If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WXRT Chicago)   Neil Young recommends Pono so you can hear Neil Young at his finest, which was 35 years ago   (wxrt.cbslocal.com) divider line 40
    More: Amusing, Pono, can hear, plug-and-plays, south by southwest, Southwest Conference, target markets, revelations  
•       •       •

653 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Apr 2014 at 1:36 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-11 12:19:32 PM
www.fanboy.com
 
2014-04-11 01:00:16 PM
I will make sure I am covered in crystals and holding my dowsing rod when using his new format. I want to get the most out of it
 
2014-04-11 01:22:39 PM
I certainly hope they're amplifying the headphone output adequately.  Because 3.5mm stereo doesn't cut it for transmitting high resolution audio.  For 128Kbps MP3, it's fine.  But unless one wants their high res FLAC to sound like 128Kbps MP3s, then it better have an outstanding DAC and headphone amp built-in.

/I'm currently running 3.5 stereo mini > RCA into my car DAC because I had problems with my head unit.  It is *not* CD quality.  It's roughly 128Kbps quality.
 
2014-04-11 01:26:10 PM
Has Young (or anyone involved with Pono) ever addressed the idea of file size and drive capacity?  How many tracks are we going to be able to hold on our Pono-machine?  Uncompressed audio files can be huge.
 
2014-04-11 01:36:02 PM
Pono? They left out an "r".
 
2014-04-11 01:42:02 PM
Now that's a fine headline.
 
2014-04-11 01:54:31 PM

Thwartme: Has Young (or anyone involved with Pono) ever addressed the idea of file size and drive capacity?  How many tracks are we going to be able to hold on our Pono-machine?  Uncompressed audio files can be huge.


64GB built-in, expandable via microSDXC up to 64GB for 128GB total.  Which is more than adequate to keep a high resolution music collection.  I've got 52 gigs worth of 16 bit and 24bit FLAC.  They run anywhere from 300MB an album up to 1.5GB.  24/96 usually bumping the 1.5GB limit.  But 128GB is respectable.
 
2014-04-11 02:04:47 PM
As much as I like Neil Young's music, I don't understand how The Godfather of Grunge is in any way connected with High Fidelity.
 
2014-04-11 02:14:38 PM

Maralyn Minks: [www.fanboy.com image 681x454]


what....on....earth?
 
2014-04-11 02:42:34 PM
I feel like this thing is hitting the market a few years too late.
 
2014-04-11 03:01:28 PM
 
2014-04-11 03:02:56 PM
Pono for Pyos?
 
2014-04-11 03:05:04 PM

question_dj: I certainly hope they're amplifying the headphone output adequately.  Because 3.5mm stereo doesn't cut it for transmitting high resolution audio.  For 128Kbps MP3, it's fine.  But unless one wants their high res FLAC to sound like 128Kbps MP3s, then it better have an outstanding DAC and headphone amp built-in.

/I'm currently running 3.5 stereo mini > RCA into my car DAC because I had problems with my head unit.  It is *not* CD quality.  It's roughly 128Kbps quality.


I'm not sure about an actual amp, but they advertise as having one of the best DAC chips on the market.  That was from a marketing flyer, however, and no mention of what the actual chip is, so take it with a grain of salt.
 
2014-04-11 03:14:15 PM
Too bad, like anything sold to "audiophiles," it's just marketing BS.
 
2014-04-11 03:19:49 PM

Driedsponge: question_dj: I certainly hope they're amplifying the headphone output adequately.  Because 3.5mm stereo doesn't cut it for transmitting high resolution audio.  For 128Kbps MP3, it's fine.  But unless one wants their high res FLAC to sound like 128Kbps MP3s, then it better have an outstanding DAC and headphone amp built-in.

/I'm currently running 3.5 stereo mini > RCA into my car DAC because I had problems with my head unit.  It is *not* CD quality.  It's roughly 128Kbps quality.

I'm not sure about an actual amp, but they advertise as having one of the best DAC chips on the market.  That was from a marketing flyer, however, and no mention of what the actual chip is, so take it with a grain of salt.


It still has to have an amplifier to power the signal to the headphones and the headphones themselves.  A DAC is great, but if the amp the DAC is hooked up to is noisy, then it's not going to be good at all.  Then there's the issue of the signal coming out of the headphone jack being strong enough to carry the extra information that's in the files being played.  The DAC can do a great job decoding them, but if there isn't ample signal to power the speakers, then it's all pointless.

My DAC is an Audiston BitTen D, so it's probably not crap.  But when I hook my phone up via the headphone jack to the DAC (the signal to from the DAC to the amp is fully digital), I have to crank the gain on the aux signal to get any kind of volume out of it, which causes the signal to degrade.  So, they need a strong signal coming out of the amp pushing the headphones in order to maintain the sound quality.
 
