Pono Website Dedicated Thread

Is that a Pono in your pocket or are you just excited by this thread?...

 

I purchased Live Rust out of sheer curiosity and knowing that all previous releases of this record sounded too poor on digital to ever enjoy on my system. It is very listenable and I enjoyed it...I am not going to say this was a great recording in the first place, but I can say this is probably the last time you will need to buy it

Also, portions of the show have been restored to original length. You can see my previous post to see the actual times of the songs. For some reason Pono doesn't list the length of this record correctly.

 

I think we need to be careful with our choice of terms when discussing Pono... reading these threads it seems that many people are confused (and from your post I know you're NOT one of them). But it is the word "format" that is muddying the waters. Even Neil Young is guilty of referring to Pono as a format.

Pono is two things, 1) a piece of hardware and 2) an online music store. You can use either one without using the other. The format that the store is selling is FLAC.

I have yet to hear the Pono player, but since there are a number of potentially high resolution players on the market, it will come down to its output electronics and the DAC to define its performance.

The store will be defined by its pricing, its content, its ease of use/search/browse utilities and for me at least, its notes on the origins of any given version it offers.

And since many of us agree that the mastering is as important as the bitrate/bit depth, I see no reason why they wouldn't offer multiple versions of titles. For example:

Album X, 24/44.1 (2009 CD remaster/label x)
Album X, 16/44.1 (2003 original CD/label x )
Album X, 96/48 (2010 DVD Audio/label y)

etc.

 

I believe theres a work around for those in the US looking to use Qobuz.
Maybe somebody that has done that in the States can post you up on how they did it.

I agree with you for the most part on the pricing.
There can certainly be more ala carte pricing, imo, when it comes to these albums.
Maybe charge an extra dollar for the "single" released, or the lengthy album track, thus semi-discounting the rest of the album.

Can't say I 100% agree with your last 2 sentences, as it seems a bit self-serving, ie in order to show good faith, you need to gimme what I want.
But maybe you didn't mean it in that fashion, and I don't want it to come off as too harsh personally.
Maybe they will, but what if its not at the price point you expect? What if the 1 track you want on the album is say 3.99?
Would that be appreciated, or criticized, now that you don't have to buy ALL of it, but have to pay premium for the "premium" cuts?
But I'd fully support a more tiered price structure that should increase sales, and increase customer as well as artist satisfaction with the entire process.

 

I just emailed them to let me use there service, no work around, but this was a year ago things may have changed, they still let me purchase, It's great for those hard to find/expensive to import German bands

 

Not "gimme what I want." Sell me what I want. Big difference.

I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that "dealing in good faith" is a valid legal concept. Part of that is running your business as if you really want to make money selling a product or service, not vilifying and litigating with your customers.

My beef with the record industry, in a nutshell, is that it is the only business I can think of that consistently thumbs its nose at its customers, and vilifies them for not chowing down on whatever random shizzle they decide to sell. How quickly do you think the FTC would get involved if a potato chip company told customers that the only way they could buy the flavor they really want is to buy 11 other flavors they don't want? Actually, it would never get to the government intervention stage because every other business on the planet understands that it is waging a war against its competitors for market share, and actively pursues business strategies to gain market share. Every other business on the planet will happily collect as many dollars as it can, any legal way it can.

The record business on the other hand squats on intellectual property, refusing to actually sell large portions of it ("it's out of print"), and when they do try to sell it, they either offer a lossy adulterated approximation of what it was originally (kind of like eating potato chips made out of plastic), or they insist that you buy a bunch of stuff you don't want to get what you do want. Who else runs a business that way? Seriously, name one.

I don't know what the working definition of bad faith is from a legal standpont, but the record industry's open disdain and predatory pricing qualifies in my book.

For the record, I support the idea that buying the entire album should cost less than buying each individual song. That is a perfectly ethical way to encourage full album sales.

 

How do you purchase if you they won't let you use their service? I'm confused.

 

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, I only have read through the last couple of pages but Jack White Lazaretto is available in 24/192 and it sounds like the record master. I compared it to my vinyl copy and it sounds similar but a much wider sound stage. I think its worth picking up if your a fan of fact the album. It beats listening to the noisy vinyl version IMO. It isn't available anywhere else that I am aware of in this resolution.

