi-res, let alone CDs. It's only when the guy playing the music says to his audience: "right, this next one is super-duper high quality audio, with three hundred and fifty million times the sound quality of CD" that people start hearing a difference. Or when he cranks up the volume of the hi-res version by 1%, which is scientifically-proven to make a perceptible difference in how the music is perceived. Even Neil's in-car demonstrations of hi-res were (in his own words) "jury-rigged", with the high-res played back much louder than the mp3.

I'm not going to stand on my soapbox now and say that hi-res definitely doesn't sound at all better than CD or mid-bitrate mp3; I don't have the scientific knowledge to back up that claim (though it seems very plausible to me).

I will say that hi-res doesn't sound anywhere near as "staggering" as Neil wants you think, 'cause if it did, scientific tests would have demonstrated this by now, rather than consistently recording a "no preference" for hi-res.

I will also point out that I have fairly young ears, with recently-tested excellent hearing across the board and I personally can't hear the difference between a CD and the same file in hi-res.

More importantly and subjectively-speaking, I think the mp3 bluetooth-transmitted version of Ragged Glory sounds significantly better than Le Noise in CD quality or The Monsanto Years in 24/192.

 

I'm pretty sure 7Digital allows you to stream your purchases.
AmazonMusic certainly does.

 

It's just an opinion. Mine is that anyone who takes in more than what I usually have in a year for any given night's work who uses Kickstarter is begging. But I'm opposed to online begging in general.

 

I'd definitely meet you halfway in that I don't think that hi-res is in any way essential when it comes to enjoying the music you're listening to. I've heard some hi-res material that was revelatory and I've heard other material where I wondered why I was wasting hard drive space with the extra "bits" to no audible benefit.

For my part, when it comes to the specifics of Pono and the streaming/download landscape that presently exists, I'm left scratching my head at why MP3 is supposed to be this great pinnacle when it wasn't even the best at what it does. Formats that were similarly "lossy" but which had far less audible compression schemes were passed over in favor of a "pay to play" format across the industry and this persists to this day. When it comes to physical media, even the Japanese have started playing with hi-res regular releases via blu-ray which, lest we forget, even gaming consoles can play back with reasonable quality (so no need for a new player). Why this has never been explored in any depth or marketed to the "everyman" is beyond me. Likewise, with storage being one of the cheapest aspects of computing, why can't we have hi-res audio as the standard instead of some luxury item? You'd think there was some kind of global digital austerity going on the way this business is being run across the board.

Again, it's not essential, but I fail to see a compelling answer to "well, why not?" We have the technology...

 

Like qobuz does?

'Lifetime' or as long as they exist?

It seems clear to me that music industry is into apple music/itunes with lossy streams and downloads.

Pono, Tidal, Qobuz, Hdtracks never got full support from major labels. Lifetime existance will be hard to achieve. IMO there's only place for one high quality download/streaming platform.

 

Still use my Zune HD [not a joke]

I had forgotten about the MP3 downloads Rhapsody had...that was around 2009 I think(?). Possibly earlier than that.

 

The obvious answer is that streaming is the one area where there is an issue with the greater data rates of hi-res at least at the moment. Since the only thing that interests the labels is streaming, both because of the ease of distribution and the poor royalty arrangements, downloads or CDs are just so much trash. They use vinyl as a marketing tool to lend cachet to the biz.

 

I would be interested in discussing the audio codecs that are used by various streaming services — MP3, AAC, Vorbis, or whatever else is in use — but maybe a Pono thread isn't the best place for it. I'll just note here the services I have some familiarity with – that is, I've at least taken advantage of a trial offer and have read a support page or two — and leave it to the forum to decide if this is a topic worthy of its own thread.

Tidal and Apple use AAC, and of course Tidal also does lossless. Amazon Music uses MP3, although if you upload music you own in an AAC encoding it may (or may not) stream it back to you in that format instead of MP3. Spotify uses Vorbis, excepting its web player, which uses AAC.

 

On a related note, have you guys tried the Neil Young Archive and the XStream it uses yet? I was playing around with the digital file cabinet yesterday and was getting (supposedly) 192/24 bit streams with absolutely no issue on my end.

 

I was THIS CLOSE to getting one for the HD(sp?) FM reception.

 

I messed with the site a little after it launched. The sound quality was great, but I'll cop to the fact that I didn't do any A/B work with my DVD copy of Archives, Vol. 1 or anything.

I will say that, when it at least claims to be playing back in hi-res, it does sound tasty. Terrible site design though.

 

I've been listening for the last two months to two different 16 bit DAC's and noticing some stuff is unlistenable on one and other stuff unlistenable on the other, which is fascinating, but now I've had the Pono for a few days and I've only got 24 bit and DSD on it. Now I've had the 24/192 onboard VIA audio for years, and before that Realtek, and before that an M-Audio soundcard which did 24/96, but I'm guessing the Pono is a fair way better than any of those, and also this is my first experience of native DSD since the M-Audio which seemed to do it.

My feeling is that 24 bit files do have a quality about them where it feels like there's a sense of there being headroom for volume fluctuation that wasn't there before, as if 16 bit was stuffy and this is airy (?) and it's very pleasing, but then it's hard to tell if that's just the Pono, or if it's the remastering of the actual albums I'm listening to. I did notice that some hard rock I put through it annoyed me and I turned it off, put on another hard rock band and same thing, turned it off, anyone else find that at all? But it's early days, I should put some of the 16 bit files I've been listening to the last couple of months on there and see how that feels.

 

There is a definite break in period with the player. Give it time and you shouldn’t have any issues with hard rock at all.

 

I can't speak to the Pono specifically, but I've definitely encountered hardware in terms of DACs that can be "revealing." Or, in other words, if something is mastered terribly, it may sound good on hardware that is less "revealing," but only its flaws are on display on "revealing" hardware. I'm not sure where the DACs you're using fall on that spectrum, but I've definitely encountered that effect hearing the same recording via different hardware - even at CD quality.

 

That can't be accurate; you can't enter into a contract without a specific pricing structure. Pono knew the terms.

 

Well this all depends on what device they are listening to the music on, doesn't it? I listen my my hi-res content on a hi-res player (not stating the brand because there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to judge brand names here), and I can absolutely tell the difference between a 320 mp3 an a 24 bit, with resolution as low as 44.1.

This entire statement is ridiculous. Only a few people can hear the difference? Please quote your source for this survey.

Yet another ridiculously overgeneralized statement without any merit whatsoever.

Thank you.

You can't bring science to a subjectivity fight. And actually science has proven that the 1s and 0s of mp3s and 24 bit hi-res content are significantly different. I don't know how you define "staggering", but I listened to 320 mp3s for years before I started ripping CDs to lossless, and I that sounded much better than the lossy version even on one of those smartphones with their own music store that don't even offer lossless music for sale.

 

Might also depend on one's hearing. Perhaps even more so than their hardware, although for whatever reason equipment profiles don't have a hearing test results section.

With that said...I can't tell a difference. Maybe with 24-bit, and that's somewhat questionable (and this is taking the same mastering into consideration btw). But 320kbps MP3 to its FLAC 16/44.1k source? I am definitely guessing at that point.

Best thing about lossless sources for me is the ability to re-encode them for different hardware (as needed). Lossy source is more the end of the road / stuck with that format for good or bad.