PONO - Where Music Lives

^ comments section is predictable "I can hear the difference!" "No you can't!" but the author has the last laugh:

Your weeping is not science.

"heck for, around 1000 or 1200 you could outfit a great turntable, amp, and speakers!"
Could you make do with half that?

I think UMS has convinced me I should get a DAC for my MacBook. Is Dragonfly the best balanced DAC in the $100-150 range or is there a better one? Dragonfly doesn't inflate the bass too much, right?

"heck for, around 1000 or 1200 you could outfit a great turntable, amp, and speakers!"
Could you make do with half that?

― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:51 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sure!

clearance pro-ject - $299

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-7622-pro-ject-debut-iii-matte-black-turntable.aspx

andrew jones pioneer bookshelf speakers - $129

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/PUSA/Home/Speakers/Home+Theater+Speakers/SP-BS22-LR

(review:http://www.stereophile.com/content/pioneer-sp-bs22-lr-loudspeaker-page-2)

It's impressive when a talented speaker designer such as Andrew Jones takes time off from designing $80,000/pair speakers to come up with a quality speaker costing less than $200/pair. It's even more impressive when he takes the time to revise and refine such an inexpensive design. Jones's SP-BS22-LR is a stunning achievement at $159.99/pair. Its sound is balanced, neutral, and involving, with no significant shortcomings. I'm scratching my head at how Pioneer can produce this level of quality at this price. Every audiophile—even well-heeled investment bankers—should listen to the Pioneer SP-BS22-LR, to hear what's possible for the fiscally challenged music lover.

Marantz PM6004 integrated amp (demo on clearance) - $369

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-120522-marantz-pm6004-integrated-amp-demo.aspx

What Hi FI? review (2011 product of the year):

http://www.whathifi.com/review/marantz-pm6004

Total: $797

killer system!

so close to half...

honestly if you want to save...go on Craigslist and I'm sure you could find an older NAD amp/receiver with a phono in for $200

though I'd probably buy 2 Ponos instead if i were you

Marantz PM6004 integrated amp (demo on clearance) - $369

I have the PM5004 (same as above with fewer watts per channel) and it rules. So unbelievably happy with it.

just want to post this here because i find this stuff interesting and the author, tom fine, who runs a well-regarded preservation audio company and knows just ridiculous amounts of stuff on this topic, is amazing. originally posted to a mailing list, i hope he doesn't mind the repost. it was in a thread about the loudness wars and "toothpasting" (so named because the dynamic range compression makes the waveform look like a squeeze of toothpaste). anyway i think it does a little to demonstrate that there aren't any hard-and-fast rules with audio, that it's completely dependent on context all the way from recording to playback, that bad audio is more a result of gaps or lack of understanding of the context of production/reproduction than of inherently "bad" or "good" digital or analog media.

Compression of dynamic range, especially for rock and pop music, is not necessarily bad. In the case of "Graceland," the new reissue DOES sound better than the thin and tinny original CD, to my ears. I could hear it was more compressed, but I like the nice low end and the more natural-sounding voices. Another example where the latest reissue is probably a bit more compressed than the original LP and CD, but sounds better, is Fleetwood Mac "Rumours." Much more solid bass and the EQ decisions of the latest remastering engineer especially brought out the details of the guitar and smaller percussion instruments, without at all damaging the good-sounding voices.

The problem with toothpasting is that it causes clipping distortion from the digital realm into the analog realm.

I was just talking to one of the best mastering guys yesterday, and we did some careful listening in his excellent-sounding room (you gotta love a setup where you can do careful listening for half a day and not leave with your ears ringing). The problem with many CDs, up into the 90s, is that A-D converters had problems with phase and high treble. You get something akin to digi-swishies with high-treble information. You notice it in the worse cases with things like ride cymbols, triangles and sleigh bells, but it's always there on the "air and space," which gives that "metallic sheen" that people don't like about CDs. I think the problem was made worse by aggressive and ill-used "hiss reduction" DSP on analog tapes. Tape hiss is much more easily ignored than the strange high-frequency stuff that happens when you try too hard to remove it. The other thing we noticed about many early CDs is lack of bass. We couldn't figure that out, it shouldn't be a problem, but it is. We decided that there might have been under-spec'd power supplies in many early A-D converters, so the analog stage going into the converter couldn't handle a lot of bass energy. The best examples of LP cutting still stand up very favorably to CD, and some of the modern LP cutting bests earlier CD reissues of the same material. When you get into higher-resolution digital, you can (if it's done right) get beyond the high-frequency problems of CDs and most converters of any type today seem to handle bass better, my theory being that people convert and record at lower average levels at 24-bit, so the analog input is not strained with loud bass energy. Back when they were cutting CDs directly from tapes, you had to go full-final levels into the converter, which meant the analog input stage needed to be capable of +24dBm dynamics. Tape machine and console designers had spent the 70s and 80s figuring out how to get clean, loud bass energy and I think it took many digital interface designers some time to catch up, with the end compromise being essentially padding down the input and working in 24 bits (which is desireable anyway in the DAW world because you need headroom for digital EQ, dynamics and other signal processing).

