Jeff Wexler Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Neil Young's high-quality music service PonoMusic raised over $6 million via Kickstarter last year. Earlier today, the PonoMusic store launched, offering a selection of new and classic albums in high quality formats. The PonoPlayer is available to preorder online for February delivery, but The Verge reports reports that the player will be available at Fry's retail stores on Monday (January 12) for $399. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Little background on the etymology of "Pono" a Hawaiian word, which loosely translated means righteousness. Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness Neil has a house over on Big Island and back in the day used to come over to Honolulu to record / write. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Sonnenfeld Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 I gave to the kickstarter last year and received my Pono about a month ago. Very happy wth it! If you are a good listener you do hear a difference. But it really is for the discerning user. Sub par headphones and it makes no difference. I listen on Sennheiser Momentum over ear and I can hear it well on those. The shape is strange. I don't take it with me as much as I would like to but for those longer trips where I don't mind carrying it, it's great! For me, not everyday on the subway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'm sure it sounds good but doesn't seem very pocket-friendly. I'm sure they thought about this, I wonder what the logic of the shape is? phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Sonnenfeld Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 It's actually pretty nice if you want to use it at home. It sits nicely and you can use the screen (which isn't very good but it works.) It sits well, literally, with other pieces of home audio gear and with a proper line output, you can connect it to a receiver or amp without anything extra. The shape also feels good in the hand when you do hold it and take it with you. Certainly more winter jacket friendly than summer clothes though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'm sure it sounds good but doesn't seem very pocket-friendly. I'm sure they thought about this, I wonder what the logic of the shape is? phil p In the video Neil Young says they wanted a shape that was "iconic" --- maybe he meant conical? The shape of the original iPod is about as iconic as you can get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 If I will put this in my mother ears and tell me the difference between Pono ("high quality") and CD player ("low quality"); I will be a pony. An average listener cannot understand the big difference between .wav and .mp3; not even the difference between .wav and .wav .. You want more money dear Neil Young? Wrote your fucking beautiful music. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 This reminds me: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol5_no3/listening_to_storage.htm Can you imagine what did he wrote? "the Hitachi sounded very ethereal, almost out of phase, and rated it lowest; the Seagate was sharper with a more thumpy bass, slightly brighter with a slight tendency to sibilance. Both lacked much drive in presenting the Madonna track, and were certainly 'mushy' compared with the best sound quality we'd heard from the QNAP stable.Drive three (a solid state type) gave a far from subtle shift in tone and soundstaging. I thought that here this Kingston SSD spread the stage wider, could really pull apart the multi-track layers, and certainly led in blackness too, sounding agreeably quieter than it had any right to. Yet there was also a dull flatness to its presentation, even a graying of timbre. " WTF? I can't believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Tuzo Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 If I will put this in my mother ears and tell me the difference between Pono ("high quality") and CD player ("low quality"); I will be a pony. An average listener cannot understand the big difference between .wav and .mp3; not even the difference between .wav and .wav .. You want more money dear Neil Young? Wrote your fucking beautiful music. -1 Or you could spare yourself all the anger and just not buy one. As for your second post, I totally agree. We're entering oxygen-free AC cable territory with this one. Most people with expendable income find something to bleed it on. No exception here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEndian Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 This reminds me: http://www.enjoythemusic.com/hificritic/vol5_no3/listening_to_storage.htm Can you imagine what did he wrote? "the Hitachi sounded very ethereal, almost out of phase, and rated it lowest; the Seagate was sharper with a more thumpy bass, slightly brighter with a slight tendency to sibilance. Both lacked much drive in presenting the Madonna track, and were certainly 'mushy' compared with the best sound quality we'd heard from the QNAP stable. Drive three (a solid state type) gave a far from subtle shift in tone and soundstaging. I thought that here this Kingston SSD spread the stage wider, could really pull apart the multi-track layers, and certainly led in blackness too, sounding agreeably quieter than it had any right to. Yet there was also a dull flatness to its presentation, even a graying of timbre. " WTF? I can't believe it. This article boggles my mind. These guys are so sure there's a difference between drives, but they have no idea what's going on (he admits so). Can we try not to make conclusions without properly supporting those conclusions? The question is directed at the human race as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 WTF? I can't believe it. Wait, let me check the meter... I thought so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abe Dolinger Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Reminds me of one of my favorite audiophile debunkings - http://gizmodo.com/363154/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymz Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Not convinced at all about higher sample rates. I'm sure the player sounds great, it's using the best DAC chip on the market (ESS Sabre 9018) and other DAC/Headphone amps using it cost way more than 400 USD. But c'mon...a man who's net worth is 65 million......using kickstarter to fund a business venture.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Never invest your own money when others are willing. Why do you think the rich stay rich? