OT: New toy out there

[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.

[Old Guy]

I think there will always be a low end market, and a much smaller high end market. IMHO all power to them, but my fear in investing in gear is just how much c0ntent available. As has been mentioned, Jazz and similar stuff would be a good market for this. Not sure most 50's rock recordings would benefit much.

[mah]

192/24 shirt-pocket sized and a lot cheaper: Amazon.com : Fiio X3 Mastering Quality Music Player w/ Wolfson DAC WM8740 24Bit 192K : Digital Media Players : MP3 Players & Accessories

[VolvoHeretic]

Does anyone have experience with remastered CDs? I have only bought the CD versions of LPs from the 70's which are very lacking in the bass department. It would be nice to have the bass mastered for CD only if that would be possible. The highs would be nice also, but I can't hear them anyways.

[mah]

I have a few re-mastered Beatles CDs. I am so comfortable with the originals that I see the new ones as having more apparent top and bottom end that sounds alien to me. A new listener would probably opt for the re-mastered versions.