2014-04-11 03:26:08 PM

Fubegra: Too bad, like anything sold to "audiophiles," it's just marketing BS.


Or you could come to Dallas and sit in my car, hearing the sound of a 24/96Khz audio file being played through a 3.5mm stereo jack into a DAC and amplifier, compared to 24/96Khz audio being played through RCAs, to a DAC, to an amplifier.  The difference is indeed audible.  The difference between 320Kbps MP3s and 16/44.1KHz FLAC is audible too.  Listen for it in the high end.  Cymbals and other delicate treble ranged sounds will sound washed out and completely digitized.  Like how SiriusXM sounds like it's underwater.  Same thing, because SiriusXM streams at 96Kbps.  With FLAC or CD, they don't because the data that makes up those sounds isn't lost.  It's incredibly noticeable in orchestral works. And I won't even get into how playback of low res files completely destroys the soundstage and the way the sounds image.

Because yes, sounds do image, and there's such a thing as a sound stage for audio.  When I listen to Rite of Spring in my car or in front of my speakers at home, it should sound like an orchestra is playing in front of me.  That's accomplished through high quality recording that captures the sounds of where it was recorded.  On low resolution files, that data is simply not there.  If the data isn't there, it can't be replicated and played back.  And it's definitely there in the recording.
 
2014-04-11 03:33:21 PM
Needs more barn.
 
2014-04-11 03:49:16 PM
Neil Young's whiny off-key voice reproduced perfectly? No thanks.
 
2014-04-11 04:36:37 PM
How do they get the vinyl inside that little tiny thing?
 
2014-04-11 04:53:31 PM

Mikey1969: Best Neil Young video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BJKXd7E-38


Lol, I cannot explain how I never heard that before.

Sorry, Neil, I'm gonna give this Pono thing a miss, but if you'll come back to town and play a concert I'll be in the audience.

We get it - you hate digital stuff....oh wait, Pono plays digital music.  I remember reading an article Mr. Young wrote in the '80s called "The CD and the Damage Done".

Oh god, that collaboration with Devo was awful.  I need some ear bleach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pzeYdkSr8s
 
kab
2014-04-11 04:54:07 PM
Pragmatically, if .flac hasn't completely eliminated the mp3 format by now, I don't see how anyone expects this to.

Banking on the idea that the average music listener is a discerning consumer probably isn't a wise choice.
 
2014-04-11 04:56:18 PM

question_dj: Fubegra: Too bad, like anything sold to "audiophiles," it's just marketing BS.

Or you could come to Dallas and sit in my car, hearing the sound of a 24/96Khz audio file being played through a 3.5mm stereo jack into a DAC and amplifier, compared to 24/96Khz audio being played through RCAs, to a DAC, to an amplifier.  The difference is indeed audible.  The difference between 320Kbps MP3s and 16/44.1KHz FLAC is audible too.  Listen for it in the high end.  Cymbals and other delicate treble ranged sounds will sound washed out and completely digitized.  Like how SiriusXM sounds like it's underwater.  Same thing, because SiriusXM streams at 96Kbps.  With FLAC or CD, they don't because the data that makes up those sounds isn't lost.  It's incredibly noticeable in orchestral works. And I won't even get into how playback of low res files completely destroys the soundstage and the way the sounds image.

Because yes, sounds do image, and there's such a thing as a sound stage for audio.  When I listen to Rite of Spring in my car or in front of my speakers at home, it should sound like an orchestra is playing in front of me.  That's accomplished through high quality recording that captures the sounds of where it was recorded.  On low resolution files, that data is simply not there.  If the data isn't there, it can't be replicated and played back.  And it's definitely there in the recording.


Fubegra's link says you are getting confirmation bias on your shiny car.

Me, I listen to records on my home built speakers because listening to records and building speakers is fun. I have no need to claim it sounds better. It's just fun.
 
2014-04-11 05:03:29 PM

kab: Pragmatically, if .flac hasn't completely eliminated the mp3 format by now, I don't see how anyone expects this to.

Banking on the idea that the average music listener is a discerning consumer probably isn't a wise choice.


Neil Young has a lot of ideas.  Pono probably isn't one of the better ones.
 
2014-04-11 05:05:14 PM

gfid: Mikey1969: Best Neil Young video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BJKXd7E-38

Lol, I cannot explain how I never heard that before.

Sorry, Neil, I'm gonna give this Pono thing a miss, but if you'll come back to town and play a concert I'll be in the audience.

We get it - you hate digital stuff....oh wait, Pono plays digital music.  I remember reading an article Mr. Young wrote in the '80s called "The CD and the Damage Done".

Oh god, that collaboration with Devo was awful.  I need some ear bleach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pzeYdkSr8s


It's so bad, it's good. not sure if I can watch that whole movie it's from.
 
