I've read that the Pono DAC is Sabre 9018. E
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Zhiguang Zhang <ericzh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually scratch that 2nd thought. It would be good to know what DAC the > Pono device contains. > > -EZ > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Zhiguang Zhang <ericzh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Re:Pono, what about the DAC in the device? That could make an audible > and real difference. Also, there is undeniably more information in high > res downloads, if the original master was recorded to tape or to hi-res in > Pro Tools. So, has anyone ever considered the sample-level ‘phase’ effect > of listening to properly mastered hi-res audio if the playback chain is of > a quality that diminishes intermodulation artifacts? > > -EZ > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Ethan Duni <ethan.d...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I like the trend of releasing remastered material, where there is scope > for > >> improved quality. Which isn't always, but there's an entire generation > of > >> albums that were victims of the loudness wars, and various early work by > >> artists that hadn't access to quality mastering at the time, and so on, > >> that can benefit. This has been happening totally independent of Pono. > >> I don't like the Pono music scam because it confounds that (legitimate) > >> aspect with the snake oil about 24 bits and high sampling rates - while > >> charging a premium. There is zero meaningful test results that back > Pono's > >> quality claims (and note how frequently their marketing adds caveats > about > >> comparing to "low-res MP3s," as if it's 1998 or something). And while > there > >> isn't a definitive formal test showing that Pono sucks, there are > multiple > >> informal tests without obvious methodological flaws which show that > Pono is > >> inferior to your regular iTunes downloads. Neil Young says he's going to > >> give you better quality (for 2-3 times the price), and instead delivers > >> *lower* quality (or, maybe, the same, at best). > >> The fact that their own marketing material can't even seem to keep their > >> story straight regarding what the high resolution is or is not supposed > to > >> provide you, seems to me to go to the point that this is all a marketing > >> exercise in bullshitting the consumer with a bunch of ill-founded > claims. > >> For that matter, Pono's implication that one can't get improved masters > via > >> other routes is itself deceptive. > >> I'm also somewhat bemused by Neil Young being the poster boy for this > >> high-resolution snake oil. While I admittedly haven't listened to his > >> entire catalogue, his whole style features low dynamic range, > non-extreme > >> spectrum, and quite high noise floors (typically easily audible at even > >> moderate volume). Which is fine, nothing wrong with the crunchy/vintage > >> rock sound. It just doesn't fit with the whole "we need to be able to > hear > >> stuff at 35kHz and -130dB" delusions. > >> That said, this statement seems problematic: > >>>Whether the higher resolution actually degrades the quality is a topic > up > >> for future debate. > >> I mean, if you personally don't want to debate it right here and now > that's > >> fine. But nobody is obliged to set this stuff aside. It's immediately > >> topical, and the test files for evaluating it have been provided in the > >> xiph link. > >> E > >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Tom Duffy <tdu...@tascam.com> wrote: > >>> So you like the bar being raised, but not the way that Neil Young has > >>> attempted? > >>> > >>> Whether the higher resolution actually degrades the quality is a > >>> topic up for future debate. > >>> > >>> From the ponomusic webpage: > >>> "...and now, with the PonoPlayer, you can finally feel the master in > all > >>> its glory, in its native resolution, CD quality or higher, the way the > >>> artist made it, exactly" > >>> > >>> Even they are not saying it has to be higher than CD quality, just > >>> that it has to have been made well in the first place. > >>> > >>> I don't get why so many people are trying to paint this as > >>> a snake oil pitch. > >>> > >>> --- > >>> Tom. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/10/2015 1:13 PM, Ethan Duni wrote: > >>> I'm all for releasing stuff from improved masters. There's a trend in > my > >>> favorite genre (heavy metal) to rerelease a lot of classics in "full > >>> dynamic range" editions lately. While I'm not sure that all of these > >>> releases really sound much better (how much dynamic range was there in > an > >>> underground death metal recording from 1991 anyway?) I like the trend. > >>> These are regular CD releases, no weird formats (demonstrating that > such is > >>> not required to sell the improved master releases). > >>> > >>> But the thing is that you often *can* hear the extra sampling > frequency - > >>> in the form of additional distortion. It sounds, if anything, *worse* > than > >>> a release with an appropriate sample rate! Trying to sell people on > better > >>> audio, and then giving them a bunch of additional intermodulation > >>> distortion is not a justified marketing ploy, it's outright deceptive > and > >>> abusive. This is working from the assumption that your customers are > >>> idiots, and that you should exploit that to make money, irrespective of > >>> whether audio quality is harmed or not. The fact the Neil Young is > himself > >>> one of the suckers renders this less objectionable, but only slightly. > >>> Anyway Pono is already a byword for "audiophile snake oil" so > hopefully the > >>> damage will mostly be limited to the bank accounts of Mr. Young and his > >>> various financial backers in this idiocy. Sounds like the product is a > real > >>> dog in industrial design terms anyway (no hold button, awkward shape, > >>> etc.). Good riddance... > >>> > >>> E > >>> -- > >>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > >>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book > reviews, > >>> dsp links > >>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > >>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > >>> > >>> > >>> NOTICE: This electronic mail message and its contents, including any > >>> attachments hereto (collectively, "this e-mail"), is hereby designated > as > >>> "confidential and proprietary." This e-mail may be viewed and used > only by > >>> the person to whom it has been sent and his/her employer solely for the > >>> express purpose for which it has been disclosed and only in accordance > with > >>> any confidentiality or non-disclosure (or similar) agreement between > TEAC > >>> Corporation or its affiliates and said employer, and may not be > disclosed > >>> to any other person or entity. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > >>> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book > reviews, > >>> dsp links > >>> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > >>> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > >>> > >> -- > >> dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > >> subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book > reviews, dsp links > >> http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > >> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > -- > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: > subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, > dsp links > http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp > http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp > -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
