RIP Pono and Pono Music Store

The original Phonitor is running out now at bargain prices (LOL, I mean AUS$1000) and it drives higher impedance phones extremely well (I use a Beyerdynamic T1 gen 2 at 600 ohms). The Sennheiser may be a good fit too - maybe try one.

 

I haven't tried the HD650 with the Oppo portable amp/DAC. I don't know how it pairs and how well it drives the Senn.

 

The Fiio is going to be a more forward and punchy sound with the Senns than the Pono. It's kinda like comparing an OTL tube amp to a SS amp. The tube amp will be more spatial but won't have as much punch. The SS amp will be more forward, not as spatial, but will have more punch and snap. The Pono sound leans towards the tube amp side. The Fiio leans towards the SS sound side.

If you prefer the Fiio's sound then stay with SS amps that have the typical SS style of sound. The Schiit SS and hybrid amps and similar amps from other manufacturers would likely be more your style for the Senns. OTL amps like the Bottlehead Crack or Dark Voice or LittleDot would likely not be what you're looking for to drive the Senns.

 

FWIW I use HiFiMan 400S, running balanced cables, with my Pono for portable use. I like my music loud and it will not power my Sennheiser HD600's, even balanced, to my liking. For home use I use a Neve RNHP or a Schiit Valhalla 2 depending on whether I want crisp, accurate detail or a little more tube warmth. Very happy with all of these combos. Another suggestion is a Fiio E12 for the 650's going portable, but that means an additional unit. The Fiio is great with my 600's. Plenty of cowbells!

I'll miss the store as it was a great source for CD res titles as well as usually the least expensive site for other resolutions.

 

I don't hate the iTunes interface as you do, the store doesn't offer lossless, though the program can certainly handle and convert to it (ALAC). Maybe someday we'll get ALAC files from the store but who knows?

Ed

 

Maybe, I just don't get IT? First of all, compressed formats like MP3 were developed not because they possessed the "superior" resolution similar to CD's. Compressed music, didn't become popular, with the masses, for its ability to render fine music. Maybe, the developers, did have this in mind, but, in reality, it became important, because, in reality, it was all about, how much pirated music, people could cram in their ipods! None of whom cared how crappy it sounded. They were only interested in how many songs, they could stuff in.

We all understand the CD standard, no need to keep going there.

There have been many "superior" audio standards developed. Where are they today?

About everything that has been recorded, in the studio's, for many years now, has been captured at a bit rate of 192 KBPS (or higher) at a depth of 24-bits (or higher). So just about everything in this century is already present, in it's original form at "high resolution".

How important is this to the average consumer, probably not much? Or the already invented high resolution methods of playback would have taken off.

From it's inception, the Pono, was a solution, to a non-existent, problem.

There was and will continue to be many sources of high definition digital music.

There is and will continue to be many manufacturer's of high resolution digital players. The main difference here, is that everyone of these manufacturer's have already figured out that a player either needs to fit on a desk or live in someone's pocket.

Apparently, these are things that did not occur to Mr. Young.

I am not attempting to make any comments on the merits of high resolution digital music, one way or the other. Nor am I looking to pass judgement on the Pono player itself, other to comment on the obvious fact, that it won't be something, that the masses will buy to carry around.

How large is the world market, for separate hi-res players, when these same abilities are destined to be commonplace in newer, every day smart phones.

There are many ways to enjoy hi-res music and people are doing it everywhere, without the need for a Pono.

SH appears to have made a rather good living, remastering music from original analog tape sources and bringing it to the already existing market, through Mo-Fi releases, on vinyl and ordinary CD's, whose purchaser's seem pleased with the results.

So RIP Pono, your time has come and gone. The people have spoken.

 

Just to be clear: the mp3 codec was developed long before the iPod or iTunes was ever invented. It was developed because back in the day, all there was for the computer user was dial-up. The desire was there for a very compact way to send music through the internet. Also, unless i'm mistaken, the original iPod did not play mp3, not did Apple ever sell mp3s. In fact, before Apple stepped in, the record labels tried to develop various files with Digital Rights Management (DRM), and develop their own digital stores and players to counter the percieved threat from Napster and its sibling file "sharing" peer to peer programs. The problem is that they couldn't get it together, so Steve Jobs stepped in and gave them a solution. They put it all in his hands. Gradually, high-speed internet became accessible and affordable to we mere mortals, and music "traders" started using higher quality file types.

