OT: New toy out there

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.?

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

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

Glitch (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opiuo - Fizzle Tickler - YouTube

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Joyspring, thank you for your considered comment.

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.

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

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. :)

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.

Remasters are always a hit-or-miss affair for a variety of reasons though even the original vinyl releases could and often did have sonic variation during their production runs.

First and foremost, time is never kind to masters on analogue magnetic tape. Much depends on how they were stored and cared for in the intervening years from LP pressing to digital remaster. Many succumbed to these effects.

Second is how faithful operators were in aligning analogue tape machines. In the 1980s as I recall, engineers were (mostly) diligent about this but then again many were using extremely old and worn MRL alignment tapes which - at worst - could result in audible octave-to-octave variation.

Cutting engineers would sometimes tailor EQ to taste... their taste, depending on their experience.

How worn were the stampers that produced the vinyl LP you own that contain the sound that you remember? There always existed the possibility of slight audible variations during a production run depending on QC.

Finally, there is the taste of the remaster producer and engineer...

For early re-releases on CD in particular, often very little was done during the transfer other than correcting gross sonic defects, probably in a rush to quickly build a CD library.

For others, the producers and engineers sought to utilise the extra bandwidth and S/N of the CD medium that simply did not exist on vinyl LP and made decisions that perhaps were not the most faithful to the original release, to put it charitably.

A couple examples I can recall: Blue Note LP releases vs. Blue Note CD re-releases vs. recent Blue Note RVG (Rudy Van Gelder) re-releases. Obviously, the RVG remasters have better bandwidth and would probably sound better to listeners unacquainted with the original LPs, but personally I prefer the older CD re-releases because they do sound closer to the LPs I'm familiar with in spite of their sonic defects.

Another particularly apparent example: the original Columbia LP release of Miles Davis `Milestones' vs. the Columbia CD re-release and in particular, the fourth track `Miles'...

The LP track includes a snare fill preceding the downbeat that is sharply abbreviated on the CD track; I'm sure this was done because of the condition of the analogue magnetic master... I've always found this extremely annoying personally however necessary.

In many ways, I appreciate digital recording and workflow as it cuts out many of the steps where sonic variation from the original mix may inadvertently or intentionally occur, often through the inadequacies of the analogue medium (bandwidth, noise or age/wear in the case of remasters). There still remains the case that mastering will significantly alter the sound though.

Hope this offers some insight on the processes involved.

BobR

More toys.....Auto Tune. Anyone can sing with Auto-Tune - YouTube