2014-04-11 05:05:21 PM

question_dj: The difference between 320Kbps MP3s and 16/44.1KHz FLAC is audible too


No, it's not.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

I love audiophiles, because they believe in magic.
 
2014-04-11 05:15:21 PM

question_dj: Fubegra: Too bad, like anything sold to "audiophiles," it's just marketing BS.

Or you could come to Dallas and sit in my car, hearing the sound of a 24/96Khz audio file being played through a 3.5mm stereo jack into a DAC and amplifier, compared to 24/96Khz audio being played through RCAs, to a DAC, to an amplifier.  The difference is indeed audible.  The difference between 320Kbps MP3s and 16/44.1KHz FLAC is audible too.  Listen for it in the high end.  Cymbals and other delicate treble ranged sounds will sound washed out and completely digitized.  Like how SiriusXM sounds like it's underwater.  Same thing, because SiriusXM streams at 96Kbps.  With FLAC or CD, they don't because the data that makes up those sounds isn't lost.  It's incredibly noticeable in orchestral works. And I won't even get into how playback of low res files completely destroys the soundstage and the way the sounds image.

Because yes, sounds do image, and there's such a thing as a sound stage for audio.  When I listen to Rite of Spring in my car or in front of my speakers at home, it should sound like an orchestra is playing in front of me.  That's accomplished through high quality recording that captures the sounds of where it was recorded.  On low resolution files, that data is simply not there.  If the data isn't there, it can't be replicated and played back.  And it's definitely there in the recording.


What kinda car?
 
2014-04-11 05:22:04 PM
I'm pretty sure I'd be better off investing in quality speakers before a fancy music player.
 
2014-04-11 05:29:03 PM

Mikey1969: gfid: Mikey1969: Best Neil Young video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BJKXd7E-38

Lol, I cannot explain how I never heard that before.

Sorry, Neil, I'm gonna give this Pono thing a miss, but if you'll come back to town and play a concert I'll be in the audience.

We get it - you hate digital stuff....oh wait, Pono plays digital music.  I remember reading an article Mr. Young wrote in the '80s called "The CD and the Damage Done".

Oh god, that collaboration with Devo was awful.  I need some ear bleach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pzeYdkSr8s

It's so bad, it's good. not sure if I can watch that whole movie it's from.


I prefer the Devo version of Worried Man from that film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkkxFIojAFY

I have the movie sitting on my computer, but I just haven't brought myself to watch it yet.  I'm almost expecting bad on the order of the Star Wars Holiday Special.
 
2014-04-11 05:31:18 PM

JohnBigBootay: question_dj: Fubegra: Too bad, like anything sold to "audiophiles," it's just marketing BS.

Or you could come to Dallas and sit in my car, hearing the sound of a 24/96Khz audio file being played through a 3.5mm stereo jack into a DAC and amplifier, compared to 24/96Khz audio being played through RCAs, to a DAC, to an amplifier.  The difference is indeed audible.  The difference between 320Kbps MP3s and 16/44.1KHz FLAC is audible too.  Listen for it in the high end.  Cymbals and other delicate treble ranged sounds will sound washed out and completely digitized.  Like how SiriusXM sounds like it's underwater.  Same thing, because SiriusXM streams at 96Kbps.  With FLAC or CD, they don't because the data that makes up those sounds isn't lost.  It's incredibly noticeable in orchestral works. And I won't even get into how playback of low res files completely destroys the soundstage and the way the sounds image.

Because yes, sounds do image, and there's such a thing as a sound stage for audio.  When I listen to Rite of Spring in my car or in front of my speakers at home, it should sound like an orchestra is playing in front of me.  That's accomplished through high quality recording that captures the sounds of where it was recorded.  On low resolution files, that data is simply not there.  If the data isn't there, it can't be replicated and played back.  And it's definitely there in the recording.

Fubegra's link says you are getting confirmation bias on your shiny car.

Me, I listen to records on my home built speakers because listening to records and building speakers is fun. I have no need to claim it sounds better. It's just fun.


realmolo: question_dj: The difference between 320Kbps MP3s and 16/44.1KHz FLAC is audible too
So
No, it's not.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

I love audiophiles, because they believe in magic.


Yeah.  Headphones and two speakers doing stereo imaging aren't quite the same thing.  Listening to live room recording of an orchestra play doesn't play back the same and it's not hear the same on headphones as it is on a stereo speaker setup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization

It's a real thing.  Most "audiophiles" are paying for proper stereo imaging.  That's why I don't listen to music in headphones, headphones don't image.  I think that's where the disconnect is.  Sit down in front of a pair of speakers that image properly and listen to some well mixed and engineered music.  When I listen to music in my car or on my studio monitors at home, the difference is audible.  Spend some time listening to music how it was engineered and mixed, and you'll find new aspects to it.  And when the recording sucks, is mixed poorly, or the resolution is low, you will hear the difference.