-- Tom Fine

I have these hand-me-downs, or something very similar. Do these stack up against modern marantz?
http://vintagemarantz.net/vintage-marantz-2250b-receiver-marantz-6200-turntable-instant-collection/

I've heard that even with great equipment, the vast majority of people cannot tell the difference between a well-encoded MP3 and a lossless wave file. I've done some side-by-sides and while 128kbps's do indeed sound like garbage once you hit like 192 I really don't see much point in going higher. Can anyone here in all honesty tell the difference?

it depends on the recording. 320 "mastered for itunes" can sound great but it can slaughter other things that were/are not meant for mp3.

lol, baaaaaaad look, Neil.

Taking the microphone, a young man asked: “What’s your cut?” — referring, of course, to Apple’s now-famous 30% cut of sales on the iTunes Store.

Hamm, after a flustered moment, responded that, “It surprises most people that everyone who buys music from the record labels pays exactly the same amount.” At this, several audience members shouted, “What?!”

“That’s a delicate question, isn’t it?” asked Young.

Shortly thereafter, Hamm turned to the moderator, slightly flushed at this point, and said “We can end it.”

“You can answer the question if you like,” Snider said.

Hamm shook his head slightly before Snider closed the discussion.

Pono makes no sense at the math level

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Did anyone read this piece that onlydarkness linked to? Don't think I understood some parts. It links to test samples with 30kHz/26kHz and other tones. The author says:

Assuming your system is actually capable of full 96kHz playback, the above files should be completely silent with no audible noises, tones, whistles, clicks, or other sounds. If you hear anything, your system has a nonlinearity causing audible intermodulation of the ultrasonics.

Is the point here that you're supposed to get silence - meaning this kind of detail is useless - or that most people can hear something, showing that few systems are up to it and will introduce distortion? Because listening on an iMac - which I think is capable of 96kHz playback - I can easily hear things going on and I definitely don't have good ears.

audiophilia sure does take the fun out of music doesn't it?

i doubt my crackly old Charlie Parker albums will sound any better in 192/24 and neither do I think Kid A or Immer or Reign in Blood or SHaking The Habitual or any album made before or after this date will sound better in that quality, because I am a human being with ears and a song is a song and a guitar sounds like a guitar. What I mean is that for a start you'd have to be recording in that level of quality, and even if you manage to do that, what are you going to be picking up? A bit of extra hiss from a mic? Sympathetic reverb from a snare? A background cough? IT's like wishing that my acoustic guitar at home sounded "better". I could buy a more expensive guitar, but would it sound more real? Would it make a lick of difference?

(xpost to budget hifi discussion)

i've been reading about a killer turntable that clocks in at $179.
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/u-turn%E2%80%99s-remarkable-179-orbit-turntable-crosley-killer

I take people's word for it that it's junk science but in the same way organic/pasture-raised food is likely of dubious benefit in certain contexts, I think people who still use it exercise a greater care with most steps until the final product, and likewise something created in that chain of higher resolution audio would probably sound different/better, regardless of whether the extra bits of fidelity were necessary.

I could buy a more expensive guitar, but would it sound more real? Would it make a lick of difference?

yes

a better guitar would sound better, but it won't sound any more like a guitar.

I'm just curious where the market is for $20+ digital albums

When I want to demo my highest of hi-fi set ups, I always reach for Neil Young first. Then Steely Dan. But always Neil first, because those albums are like reference quality fidelity.

almost believed you there

Time Fades Away was recorded directly from the soundboard to 16-track using the Quad-8 CompuMix, the unreliable first digital mixing soundboard—against the wishes of producer David Briggs, who referred to it as the "Compufuck" but was forced to yield to the desires of Young. This resulted in a murky-sounding release.

Murky, maybe, but perfectly murky in PONO.

Note: this vinyl rip is in HD (!), but don't tell Neil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLv2VviaLX4

I'm just curious where the market is for $20+ digital albums

The big fish that are also the market for F2P games?

play Buffalo Springfield for awhile before every listen to heighten your enjoyment of what comes after

relationship problems? call coked-up Stills and chat for 15 minutes. your relationship is now enhanced.

Prince and Neil Young should collaborate on an instantly outmoded music distribution model.