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 If I will put this in my mother ears and tell me the difference between Pono ("high quality") and CD player ("low quality"); I will be a pony. An average listener cannot understand the big difference between .wav and .mp3; not even the difference between .wav and .wav .. You want more money dear Neil Young? Wrote your fucking beautiful music. -1 CD players are not low quality in this context. Mp3s are. Maybe your mother isn't the best person for this comparison (depends on her age). And not all mp3s are created equally, even though the commercials seem to suggest this ("wow, it's digital quality!" - just a few years ago). An Mp3 can be pretty high quality or very low, but the term Mp3 doesn't say anything about the quality. At 128 kbps, which seems to be something of a standard, I am pretty sure many listeners will hear a difference. But anyway, even the imagined impression of higher quality (paired with good headphones) may give listeners a more pleasurable experience. What's wrong with that? This is not at all like the audiophile craze. This drive for higher quality is something we, as audio professionals, should be thrilled about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Sonnenfeld Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 CD players are not low quality in this context. Mp3s are. Maybe your mother isn't the best person for this comparison (depends on her age). And not all mp3s are created equally, even though the commercials seem to suggest this ("wow, it's digital quality!" - just a few years ago). An Mp3 can be pretty high quality or very low, but the term Mp3 doesn't say anything about the quality. At 128 kbps, which seems to be something of a standard, I am pretty sure many listeners will hear a difference. But anyway, even the imagined impression of higher quality (paired with good headphones) may give listeners a more pleasurable experience. What's wrong with that? This is not at all like the audiophile craze. This drive for higher quality is something we, as audio professionals, should be thrilled about. +1 For all those complaining about it being a waste, listen to one yourself before judging the product. It's a good product. It does what it claims. I can A/B my iPhone and hear a difference. It's clearer and richer. Overall there is more depth to the music with really nice dynamics. As stated it could just be the DAC and headphone amp and not the sample rate but of you're serious about listening to music then it may be worth it to you. Frankly it sounds like more people are offended with Neil Young using Kickstarter than with the product he made. Is it not possible to separate the two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Duffy Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 I was waiting with much interest to see what the PonoMusic service has to offer. Doing a casual search, most of the content is 44.1kHz / 16 bit (i.e. relicensed CD rips). I still stand by my forecast that Apple will at some point just turn on 96kHz/24bit options (ALAC format) for all of iTunes, because all mastered-for-itunes content is submitted to them as WAVs at that resolution to start with. Adding : quick comparison: Norah Jones : Feels like Home 192kHz/24bit. Ponomusic : $24.79 or each track $2.49 (total 13 available) (FLAC only) hdtracks : $24.98 for album only. (FLAC/WAV/ALAC/AIFF). So pono at least gives you the oppotunity of per-track purchase, and is a little cheaper. For albums with 10 tracks on it, the album price is still $24.79 though, hardly a bargain. hdtracks also lets you get a 96/24 version for $5 less. Here's where it gets ridiculous: amazon.com mp3 album $9.49 physical CD : $5.99 (new/prime) physical CD : $4.00 (used including shipping) <-- no money goes to the artist though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Sonnenfeld Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 Here's where it gets ridiculous: amazon.com mp3 album $9.49 physical CD : $5.99 (new/prime) physical CD : $4.00 (used including shipping) <-- no money goes to the artist though. Interesting how the mp3 album is $3.50 more than the physical CD. Yet the physical CD needed to be physically made, packaged, shipped to a warehouse, shipped to you. AND the CD includes "Auto Rip" where you get a free mp3 version of the album instantly anyway. Clearly, music pricing nowadays has little rhyme or reason and that's a big problem in itself. It's true that Apple does have the higher resolution and I agree that it's only a matter of time. But you don't really "own" any of the content that you buy from Apple. It is tied to your Apple ID, not really to you. I remember there was a rumor that went around that Bruce Willis was trying to start a class action law suit against Apple because he was unable to put his iTunes music collection in his will for his children. The rumor turned out to be false but I remember thinking that the problem was very real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 8, 2015 Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 It's true that Apple does have the higher resolution and I agree that it's only a matter of time. But you don't really "own" any of the content that you buy from Apple. It is tied to your Apple ID, not really to you. Unless you convert it to some other format. Any format, really, and there is no more tie to an Apple ID, and you can bequeath the music to your children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2015 "But you don't really "own" any of the content that you buy from Apple. It is tied to your Apple ID, not really to you." This is not true (and was only sort of true in the very early days of iTunes) and your Apple ID IS you --- you fully own your music and Apple identifies you as the owner through your Apple ID (your Apple identification). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Duffy Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 The only thing you're not allowed to do, which is where the Bruce Willis thing came up, is to give someone else your Apple ID credentials so they can go in and download the files again. Once you have the songs that you purchased downloaded, they are yours to move around and play, but if they get lost, only you with your Apple ID can re-download them. i.e. there is no "transfer of ownership" possible, you can't legally give away or re-sell or bequeath the digital download. Apple made it very difficult to use two Apple IDs on the same computer (itunes wipes your ipod/iphone downloads when you change IDs), but the files can of course be copied around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syncsound Posted January 9, 2015 Report Share Posted January 9, 2015 Reminds me of one of my favorite audiophile debunkings - http://gizmodo.com/363154/audiophile-deathmatch-monster-cables-vs-a-coat-hanger Ah, the classics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted January 12, 2015 Report Share Posted January 12, 2015 https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDirckze Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 Another article about Pono... http://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-what-neil-young-is-selling-1678446860?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Duffy Posted January 13, 2015 Report Share Posted January 13, 2015 https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2 Flawed experiment, refuted in many places, e.g. http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=1497 The paper doesn't contain enough details for anyone else to repeat the test either. As for the Gizmodo article: FacePalm. Mr Young has for decades listened to his songs and those of his contemporaries in the control room of the recording studio. He wants everyone to be able to experience that level of detail. THe current methods of delivery add a soul-crushing radio-friendly compression (audio, not mp3) on top. Hi-Rez audio files embody the promise that they are done from the original recording studio source, not a mastered for radio / mastered for in-ear phones version. If the files are delivered as Hi-Rez, the customer has to have hardware that can deal with them, therefore that hardware is more likely to use premium components. This all adds up to a better experience. pundits jump on the first claim that the delivery needs to be hirez to be good, and try to debunk that. Pricing the pono at $399 makes it easy to separate the people that aren't going to appreciate the attention to detail. Sony went a bit too far with a $1299 walkman though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.279748a58a2b862b7aa5f3b84126e232.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.