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