KVR Audio

nathanj · Post by **nathanj** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:40 pm

Haha,

"@cron: Neil Young is like seventy or what? I guess he doesn't hear much above 12k anyway"

and that is even a generous estimation.

nathanj · Post by **nathanj** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:23 pm

that's why it looks familiar.

sonicpowa · Post by **sonicpowa** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:57 pm

fese wrote:
sonicpowa wrote:
fese wrote:And that marketing blah about their super hires audio being better because it has thirty times more data than mp3 is just BS to get people into paying more money.
It´s not complete BS, but it depends about the quality of the masters of course.
Sorry, but 192Khz is complete BS to me. Neither your ears nor your headphones nor your speakers support that, totally independent of the quality of the master. And of course record companies are interested, as ponomusic claim, as they can sell their stuff again for higher prices. But how many of the recordings were really recorded in 192? I am guessing practically none. Personally I don't care about 96KHz either and I am pretty sure that in a blind test no one can tell the difference to 44.1 or 48, but if it makes people happy, let them believe...
And frankly, if the music is performed, recorded, mixed and mastered well, the format and resolution is somewhat secondary IMHO.

@cron: Neil Young is like seventy or what? I guess he doesn't hear much above 12k anyway

96 or 192kHz samplerate is beneficial for the converters and their filters.
You are guessing that practically none of recordings were really recorded in 192.. Well it´s still different thing for analog recordings for instance:
A/D > 192k > new mastering > 192k/24 Pono song. Compared to:
A/D > 44k > old mastering > 192-320kbps mp3 song, which is lossy codec.

So what is great about the concept is the whole signal path, new mastering and then the quality components of the Pono player. The higher samplerate is not even relevant, it´s the replacement for mp3 conversion.

lfm · Post by **lfm** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:08 pm

I read his autobiography not long ago - and he talked a lot about this musicplayer project, miniature railway controllers and other things.

About his hearing:

There was one episode where he wasn't satisfied with the sound of something, whatever it was, so he ran it through speakers, and then recorded again in 96k or 192k - and listening to that he was satisfied - now it sounds right, he claimed.

That kind of says it all - it's all in his mind/head.

But NY is the coolest guy, and probably the best guitarsound in the business. His Old Black and his Gretsch - how lovely, sound to envie.

nathanj · Post by **nathanj** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:35 pm

I agree that Neil is awesome.

But I feel this project is completely misguided. It's like making a television set that displays the frequency range a butterfly would be able to appreciate (ie. way more subtleties than humans are able to detect).

The basic fact is that we as humans are not perfect receivers of information. sound as we know it is only a small part of the vibrating world. no matter how precise our technologies get, we will never be able to notice the differences above a certain threshold. CD quality is about our glass ceiling.

And yes, as someone mentioned earlier, the processing that occurs at the higher frequencies does impact subtly on the lower frequencies, so you you are doing a ton of eq'ing there is a chance that, on the right system, you might be able to detect a difference, but you would need to be listening for it.

When I read stuff about how this is a new standard all I can think about is manufacturers like Apogee licking their lips at how many people are going to be upgrading their systems to record in 192k. The Hi-fi myth is the same today as it was 40 years ago, a marketing ploy. That is it. As sensory beings, we are imperfect. The Mp3 demonstrated this phenomenally.

While I like the idea of the Pono player, I think that it is a step in the wrong direction.

GeorgeZ · Post by **GeorgeZ** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:51 pm

I'm calling it: BS. Pono is hyped BS. Just my 2c.

Blue-eyed Blonde Ape · Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:50 pm

Cimbasso wrote:My smartphone is mostly filled with .flacs. And it doesn't look like a $400 Toblerone.

And regarding porno music, this is killer stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORD7KAgi8h0

...in glorious 360p

That's great, I wonder what they play these days, cheesy supersaw crap like all over the radio stations would totally ruin porno

Back to good old gray and white silent porno

Sendy · Post by **Sendy** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:55 pm

Some people actually prefer the mp3-ified versions of their tracks. Sometimes it feels like it strips some of the harshness away (which is odd, because the harshest frequencies should be the most dominant, and hence the least likely to be stripped out by the compression).