Oh, BTW, Napster was created just for a few college friends to exchange songs just like any young person without money would do. They didn't do it because they were trying to circumvent the market. But, as we have seen over and over again, small things take on a life of their own and grow. We have seen the same thing with MySpace which begat Facebook and Twitter, Snapchat, and many other sharing and social sites.

Nowhere! Why? Because they weren't portable. They didn't allow people to do what they wanted to do with their legally purchased music, and they were expensive, or needed specialized audio gear. People today want portability. So, yes, Neil did get that when he gave us the Pono player.

First of all: professional audio does not use bit-rates. 192 kbps stands for "kilobits per second". Professional audio uses bit-depths. There is a big difference. Bit depth refers to dynamic range. Bit rate refers to file size.

Second: we like to believe that everything is now recorded at 192 kHz/24-bit, but it isn't so. Engineers don't really talk about it too much, but quite a bit of stuff is still done at 16-bit/44.1. Yup! That's the truth! Some of the biggest albums in recent history were recorded and mixed at the redbook aka CD standard! The rationale for this is that the end-listener for a particular type of music will never hear the difference, especially after it's crunched down to a lossy format like AAC and mp3.

Sad, but true. But, Mr. Young tried to spread the word that there is a better alternative to the crap they've been listening to all these years. It's better to have tried that to not bother at all. For the effort, I salute him. And, isn't trying to spread the word about brickwalled CDs what we SH and other audiophiles have been doing for the last 16 years now? Same thing! He just did something about it. That's better than what we do, which is piss and moan about it.

No, the problem is real. The struggle is real!

I sure hope so, because what i'm starting to see is that as many audiophiles age, they care less about sound, maybe because they have less money to play with, less time to obsess over sound quality, or we just lose our hearing acuity. I don't see younger people looking to buy quality component systems with those Crossley rekkid players, even if they do have the money.

That's the way of the world. Child is born with an ear of gold. Way of the world makes his ears turn to stone! (I know! Don't give up my day job!)

Again, they did. That's why he started Pono. He may be accused of being a lot of things, but he ain't stupid!

It wasn't the people that spoke, it was the record labels.

 

I use MP3's here as more of a generic term. Apple uses AAC, I believe. My main point is the general public, is not like us and mostly, they don't give a crap about how something sounds. To them, it is all about quantity not quality.

I would listen to the digital crap of early digital music that those around me, were listening to, and I would just cringe!

If there was anyone who had an absolute dislike, to the point of hate, for the SQ of digital music, it was me.

But, back in 2011, it was listening to digital music on my computer, with cheap ear buds, that brought me back to music and audio again.

I do realize what KBPS means, I built my first computer from a kit in October of 1977, and became the Sales Manager for the first Apple computer dealer in Florida.

Yes I realize that bit depth, references the dynamic range. But while the bit rate does effect the file size, that is not what it means. 192 KBPS, is the sample rate. how many samples are taken each second, the more samples, the larger the file size.

The sample rates and bit depth that professional's use, does not necessarily relate to what a consumer needs, as in the CD standard of 44.1/16, where as the original might be 192/24. And, as you point out, even professionals, are known to use much lower bit rates and bit depth, and still produce great results. I also point out quality re-mastering from original analog tapes.

All well and good. But... as we all know, being a prophet and spreading the gospel can be difficult and often hazardous.

The masses are not only willing to accept, but seem to thrive on "brickwalled" CD's. So, we are not even coming close to taxing the limits of, perhaps obsolete 80's technology, that should be a hint about how well the general public is going to be interested in high resolution music.

People were simply not going to purchase a portable player (in any meaningful numbers), that they can not fit in their pockets!

Why would they anyway, when they will be able to listen to hi-res music, if they want to on cell phones?

I intend to purchase a portable hi-res capable player, one that fits in my pocket!

The Pono device could survive within a very limited market, but as it appears, even that didn't happen.

Hi-res does continue to survive.

If record companies can re-release things that they already own, in a new format, they are all for licensing it. Record companies are all about selling the same thing over and over again, in one form or another. The question does remain, will people be willing to pay very high prices for this? And, yes, record companies are greedy, nothing new here.

