Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Neil Young to Debut 'PonoPlayer' High-Definition iPod Competitor This Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People will accidentally buy it thinking it's a Porno Player.
Other than that, what's the point? Are they going to offer a high-definition video cassette player next?
Other than that, what's the point? Are they going to offer a high-definition video cassette player next?
I'm sure that Apple will take note that, as of now, with 5,286 backers, 992 have chosen levels that doesn't include the player... 18% want to give some money to the project, but not $200 or $300.
8.7% of backers are paying $100 for a signed Neil Young poster... They've probably got all his albums on vinyl already.
Apple would probably also note that $150,000 of the total came from 30 people who are willing to spend $5,000 for dinner with Neil Young. They'd probably also note that the 500 Neil Young signature series and 500 Cosby, Stills, Nash & Young signature series are already gone, so this is definitely a Neil Young fan led device.
as of today
7,522
Backers
$2,448,208
pledged of $800,000 goal
33
days to go
and i count 6055 players purchased at several price points.
This is just a follow-up now that I've done some testing. As I indicated before, Airplay on newer ATV units appears to be 48kHz based and while I know Airtunes handled DTS Audio CDs just fine (i.e. 44.1kHz), I wasn't sure about newer versions of Airplay sending to a unit that is known to play 44.1kHz DTS just fine (i.e. 1st Gen ATV). The problem is that the 1st Gen ATV never got an Airplay update so one might assume that iTunes or whatever is simply falling back to an earlier Airtunes protocol (frankly, in audio only mode, I don't know that there's any difference between the two).
So in any case, I've installed "RemoteHD" on my Generation 1 Apple TV units which adds full audio/video Airplay support to them just like the newer units have and this is easily verified by playing a movie or video from my 4th Generation iPod Touch and sending it to my 1st Generation AppleTV in my home theater room. While that works just fine, I've never tried sending a DTS Audio CD from my iPod Touch to the unit over Airplay (only through itso own interface and iTunes, which works fine for playing DTS music to my receiver which decodes it perfectly).
So, to test this, I just copied Alan Parsons' On Air DTS audio CD over to my 4th Generation iPod Touch and tried it out on my home theater Gen 1 AppleTV with Airplay. Once the output volume was set to 100% on the iPod, sure enough, it started playing in 5.1 DTS on my receiver perfectly. This indicates 100% without a doubt that Airplay itself transmits bit-perfect audio to the device it's talking to. So if an Airplay receiver is not playing back DTS Audio CDs over Airplay, there's something it's doing wrong. Newer 2nd and 3rd generation Apple TV units don't play DTS Audio correctly because for some unknown reason it transcodes EVERYTHING to 48kHz if it's not already 48kHz. Thus, it handles DTS just fine for movies that are at 48kHz already, but this screws up the code for 44.1kHz DTS Audio CDs and so they won't plaly back correctly. As you correctly surmise, this also means that ANY audio CD would not play back bit-perfect (transcoded first). I don't believe that hurts normal CDs since it's an up-sample, but clearly purists would hate it. I hate that my DTS Audio CDs won't play on the newer units.
There's no technical reason they shouldn't play unless either the chipset Apple is using doesn't support 44.1KHz playback (highly unlikely, IMO) or more likely their stupid iOS based software doesn't handle it correctly. Since I've never seen Apple comment on the matter, I'm assuming they simply don't give a crap. If enough people complained, perhaps this problem could be resolved. Even the XBMC folk haven't been able to give me a straight answer whether the hardware itself is an issue. It's the lack of a proper device driver in AppleTV's iOS software as far as I can tell.
That should NOT be an issue for a receiver that features Airplay, however unless they're using an Apple chipset that is running some subset of iOS. The format itself clearly doesn't have any such frequency limitation (at least from 44.1-48KHz) or my DTS Audio CDs would not be working over Airplay to my Gen 1 AppleTV units upgraded to support full (video capable) Airplay. The fact it works over Airport Express also shows this (which is also listed as "Airplay" capable now not just "Airtunes" although I think the distinction is moot for audio only).
I do know that with XBMC running on my Gen1 AppleTV, I CAN play 24/96 DTS encoded WAV files as well (iTunes won't import 24/96, so I can't encode it to Apple Lossless even if the format itself might take it or not). I have Depeche Mode's Greatest Hits encoded to 24/96 DTS WAV and it plays over the network just fine (receiver says 24/96 DTS on the front) so that's merely a software limitation as well (i.e. the AppleTV 1st Gen hardware plays it just fine using XBMC).
