OT: New toy out there

[Old Guy]

Neil Young unveils Pono music player | News | Classic Rock

Had to chuckle at-

?When the folks at Pono provide us with scientific evidence which proves that 192kHz/24-bit audio is better than the CD-quality standard, we?ll let you know.?

[SD-50]

Those boneheads at Gizmodo can keep their MP3 players, I'm all for any device that enhances my music experience.

[604man]

Another digital contraption to play "Glitch" music on.....GC

Glitch (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opiuo - Fizzle Tickler - YouTube

[mah]

I'm with OG.

Any improvement in music delivered via high sampling rate media is probably due to the better mixing/mastering used for product aimed at higher-end users.

The Emperor?s New Sampling Rate -- Are CDs Actually Good Enough?

[westend9]

I dunno', as I get a more resolved system, I can hear a difference between higher rate players and CD standard (or may be a better DAC). I have a Japanese 30 bit disc that outshines any CD I have.

[VolvoHeretic]

All of the music I have replaced with CDs was mastered 35 to 45 years ago. How does this new tech make my life better?

[Altec Best]

The best format has already been made IMHO . That is vinyl,to be exact half speed masters sound really nice.Digital music is more of a convenience IMO.

[mah]

Nothing new but the sales blurb: Kirkville | What’s the Point of Pono? And Why Are Pono’s Numbers Bogus?

[joyspring]

FWIW, the (alleged) underlying codec FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is an excellent.. It handles any sensible word length (4-32 bit) and sample rate (up to 640 kHz) and unlike MP3, AAC and other lossy codecs, FLAC is LOSSLESS. Hardly `glitch' sound. As an additional, appreciable benefit, FLAC (unlike the popular commercial Meridian Lossless Packing) is Free Software covered under GNU GPL and BSD licences.

While the original URL posted now results in a 404, the quote referenced brings up two points:

?When the folks at Pono provide us with scientific evidence which proves that 192kHz/24-bit audio is better than the CD-quality standard, we?ll let you know.?

1. The obvious technical answer is that yes, 24-bit word length and 192 kHz sample rate is far better than Redbook CD 16-bit / 44 kHz.

I work with 24-bit / 96 kHz regularly and less often with 24-bit / 192 kHz; for content creation, the much lower noise floor and resulting increase in dynamic range and higher bandwidth offers immense latitude recording-, editing- and mixing-wise. This greatly increases the quality of the end-product, whether it is Dolby Digital or a standard 16/44.1 CD.

2. The second is not so obvious: is 24-bit / 96 khz or 24-bit / 192 kHz necessary for the end-user playback?

Depends on the content and the listening environment.

For classical in general, probably yes. Small group jazz, possibly yes. In general, playback of modern direct-to-digital-two-track recordings of either high dynamic range (that is, soft-to-loud, not just loud-all-the-time) or exceptionally quiet content (solo clavichord for instance) will benefit, granted you have a very quiet living room or venue.

Otherwise, 16-bit / 44.1 kHz will suffice IMO.

For most multitracked pop / rock, general content of much more limited dynamic range (that is, mostly loud), then probably not. I haven't found many (if any) pop / rock genre CDs for which 16-bit / 44.1 kHz has not sufficed.

To wit: I played Herbie Hancock's `Chameleon' on CD earlier this evening and what was the first thing I heard? Analogue tape noise ;-)

All that said, I support any distribution scheme that offers the greatest range of choice and empowers the end-user. If that scheme embraces an open-source codec, freedom from copy protection and enables large word-length / high sample rate quality audio, then I definitely would support it.

BobR

[mah]

Joyspring, thank you for your considered comment.