Harvest is a great sounding record

while 128kbps's do indeed sound like garbage once you hit like 192 I really don't see much point in going higher. Can anyone here in all honesty tell the difference?

Yep, absolutely. I don't know whether that's because I've got better ears than you, or better playback equipment. Where I start to hit my limits is in the comparison between 320 kpbs and lossless files. While I can hear a difference, it's barely discernable.

192 is it for me.

I can only tell the difference once I start playing out on larger pa systems. A portable player? Nah, any detail gets drowned out by the train carriage.

I think better playback equipment makes the difference here, although sometimes that difference might just be due to poor (non-LAME) encoding for the MP3s.

Josh are you claiming that Harvest or Gold Rush or Harvest Moon or most of Neil's records are lo fi?

haha look out

This idea that better sound equipment does not sound clearly and radically and obviously better than shitty equipment or that you need some sort of super human ears to tell the difference is ridiculous

Like listen to a good system you'll be like dag bro those tunes sound off the chain

i mean people take it too far and get crazy for sure, there's diminishing returns at a certain level with anything...like with bit rate there's the difference between 128k and 320k...and there's improvement after that but the difference between 320 and WAV won't be as apparent as the difference between 128 and 320

same with the very nice, affordable system i put together for 700 upthread...HUGE difference between that and plugging your ipod into some shitty Bose sound dock...but go from like a $1500 system to a $50,000 one and yeah it'll be better for sure but the rate of improvement's going to flatten out...

same with a a guitar....like the difference between a laminate p.o.s. $150 acoustic and a nice all wood $1000 guitar is huge....from the $1000 one to some luthier made handcrafted one of a kind $4500 guitar....well, it's perception more at that point....

but that doesn't mean that there aren't very reasonable and apparent degrees of distinction especially going from shitty stuff to good solid quality yet affordable stuff

and it's not like "oh i hear this new esoteric high end sounds" it's like i NOTICE things in songs i never heard before. like i was listening to court & spark by joni for the first time on vinyl and i noticed like little shakers and percussion things i'd never noticed before

harvest moon doesn't sound too great to me

I dunno about guitars -- would you prefer to hear your favorite artist live on a crap guitar or on a pono with the best guitar?

UMS relentlessly OTM here imo

Harvest Moon -- like This Note's For You, Freedom, Ragged Glory, and Arc/Weld -- was recorded digitally.

It only took Neil five years, and five albums, to realize he didn't like the sound of digital recording.

xxp

man forget sound quality, who's got the hard drive space for flacs

the reverb on harvest moon bothers me.

can pono give me dry gold rush sound on harvest moon? would buy.

Josh are you claiming that Harvest or Gold Rush or Harvest Moon or most of Neil's records are lo fi?

Nah, Harvest sounds great. Gold Rush is hit or miss sonically, imo. Most of his records are pretty hit or miss, sonically, or even outright uneven, recording quality-wise, imo, but it doesn't matter. Same with Dylan. Like, am I listening for every ghosted snare on "Ragged Glory?" The perfect fidelity of the wrong bass notes hit throughout "Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere?" Neil's not about hi-fi overdubs and perfect clarity, and the notion of Neil Young in hi-fi to me is like bringing a top of the line digital recorder to capture Crazy Horse live: you're going to get all that distortion, all those flubbed notes, all those vocals shouted anywhere but into the mic, in glorious pristine quality? Please. That's not what it's about.

Which brings it all back to the ridiculousness of an old guy who surely must have some serious degree of hearing loss and who definitely has a weakness for novelty recording methods and who historically prefers to capture his recordings live, with minimal takes/overdubs, pushing some weird proprietary device/format in 2014. Suckers who shell for this are just as silly as anyone who bought Archives on Blu-Ray and are still waiting around for more downloads.

the notion of Neil Young in hi-fi to me is like bringing a top of the line digital recorder to capture Crazy Horse live: you're going to get all that distortion, all those flubbed notes, all those vocals shouted anywhere but into the mic, in glorious pristine quality? Please. That's not what it's about.

i wholeheartedly disagree with this

man forget sound quality, who's got the hard drive space for flacs

― j., Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:08 PM (17 minutes ago)

you gotta be kidding me, storage is cheaper than ever

I have like 6,000 FLAC albums on a 3 TB drive with room to spare and many more thousands of MP3 albums that I never listen to any more, the drive cost me $125

hey i'm straight up wondering how many vegetables i can afford to buy this week to sustain my existence, sounds like it would be sweet to be rolling in terabytes like the one-percenters tho, instead playing delete-another-album on my aging 230 gig factory drive, cheaper than ever my ass

pomme de terre-a-bytes