My point is that it's not Airplay's fault if CDs aren't being played bit perfect on newer ATV hardware. It's the AppleTV chipset and/or OS driver that is to blame. Other hardware supporting Airplay (3rd party or even my 1st Gen ATV that uses 10.4 Tiger as its base) should work just fine with other sampling frequencies.
Edit: I tried one more test; I played the Alan Parsons DTS CD on the 2nd Generation Apple TV upstairs, but sent the output to the first generation AppleTV downstairs. Again, as long as the output volume slider in the ATV interface for speakers was set to maximum volume, I got the DTS album playing perfectly downstairs on the 1st Gen ATV. So that means that the 2nd Gen ATV is receiving the audio intact bit-perfect and is not altering the audio at all until it's sent to its own outputs. Sending it to capable outputs (in this case a 1st Gen ATV that can definitely output 44.1kHz perfectly on its own) results in bit-perfect audio. So the problem is either in their output audio driver or the actual D/A converter (seems unlikely for the latter since AFAIK every single commercial DAC on the planet can play 44.1KHz audio). I've sent Apple feedback requesting they fix their driver, but somehow I doubt it will matter.
Last edited:
Because audiophiles still exist. Vinyl sales have actually made a nice comeback (not a big market share, but a viable niche). And analog tube amplifiers are hanging around as well.
So this will obviously not be a big commercial success (or necessarily succeed at all) - and is a musician's vanity project, but there are whys as to why high quality audio continues to hang around.
Not all tech is all about convenience at the trade-off of too much quality.
$2.7m pledged so far with 32 days to go (target was just $800k).
So much for all the know-it-all's on here. They should shut their mouth and open their ears for a change.
Some of us still value quality over quantity.
Can't notice the difference? Please, grow up. Go to your local club and listen to a musician sing live. Then go listen to the same song on your iPod. If you can't tell the difference you need your ears checked.
Pono will change the music industry forever.
So much for all the know-it-all's on here. They should shut their mouth and open their ears for a change.
Some of us still value quality over quantity.
Can't notice the difference? Please, grow up. Go to your local club and listen to a musician sing live. Then go listen to the same song on your iPod. If you can't tell the difference you need your ears checked.
Pono will change the music industry forever.
Yeah, nothing like insulting people and posturing to convince people of something. It's laughable. Frankly, Neil Young should be able to pony up $2.7 million all by himself. Is he suddenly poor or did he blow all that money from sales when he was actually popular three decades ago?
WTF are you talking about? WTF does a delivery device (iPod) have to do with listening to club acoustics? I think people like you should be more worried about your playback chain (namely the loudspeakers and clean power) than anything else. Besides, if all you can stand to listen to is audiophile recordings, you've got a pretty limited selection of music to listen to. Or do you enjoy sitting around listening to Stereophile Test Disc 3 over and over and over and over again?
You see that's the difference between a musician (like myself on the side) and an audiophile. An audiophile is obsessed with the recording and its playback. A musician cares about the music itself. I'd rather listen to a bad recording by Pink Floyd than a great recording by Neil Young. Thankfully, Pink Floyd had some of the best mastered music from the '70s. The fact that something like Dark Side or The Wall sounds better than MOST modern day pure digital recordings is a testament to their no compromise mentality with mastering engineers like Alan Parsons that actually gave a crap about sound quality. Frankly, it's not that hard and yet most commercial recordings sound pretty abysmal and that's because their target market is cheap car stereos and ear buds. You'd be far better off getting a quality remaster on plain old CD than say a straight transfer from an existing mix to 24/192 or whatever. The numbers don't mean a damn thing. It's just headroom.
WTF does the iPod have to do with it? It's just a delivery device. You'd do better to compare earbuds to actual high quality monitors or something, not a 16-bit format to a 24-bit one. I know that people that believe in snake oil don't believe actual scientists when they tell them that 24-bit <> magic better sound. In fact, most people are under the impression that 24-bits equal more stair-steps for a smoother curve. That's a load of crap. Nyquist theorem clearly states only 2x the frequency rate are needed to represent any given frequency (i.e. you need a 40kHz sampling frequency to capture up to 20kHz). Filtering comes into play on playback, but not recording.
Right On dude! Led Zeppelin RULEZ MAN! Woooohoooooo!
Yeah, SACD and DVD-Audio changed the world.... NOT. I wonder how much Sony and Philips had invested in them or Mini-Disc or Digital Compact Cassette before that for that matter. I'm sure Pono will just sell in the millions.... LOL. Bill gates contributing a few million to his buddy Neil doesn't really count as a success, IMO.
The problem with the word "audiophile" is that it's come to mean overpriced SNAKE OIL and that is precisely what Stereophile magazine sells in droves. Someone like Bob Carver comes along and proves a relatively cheap amplifier can be made to sound like $20k one and makes his point, but then they back-pedal and denounce the end result because they know their ad sales will suffer if they admit an $800 amp can sound just like a $20k one.