People can understand paying for remastering. People understand that larger files are more expensive to maintain and down load. But people are not willing to be gouged by record companies, just for the "privilege" of having access to music at its original resolution!

I never questioned that Mr. Young is an intelligent individual. I am well aware of his lifetime commitment to excellent sound. For that I applaud him.

And, Neil continues his quest. Good for him.

You will never here me complain about the quest for better fidelity, which, I suppose is why I am here.

 

Your experience with being "trapped in the eco system" is the reason I use players that are not tied to a specific piece of software. Old-time Walkman users had that experience with SonicStage, which was mandatory to use with their players (which would not work with any other software). Even though I have an iPod, I use MediaMonkey to manage the content on my player, and I have an option of several different music management programs to use with my other players.

Although I no longer use iTunes, I do use a program called Media Go that seems to work better than iTunes, although it is far less powerful and requires a more hands-on approach to tasks. As an example, it seems that other music management programs strongly encourage you to sync your player, which seems to make things complicated. Media Go allows you to just select and send files and playlists to your player, which I prefer over syncing (Media Go can sync, but I found it a pain to use [as an example, you can't sort a View {their version of a Smart Playlist} the way you choose and when you remove and item from a view/playlist it isn't removed from your player]).

 

I am sorry, but this is just wrong and is misinformation. Seems you are confusing bitrate with sample rate. They are very very different things.

192Kbps MP3 is referring to a bitrate. The 192 in a term like 24/192 is referring to the sampling rate being 192Khz. In other words the waveform is sampled 192,000 times every second, with each sample being 24 bits.

This is fundamentally a totally different concept than an MP3 bitrate, which by itself tells us nothing about the sampling rate.

 

I would say that it's really not so much about quantity as much as it is immediacy, availability, affordability, and portability.

I still cringe when I hear low-bit, lossy music played at parties and clubs. It hurts my ears.

Not all digital music, just the cheap stuff we're talking about.

Nope.

Except we audiophiles!

Agree, but some of those redbook recordings and mixes could have benefitted from having been recorded and/or processed with a higher resolution.

Just ask Jesus!

It's sad that it's come to this.

Thing is, you can get high resolution out of such a player. Problem is, no one cares when they're on the go. No one sits down in a living room and listens to music on big speakers anymore. Our way of life has changed too much for that now. If people sit in their living rooms, they are watching a movie, playing video games, or looking at Facebook on their smartphones. We audiophiles are the outliers.

I have one. It's called a Samsung smartphone.

For how long? I am worried that the high prices will kill the market. Outside of we freaks, average people cannot justify spending $24 for the same album they can find on a used CD for $2.99. And, I recently did a search to buy The Essential Eric Carmen in lossless or hi-rez. Sony isn't letting us do that. You have to either accept a lossy download, stream it, or order a CD. That happens with lots of titles from all of the record labels. They are cutting their own throat.

Especially when you can buy a CD for less than a download with no artwork of liner notes. What are the labels doing? I think I know. They are gradually forcing everybody to the streaming model where they can have absolute control over all content. No more buying music like in the good old days. Well, screw that! I have enough music here to last me the rest of my life! I can buy used product. The labels keep whining about illegal file sharing...whatever, but they are the ones killing music. They do it every time! People stream now, but what happens when prices for that, and internet goes up, and it will because of factors we can't talk about here.

 

I think you are all agreeing and arguing the same point...

 

I suspect there is a quite a bit of upsampling going on in the "hi res" format. As others have said, yes for many years 24 bit recording has been the standard, but not a lot of it past 44.1khz. Thats where the master sits, and you can re sample it all you like, but thats a big fat pig with lipstick on it. People outside here have absolutely NO idea about this, hence why they can get away with it. Of course there IS the legit releases, but... you know...

 

Hi there! It must be your first day on the Internet... let me show you around...

 

Unfortunately, my listening experience depends on dynamic updating of playlists. For example, I listen on shuffle virtually all the time. I listen to my entire library at least once a year. One way I do that is with a dynamic play list comprising 75 songs, but it is constructed using the 75 oldest Last Played dates and times. I hope that makes sense. It changes every day. Sometimes multiple times per day. So while I despise the iTunes user experience, third party apps aren't allowed to update iTunes play counts or date last played. I need my remote devices to update play counts and last played dates.