Burillo · Post by **Burillo** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:15 pm

Sendy wrote:Some people actually prefer the mp3-ified versions of their tracks. Sometimes it feels like it strips some of the harshness away (which is odd, because the harshest frequencies should be the most dominant, and hence the least likely to be stripped out by the compression).

IIRC the "harshness" is in the higher end of the spectrum, and MP3 loses the most in that part of the spectrum. so it actually makes sense.

DuX · Post by **DuX** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:51 pm

11:47 of hogwash.

The biggest difference in what the track sounds like makes the quality of mixing and mastering of it. CDs can sound perfect but they ruined it with loudness wars. Now they say that CDs sound bad just because 44.1/16 is not good enough, blaming it on the format instead of blaming themselves for mixing overcompressed garbage for decades. It's sheer load of rubbish coming from the music industry.

They want you to stop listening MP3s, CDs and iTunes and spend your money buying music the way it used to be decades ago from them at the "good old prices"... it's just pure greed.

However, it seems like the device itself is great and it can play any kind of files, so you're not obligated to just buy music exclusively from the PonoStore. They say that in FAQ, at least. I do like and prefer FLAC encoded files to MP3s by a large margin because I can easily tell the difference and I usually listen to music on high quality speakers and headphones only, but 48kHz/24bit FLAC should be more than enough quality for anybody. The biggest change in quality will come from the different way of mixing and mastering, that is - do away with overlimiting and overcompression and using some kind of ReplayGain or R128.

But I think 400$ is way too expensive for such a little portable player.

fese · Post by **fese** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 7:35 pm

DuX wrote:...But I think 400$ is way too expensive for such a little portable player.

But it uses minimum phase filters instead of linear phase! I am sure that innovation must be worth a couple of bucks!

From their website:

The PonoPlayer will show you, via its user interface and a special “light” (to indicate a certified PonoMusic song) exactly what quality level you are hearing - when you are hearing Pono quality, and when you are not. If the light is lit, then the music you are listening to is Pono-certified as the best available quality.

Haha, I didn't see that the first time. So they light a light when the device is playing music you bought at their shop or what? Hilarious.

DuX · Post by **DuX** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:56 pm

Regarding minimal phase vs linear phase filters we could have a whole thread devoted to just that and I'm sure there is one on KVR. I'm sure Aleksey-Voxengo "the audio scientist" [who I really appreciate much] would have something to say about that.

Anyway, the differences are so minuscule that it's not even worth mentioning and it's all just geek talk for audio detail maniacs like me who can really understand it. Having said that I do prefer minimal phase LP filtering to linear phase when I convert samples to higher or lower sampling rate, but Aleksey wouldn't agree. He prefers linear phase filters and I think he's right. I prefer minimal phase filters just because they sound better to me, just the same what these Pono-guys claim.

Linear phase filtering is a digital "invention" only. It does introduce a tiny bit of "ringing" that nobody can hear [not even comparable to ringing MP3 and other lossy audio formats "pleases" you with], but is otherwise digitally perfect. Minimal phase LP filtering is of analog kind and doesn't introduce this tiny little bit of ringing in the passband frequencies but it doesn't preserve the phase of audio intact which is more important in many cases than an average home-recording guy could understand, but those who regularly encounter with the audio phase issues can. I'm not trying to discredit anyone, just telling how things are.

What's important to understand here is not linear against minimal phase low pass [or high cut] filtering issue which is really not worth mentioning and not even the sample rate. What's important is that you can play music at some really nice audio quality like 48kHz/24bit with this player, but as I said that is also not so important for as long as people limit the shit out of their music. This excrement that people release could as well be 32kHz/8bit and nobody would notice the difference.

Play that at any sampling frequency and bit depth and it will sound the same [krap].

