Ponomusic

How to do this, that and the other. Share, learn, teach. How did X do that? How can I sound like Y?
Keith99
KVRian
1226 posts since 15 Mar, 2007 from Yorkshire, England

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:30 am

Must support this initiative: http://www.ponomusic.com/#home

I am fed up with low quality mp3!

User avatar
Blue-eyed Blonde Ape
Banned
300 posts since 19 Nov, 2013 from Abandoned Spaceship

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:51 am

Nothing ruins a good porno music like a background mp3 does, I demand quality sound for porno and better future!
I have CD's which I ripped to flac, converted Flac to mp3, archived flac versions on a dvd and burned flac as a CD, talk about insane preservation, enter me lol
Soundbanks for Serum, Bazille, Diva, lush-101, Zebra2, Monark... Here

nathanj
KVRist
127 posts since 23 Mar, 2013

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:10 am

Personally, I find this to be misguided. This is just a continuation of the hi-fi rhetoric that has fueled stereo system sales for the last 100 years. The idea that the device becomes transparent is utterly ridiculous. There is no way you can notice the difference between a 320k mp3 and this on a regular set of headphones, especially when you are out walking. if you think you can tell the difference, good for you.

I don't doubt that on a good stereo system this will sound better than mp3s, but as a portable device it is utterly useless. if only we all had neil's car stereo...

fese
KVRian
897 posts since 14 Sep, 2004 from $HOME

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:21 am

That name is really stupid, sorry. Half of mankind will definitely associate porno with it ;)
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.
But maybe my pet bat will enjoy 192Khz. Too bad I have no speakers nor headphones that support frequencies that high...
But then as we all know hifi freaks like to pay extra money even for the most useless nonsense if it makes them feel special.

Keith99
KVRian
1226 posts since 15 Mar, 2007 from Yorkshire, England

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:30 am

Still think it is a positive initiative. While the highest quality mp3's are great most of what we listen to is still in low quality e.g. soundcloud

nathanj
KVRist
127 posts since 23 Mar, 2013

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:37 am

i agree that it is an interesting initiative. i just think that it is largely based on fallacy. they still haven't answered the most important question yet though, which is how many mp3s can it hold?

fese
KVRian
897 posts since 14 Sep, 2004 from $HOME

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:43 am

Well, soundcloud, YouTube and so on usually have lower quality because they stream and it is free for you, but streaming traffic and infrastructure still costs money. Ponomusic doesn't stream (yet).
I like that they use FLAC, it is a good, patent free format and with today's storage capacities, the higher space requirements don't really matter that much anymore. But there is really no need for hires or super hires audio...

@nathanj: they don't use mp3, and they specify that they offer up to 128GB of storage.

nathanj
KVRist
127 posts since 23 Mar, 2013

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:47 am

i was joking.

User avatar
Sendy
KVRAF
5230 posts since 20 Jul, 2010

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:51 am

Ponomusic

Ponomusic

Ponomusic

Ponomusic

Ponomusic

Pornomusic

D'oh! >_<
http://sendy.bandcamp.com/releases < My new album at Bandcamp! Now pay what you like!

Cimbasso
KVRist
331 posts since 22 May, 2012

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:58 am

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 :D
Last edited by Cimbasso on Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

fese
KVRian
897 posts since 14 Sep, 2004 from $HOME

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:09 am

nathanj wrote:i was joking.
I totally didn't get it :D

sonicpowa
KVRian
1095 posts since 3 Jul, 2009

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:10 am

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.
I hope it´s success but isn´t it a tad expensive for the average Joe who has never heard quality music and doesn´t want to invest in it?

Yes, first I read ´porno´music so it´s not so good name.. but that tells more about me than the product.. :hihi:

nathanj
KVRist
127 posts since 23 Mar, 2013

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:15 am

fese wrote:
nathanj wrote:i was joking.
I totally didn't get it :D
understandable. if my comment was in hi-fi i'm sure you would have. :wink:

cron
KVRAF
3067 posts since 27 Dec, 2002 from North East England

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:19 am

Wow, Neil Young is an audio engineer. Who knew?

The whole 24/96 + stuff is obviously bollocks. Feeding your equipment frequencies it isn't designed to deal with has always seemed like a bad idea from a fidelity perspective, let alone doing it just so you can hear all the glorious electromagnetic interference from the studio gear.

Still, I can see the market for a portable player with a good quality output, but I'll believe that once I see measurements. I expect they'll go the way of the BOSE in that regard. It seems to be fairly well along in development and I don't believe any have appeared yet. So, maybe it'll be great to listen to mp3s on, what with them being entirely indistinguishable from the source when properly encoded. Provide your ABX results or GTFO if you believe otherwise. :box:

I can see the Pono store doing well if it secures exclusive masters with a larger dynamic range than the CD/iTunes etc release. The quality of the music you're able to listen to the thing will be the deciding factor. Although their going for FLAC as the distribution format is a generally cool move on their part, walling the product in and delivering exclusive, less compressed versions of albums might have made more commercial sense.
Last edited by cron on Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

fese
KVRian
897 posts since 14 Sep, 2004 from $HOME

Re: Ponomusic

Post Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:32 am

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 :wink:

Return to “Production Techniques”