 

In the past, you could email them with some BS line like "I'm a UK citizen living in the US temporarily" and they'd lift the restrictions. I did it and it works. Not sure if it's still the case.

 

A year or so ago I registered with the site as normal, the next day I politely asked them to "region free me" or something to that effect, I never received a response, about a week later I logged on and was able to purchase via paypal, I have not tried using the streaming service though

 

Dunno, but its a heckuva question.
I'd assume its breaking the law on the providers part, but does the customer have any legal exposure?
Bootlegging is against the law, selling it is against the law, but if I went and bought (or download) a copy would that make me an accessory to a crime?

As for the 2nd paragraph, sure, cable industry.
I've got to buy a package of garbage I don't want, in order to get the things I do want to see.
But streaming, smart TV's, and more ala carte pricing coming in that area should bring huge changes in that industry in response.

 

Make sure you read the comments section after the article as well. No complete answer yet.
http://www.audiostream.com/content/pono-play-dsd

 

Car companies, cable and satellite providers, cellphone companies to name a few people that are always selling you more than you want.

 

You can add movie companies to that list. The original, un-futzed with Star Wars Trilogy comes to mind. Hard core fans were clamoring for the non-"special edition" to be released on DVD. When George Lucas finally relented, the original versions were sourced from sub-par laserdisc transfers AND you had to buy the special editions of the films just to get them (as they were only available as a bundle with the special edition; the original versions were never sold separately).

There are many more examples in this industry as well. Issues almost always arise when there is a change in formats (like VHS to DVD or DVD to Blu Ray). Fans wanted widescreen versions of movies on disc when only full screen versions were made available, non-anamorphic widescreen transfers were released when anamorphic ones should have been, extras on the original DVD set aren't ported over to the Blu Ray, etc. Rest assured there's almost always a "special edition" of a popular title around the corner to entice the uber-fan to buy again.

 

Cable and satellite providers, yes. Monopolies. That should be fixed. John McCain for one also thinks so (not that I normally care much about what he thinks). Car companies? Cellphone companies? Not that I am aware of. My cellphone plan is tuned to a T for my family. I've always managed to get substantially what I want in a car without much hassle. Yeah, options are grouped in packages, but I'm never forced really to buy much more than I want. Certainly, not the 500% surcharge that record companies would make me pay to acquire a single song.

 

The point is you likely pay for more than exactly what you need from your cellphone company and when you buy a car. In the scheme of things paying $18 for 12-15 songs instead of say $6 for the three you know you like is not so terrible. Who knows, you may even like a couple more by the time your done.

 

Neil Young Pono with Q+A at 2015 CES

 

...in your opinion. Personally, I find it egregious. I don't much care for other people dictating to me what's in my own best interest. Last time I checked, I get to make those choices.

 

Sorry I read ¨Porno¨

 

Another video of Neil Young and Rolling stone interview/discussion at 2015 CES. This is from one of the main super sessions at the conference.

http://www.cesweb.org/News/CES-TV/Video-Detail?vID=UKXkJRAGXSCY&dID=DliGIusJiD1C&sID=OhYr3WpdgEMj

 

Egregious? So what ever did you do before iTunes?

 

I once asked a co-worker this question and got a blank stare in response... making me realize there are people for whom there was no "before iTunes."

 

It was already known that the store was only going to be open to US residents, but I find it interesting that they're restricting sales by only accepting US cards and not by IP info. How is that going to work out when they open sales up up to Canada and the UK and later elsewhere - are they going to have to set up seperate websites for each country?! Each territory will have different content. The only other download store that sells globally and doesn't use IP info to control sales is iTunes and that's because it's app and not website based.

 

Stupid question that's probably already been answered: Do I have to own a Pono to download music? Will it download like HDTracks downloads to a directory of my choice? The 24/192 of Kind of Blue for $9.99 seems impossible to ignore. Thanks!!

 

Hmm, which kind of makes me want to ask this question.
What was the cost of a basic Ipod when it first came out?
Around 300 bucks, I believe.

So a 300 dollar dedicated music player that compromised the quality of sound, yet you could have all your tunes with you no matter where you went, is considered revolutionary.
Yet a 400 dollar dedicated, portable hi-rez player surely must be a complete rip off. I dunno, man.....