Then there's also Mr. Dan Lavry who I regard as one of the most knowledgeable digital audio scientists and makes some of the best AD/DA converters in the world who claims that anything beyond 96kHz is not worth it and I believe him. Just google it and see what he says about higher sampling rates than 96kHz. I will save you the trouble, here: http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/la ... _audio.pdf It's a very well known document amongst the knowledgeable audio people who pay attention to details like me.

Cheers!

Josmoker · Post by **Josmoker** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:08 pm

I just ran into this http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html on the net and thought it fits nicely. It's nice to see arguments why 192kHz can be worse for audio quality for a change.
Funny there's a light on the player letting you know when you're listening to a Ponomusic track - tipping off your confirmation bias to keep you from accidentally running a blind test.

fese · Post by **fese** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:50 pm

DuX wrote:Regarding minimal phase vs linear phase filters we could have a whole thread devoted to just that and I'm sure there is one on KVR. I'm sure Aleksey-Voxengo "the audio scientist" [who I really appreciate much] would have something to say about that. Anyway, the differences are so minuscule that it's not even worth mentioning and it's all just geek talk for audio detail maniacs like me who can really understand it. Having said that I do prefer minimal phase LP filtering to linear phase when I convert samples to higher or lower sampling rate, but Aleksey wouldn't agree. He prefers linear phase filters and I think he's right. I prefer minimal phase filters just because they sound better to me, just the same what these Pono-guys claim. Linear phase filtering is a digital "invention" only. It does introduce a tiny bit of "ringing" that nobody can hear [not even comparable to ringing MP3 and other lossy audio formats "pleases" you with], but is otherwise digitally perfect. Minimal phase LP filtering is of analog kind and doesn't introduce this tiny little bit of ringing in the passband frequencies but it doesn't preserve the phase of audio intact which is more important in many cases than an average home-recording guy could understand, but those who regularly encounter with the audio phase issues can. I'm not trying to discredit anyone, just telling how things are.

My comment on them using MP were a tad sarcastic for using really old - not bad! - technology as a unique selling point. But thanks for clariyfing that that "ringing" is not an issue. Confirms my opinion that a lot of those discussions around audio formats and technology are very theoretical. Especially when, as you already correctly stated, most music especially in pop/dance has a dynamic range that would fit into 8bit easily.

DuX wrote: Then there's also Mr. Dan Lavry who I regard as one of the most knowledgeable digital audio scientists and makes some of the best AD/DA converters in the world who claims that anything beyond 96kHz is not worth it and I believe him. Just google it and see what he says about higher sampling rates than 96kHz. I will save you the trouble, here: http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/la ... _audio.pdf It's a very well known document amongst the knowledgeable audio people who pay attention to details like me.

A good read and a very sensible guy obviously. I agree that 96Khz can be beneficial in the recording process, but as a consumer format 44.1/48Hz should be enough for anybody. Good converters can of course help too, but before that personally I'd rather invest more in speakers and room treatment.
Anyhoo, even if I listen to music via simple headphones on my phone I can have fun when I like the music and the song is well produced. Listening to a crap production is no fun no matter how highend the devices are.

Monty's essay on sampling rates is good, too, and anyone working with digital audio should watch his digital media primers, they are excellent and fun to watch! (http://www.xiph.org/video/)

sonicpowa · Post by **sonicpowa** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:39 pm

DuX wrote:The biggest difference in what the track sounds like makes the quality of mixing and mastering of it. CDs can sound perfect but they ruined it with loudness wars. Now they say that CDs sound bad just because 44.1/16 is not good enough, blaming it on the format instead of blaming themselves for mixing overcompressed garbage for decades. It's sheer load of rubbish coming from the music industry.

They want you to stop listening MP3s, CDs and iTunes and spend your money buying music the way it used to be decades ago from them at the "good old prices"... it's just pure greed.

I agree that CDs can sound perfect if mixing and mastering is perfect. 192k audio is overkill. 48k/24bit is fine with plenty of headroom for the D/A converter filter. But.. if I do a song recorded at samplerate 96k there´s now no need to unnecessarily downsample it to 44.1k. And digital comps works best at 88k or higher.