 

Yup. I also suspect that, for many digital recordings made in the 80s at 44.1, the labels are using analog copies of them, and transcribing those at high sampling rates. That's why we see them at 96 or 192 kHz, despite their 44.1 digital origins. That's how they can claim no upsampling.

 

Amazon.com: Pono

 

Having spent a lot of time with computers, I tend to use the term bit rate, which in the example that I was referencing was 192 Kilo Bits Per Second. Kilo Bits Per Second is describing a bit rate.

But, your statement is correct. Within this context, the correct description is a sample rate, my bad!

I did mean that, but I failed to use the correct terminology as it applies to digital music.

In my follow up post, I did use the correct term, in my follow up post.

 

Do you have any examples of DDD compact disc content resurfacing as "hi-res?" I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but this would seem an easy thing to nail down.

When Rhino released the Grateful Dead hi-res studio box, Go To Heaven was offered at redbook because the source was DDD (i.e., it was recorded at 16/44.1). That doesn't mean unscrupulous people couldn't do what you suggest. However, my spot checking of stuff I've purchased has yet to reveal any obvious upsampled content. Even if you do a transfer from digital source to analog tape and resample, the absence of information above 22.05KHz is a dead giveaway. Yeah, upsampling as you suggest would show some minimal extension above that, but not much. Certainly not as much as a legit hi-res offering from legit analog master tapes. It certainly wouldn't be the sort of smooth attenuation curve one typically sees with legit hi-res.

 

I think that the correct answer is "E", all of the above.

But, the reason that I do make this comment, is; Say, back in the earlier iPod days, I never recall the chronic iPod users, the ones with ear buds affixed to their ears, making the statement, "listen to how good this sounds".

What they all brag about, is how many (pirated) songs, they have on their players.

All of my digital music, is ripped from CD's that I own. While I am not a musician, I do respect their art and their profession. I would never own a digital version of a song, unless I legally owned the CD or record, that I made the copy from.

I guess, it's this thing called ethics.

Correct, I was referring to the earlier low bit rate music that everyone was listening too back then.

I try, not to be a purist, but if something fails to meet my minimum basic standard's, I just exclude it.

I just could not bring myself to listen to the old digital music.

Today, I listen to digital music, all the time. Right now, I'm listening to the Piano Guy's on Pandora One, playing, A Thousand Years. I think that Pandora One streams at a bit rate of around 192 KBPS, and it sounds excellent. Maybe not quite CD quality, but when the mixing and mastering is done correctly, the results can be excellent.

Yep.

Your over paying,

I do agree, while most people will not just sit and listen to music, as specially in a social situation, I have found many people who will come over and some times, we just listen to music.

Only a small percentage of my friends could be referred to as audiophiles, so many do enjoy beautiful music and almost 100% of them have never been around a home environment where they can experience music, in the manner which I present it.

It is very rewarding, when something is played and my guests faces light up and they just smile.

With improved digital players and higher bit rates, most have experienced quality music, but only through ordinary ear buds, almost none listen through speakers, except maybe through a clock radio or a car radio.

Really. People will pay $10 to download a CD/Record, Even when I buy new, I rarely pay more than $10 for a CD, then I rip it. If I do enjoy an artist or an album, I will buy it new. But there is an endless supply of used CD's for a couple of dollars. About once a month, a local used media store holds a weekend sale, where everything in the store is $2, and I try to catch the sale, every couple of months or so.

 

I just love the negative reviews about this:

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Pono Music Portable Music Player, Black

 

How much information above 22.5K do you really think is on those original analog tapes? The specs on the last of the great Studer multitrack machines show they are only good to 18Khz .. and then there is a generation loss going down to the master 2 track (with a max top end of 20K on a really good day). The best S/N ratio on those machines (with with Dolby SR) is about 75dB (easily captured at 14 bit).

You can't hear whats not there.

 

First, I said "analyze," not "hear." Let's discuss what I actually said, please.

Unfortunately, I am unable to post an image to show you. But if I could, you would see lots of information in the mid 30KHz region and smooth attenuation thereafter. If it had been upsampled, there would be a drastic (i.e., near total drop out) at ~22KHz and beyond.

If someone wants to assist me with posting the freq plot of a random hi-res file, let me know.

 

"Like A Virgin" by Madonna.

 

'Brothers In Arms'