But you'll probably never do that, because you're convinced that I'm crazy.  Sound engineers wouldn't spend all the time they do micing and recording things in high resolution, and mixing them properly, if there wasn't a tangible benefit.  In fact, you should go watch an orchestra perform and pay attention to where the sounds originate.  Then go listen to the same piece in your car or on your headphones and tell me where the sounds originate.  Because the information is in the recording, and it's translated into the mix.  When the sound system is setup to do it, the information is played back properly.  Headphones and poorly designed stereos simply can't do it.
 
2014-04-11 05:50:10 PM
At Neil's age I doubt he can tell the difference between 24 bit FLAC, 128 kbs mp3, and a piece of string attached to a tin can.
 
2014-04-11 05:58:52 PM

question_dj: Or you could come to Dallas and sit in my car, hearing the sound of a 24/96Khz audio file being played through a 3.5mm stereo jack into a DAC and amplifier, compared to 24/96Khz audio being played through RCAs, to a DAC, to an amplifier.


Are you seriously proposing that there is a perceptible difference in audio fidelity between signals that traverse a 3.5mm stereo jack, and those that traverse a stereo pair of RCA connectors?

/and that those analog connectors come before the DAC in the signal path, in either configuration?
 
2014-04-11 05:58:54 PM
Million bucks, you guys!

Just prove your audiophilic superpowers.  One million bucks.

Your terms, your equipment, mutually agreed.

You won't do it.  Because reasons.

/reasons are you are full of crap
 
kab
2014-04-11 06:36:22 PM

realmolo: question_dj: The difference between 320Kbps MP3s and 16/44.1KHz FLAC is audible too

No, it's not.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/do_higher_mp3_bit_rates_pay_off

I love audiophiles, because they believe in magic.


4 people, using earphones, through a soundblaster.

/sounds legit, and totally audiophile-esque.
 
2014-04-11 06:38:57 PM

question_dj: Because yes, sounds do image, and there's such a thing as a sound stage for audio.


I'm actually well aware of that. When I listen to properly-placed studio monitors, the effect is awesome; I can listen to a recording of an orchestra and pick out where the instruments are. But, audio is engineering, not magic. Much of the "soundstage" gets determined in recording and mastering. There are lots of different techniques for stereo recording (ORTF, NOS, DIN, Jecklin disc, Decca tree, X/Y, mid-side, Blumlein, etc.), and some are better suited for certain situations than others. Venue acoustics also play a big role; the same choir singing in a typical modern church building sounds very different than when it sings in a reverberant cathedral. Of course, in a studio things are very different, and there are plenty of tricks than can be applied in a studio that don't really apply to live recording.

What bugs me, though, is all of the woo associated with "audiophile" gear. Well-made professional equipment is a better deal, as far as I'm concerned. I can't fault the sound I get from a Focusrite Saffire 14 and my studio monitors, or Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro phones, and that's less than $1000 worth of equipment. Considering what some people spend on cables alone, that's pretty cheap.

I don't see any real advantage in going beyond 48 kHz sampling. 24-bit is nice for recording, since you can set your levels conservatively and have room for unexpectedly loud passages, but it's overkill for playback.
 
2014-04-11 09:22:08 PM
gajitz.comwww.uaw-chrysler.com


dbirchall: How do they get the vinyl inside that little tiny thing?


One record at a time.
 
2014-04-11 11:08:03 PM
Hey, Neil Young of 35 years ago has a special place in my life, since I was likely conceived to his music.
 
2014-04-12 12:19:59 AM
So, the last Neil Young concert that I attended was a year late.  I bought tickets for Neil Young at McNichols in Denver in about 1982.  He had to call that tour off after collapsing on stage for health reasons.  I got tickets for the postponed concert the next year and got a double bill.  It was Neil Young with Crazy Horse to open and the main headliner was Neil Young and the Shocking Pinks rock a billy band.  What a show!
 
2014-04-12 04:10:29 AM
80s Neil Young was actually completely farking awful. 45 years or 25 back, but certainly not 35.
 
2014-04-13 12:51:28 AM

moothemagiccow: 80s Neil Young was actually completely farking awful. 45 years or 25 back, but certainly not 35.


Oh come on.  Maybe you just need a unit to sample and hold
 
2014-04-13 03:56:49 AM

gfid: moothemagiccow: 80s Neil Young was actually completely farking awful. 45 years or 25 back, but certainly not 35.

Oh come on.  Maybe you just need a unit to sample and hold


Neil Young predicted 9-11!!

img.fark.net
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report