Neil Young readies Pono music service for expansion Part 3

You should expect some aggressive replies when you come in and basically threadcrap. People who are interested in this product obviously have interest in hi-res. Your preaching will convert no one and just stir things up. If that's your aim, you might get some attention initially (but don't cry when it's just as ill-conceived as your own words), but you will soon be shunned. If you want to discuss your belief in hi-res' lack of benefits, there are better threads to do so; this is not the place.

 

You have a lot to learn about gear. Don't let the hi end folks look down on you. However,I think you would find changing gear and saving money for it will set you on a wonderful path.

 

What do you mean "either way"? If the hi-res files were downsampled they couldn't possibly sound any different from the 16/44,1 files. That proves nothing.

 

You make some great points supporting those who are opposed to filling out the equipment profile.

 

Do we know what equipment Steve uses to play hi-res files?

 

I agree with this 100%. It seems like certain kinds of derision and trolling are permitted on the forum. And that asymmetric enforcement of the "rules" hurts this forum's reputation IMHO.

 

It bothers me that one gets on here and says "Hi-res is no better than CD. Hi-res is much better than CD on a true hi end system. I enjoy the sonic benefits that hi-res shows.

 

Actually newer hi end dacs have put me on the fence post of weather much sonic benefits, if any, is gained on hi res audio over redbook, be it your not confusing better mastering with resolution formats.

 

I am similarly skeptical, as I have both the redbook and hi-res 2014 Led Zep releases, and couldn't tell a difference via my DAC and headphones, though I haven't heard a high-end "highly resolving" system, so I can't verify the claims that owners of such systems make.

However, assuming this is the thread in which to discuss such skepticism (and that's debatable), I believe members of this forum should maintain decorum and respect for other members of this forum.

 

I would be happy to see Pono music store concentrate on mastering quality over lossless formats. Redbook is fine, but poor mastering source or engineer, is not. More information concerning the latter, so as to make a qualified judgment about purchase. Also a good feedback system from the buyers.

 

This is the part of the Pono package of which I'm most skeptical. In pre-release statements, we've gone from promises that Pono will work with mastering engineers for new content to an announced partnership with Omnifone, which claims to have a large lossless and hi-res catalog from all the majors, but doesn't appear to work with mastering engineers and rather accepts what the labels send.

However, I believe it's been said up thread that some of the artist-specific special edition Pono players are loaded with content mastered specially for Pono.

 

Yes. The new PS Audio DSD DAC. There is a thread on it right now.

 

Exactly, James Reeno.

Make sure your computer settings are correct and even perhaps invest in some better gear if you want to hear a difference between 16/44.1 and hi-res.

Finally, even if YOU can't hear a difference does not mean others cannot.

As for me, I prefer vinyl and hi-res to CD, but I believe ultimately the mastering is more important to sound quality than the format.

Case in point? Some lossy "mastered for iTunes" albums have better dynamic range, more pleasant tonality, and sound better to my ears than their CD counterparts.

It's all in the mastering.

 

What's awesome about the Pono player is that it will play MP3, AAC, and lossless CD rips and sound better than a stock iPod while doing it. There is no requirement to ever play high res files on it. No requirement that you buy high res files to play on it. You don't need to believe in high res to see the value in the Pono player. Sounding better than an iPod (and playing FLAC) is good enough for me. Being able to play a few high res files that I've got is more of a bonus feature for me.

 

Thanks Gort - I want to continue the interesting discussion of Pono on this thread.

 

I think what makes me uncomfortable is that hydrogenaudio is creating this myth of hirez sounding the same out of whole cloth. A heavy reliance on studies that only support their hirez agenda and ABX testing that more often only shows the lack of listening skills in the audience combine to create a tornado of misinformation.

A more informed professional view is to examine studies from respected sources like the AES such as established audio researchers Pras and Gaustavino which did find test subjects could discriminate 88.2khz from 44.1khz.

 

James,

You are new here so you might not have seen the many studies I have referenced in prior hirez discussions that do show audio researchers finding audible differences.

I record jazz and classical musicians in 24/176 in usually small ensembles and I've been doing hirez since 1993 and redbook at the same time, sometimes on a different recording box. If you listen to sax or guitar in jazz or violin or cello in classical you find that some of the instrument tone is simply not captured at 44.1khz. At 88.2khz it gets much better, at 176khz a bit better still.

Many engineers of both recording and mastering variety such as Bob Katz, Bob Ludwig, Jared Sachs, Morten Lindberg, Bernie Grundman, Paul Stubblebine and Joe Palmaccio have found hirez to be essential for good audio.

Many audio designers have even laid out the mathematical and scientific case for it: Bob Stuart, Dan Lavry, and Julian Dunn to name a few.

 

This is the part that I am excited about as well. I am viewing the Pono as a very good quality player that will allow me to hear the stuff I already own at its very best. It supposedly can be loaded with enough memory to make it worthwhile to fill it with FLAC files. I will be waiting to hear reviews however, to see if the player lives up to the glowing things being claimed for it right now. As far as I'm concerned right now it is still vapor ware until it hits the street and real people get to hear it.

 

You're pointing to one test. And you've pointed to that test here before. And there are other tests that show the opposite (that people can't tell the difference). There is no scientific consensus on the audible benefits of hirez digital audio. And that's probably because there is a physiological aspect of that question that is rarely explored. So I think it's quite a stretch to characterize hydrogenaudio as "creating a myth". And just because their results run counter to Audiophile Orthodoxy doesn't mean they "lack listening skills" or that their systems "aren't resolving enough".

And speaking of AES, I suspect you would not be so quick to praise the work of some of their members like Ethan Winer.

As for myself, I have encountered some DSD and PCM material that I think sounds better than run-of-the-mill Redbook. But my experience is that sampling rate alone does not determine sound quality. And I'm sure you would agree with that.

 

I have said often here that the original recording and mastering also make a difference. But all else being equal, higher sampling rates do have an impact as well which is why several McGill researchers have the results to prove it.

And it's not just the Pras study...there have been at least two more studies in Japan that back up the results as well as the work of Bob Stuart and others on the design side.

 

We're just trying to defend our side of the argument, while opponents of hi-res audio seem determined to prove us wrong. Why is this?

 

I certainly don't see myself as an "opponent of hi-res" and in my mind, there is no argument if there is no investment in ideology. In other words, I would rather learn all I can about it than "be right" about it.

 

We've had almost this exact back-and-forth a few months back. For every study and listening test you can point to that support your view, there are at least as many showing opposite results.

If you're looking for science to back you up, you have to let it all in. Not just the stuff that comports with your audio worldview.

 

Sure you have to look at both sides but in my case I have lots of recording experience with hirez formats so I understand the improvements from hirez. It is really not close. Of some 200 recordings I have done probably 16o have been in hirez and probably two dozen were also done in redbook for comparison purposes.

The reason there are studies or opinion to the contrary is that so many people lack critical listening skills. Anyone can pick that skill up but has to be developed. Also many studies are flawed such as when Meyer Moran used low quality sacd players on playback.

It is very easy to demonstrate. My favorite demo is to take a live violin or guitar and then play back one movement in 24/176 and 16/44. You split the mic feeds into two separate recording boxes. You can easily hear how much more timbre is captured via hirez.

Another good demo is to do needledrops of a good acoustic ensemble record. You can easily hear the improvement.

A man with experience is not a slave to a man with an opinion.