Green CD markers.... Shatki stones. CD mats... You name it; Stereophile has hawked it and praised it no matter how ridiculous it is. Stereophile, pseudo-science be thy name. Some of us have studied electronic engineering (I've got two degrees in it) and there's a big difference between real world physics and a daydream.
Most people looking for high grade sound would do themselves 100x better to go out and listen to some actual high quality speakers. They don't have to cost an arm and a leg. PSB, for example makes sound darn nice +/-1dB monitors that aren't out of this world and they're not made in China either (Canada actually). Once people get past Bose Radios and Beats headphones, there's a nice world of high quality choices out there, some good value and some not. But putting emphasis on the digital front end that has been at the limits of human hearing since 1982 is not the best place to look to get more realistic sound quality. And nothing will change a bad recording. Bad masterings can often be fixed, but there's not a large market for it since most people are happy listening to crappy ear-buds and wouldn't be able to tell the difference even if they had it right in front of them.
Vinyl is not an "audiophile" medium by its true definition. Vinyl is noisy surface clutter with specs that are utterly horrible by today's standards even with the most expensive gear. This idea that vinyl is somehow better is based on even-order distortion and how the mind perceives it as "warm" when in fact it is a euphonic distortion and not remotely like reality. It's kind of like masking someone's wrinkles on TV that's in 1080P by using a soft-filter or spray-makeup to cover it up. It's not reality. It's a fuzzy illusion. Frankly, I personally can't past the surface noise alone. I can't pretend I'm somewhere else when I'm reminded every moment that I'm listening to a vinyl disc by it.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, but there's a bit of scope for confusion in this bit.
I'm sure you know this, but its worth pointing out anyway just for clarity - (analogue) filtering is needed on recording before sampling, to ensure no frequencies above half the sampling frequency are present in the sampled signal - any that are there will be aliased down into the lower band.
--hjkl
I would imagine that he's already spent a lot more than that on the R&D. The Kickstarter project is to raise publicity and see the level of interest before they start manufacturing. Personally I think the guy deserves our praise. He's seen a problem and he's gone out to try and provide a solution.
Let's see how it does before we start criticizing shall we. I've already ordered mine. At last some genuine competition. If it sounds as good as they say I can see a lot of people switching from iTunes. Ok maybe not the younger ones who've been brought up on crappy compressed music, but there is a sizable junk of people out there with money to spend and willing to invest it on good quality equipment.
Don't kid yourself. If this ever gets off the ground it will be nothing more than the tiniest blip in the sales charts. High resolution music doesn't sell, period. For one, the differences between what iTunes sells and what a service like this wants to push is only (maybe) audible to a small segment of the population under ideal conditions. Second, the population as a whole just doesn't seriously listen to music any more; it's a background to another activity. So while a few of these may sell, it's not going to change anything. Consider how much money Sony put into SACD and see how that went. Even in its heyday it was relegated to the back corners of the retail stores.
And while it's great that they've received a few million in pledges, don't think that is anything that's going to make Apple take notice. A few million or even a few tens of million is still a tiny niche market to a company like Apple and not even remotely worth it - especially a market that is collapsing not growing. Apple sold 26 million iPods in 2013 and even that is only worth it to them because those are all legacy devices where the R&D and manufacturing costs are long paid for; it's easy money, but don't expect anything new from Apple in the mp3 player space...
And while it's great that they've received a few million in pledges, don't think that is anything that's going to make Apple take notice. A few million or even a few tens of million is still a tiny niche market to a company like Apple and not even remotely worth it - especially a market that is collapsing not growing. Apple sold 26 million iPods in 2013 and even that is only worth it to them because those are all legacy devices where the R&D and manufacturing costs are long paid for; it's easy money, but don't expect anything new from Apple in the mp3 player space...
It will probably be better than the quality iTunes is offering right now when it comes to videos.
Yeah, and that is a shame.
This is for the other people... those that want to actually listen to their music. I wish them the best in getting some high quality masters made and distributed. I personally like surround music, but they aren't looking at that at the moment, unfortunately.
Apple used to be for "the other people"... it may not have made as much cash then, but that didn't make it irrelevant.
Actually I bet it's audible to most people when using the proper equipment.
Who cares what Apple thinks? It's about the music.
You're correct, of course (aliasing distortion). I think my brain farted there or something. Here once again, the headroom afforded by recording at something like 96kHz or 192kHz could let you use lower order low-pass filters before resampling at 44.1kHz for CD mastering. Typically, this was "oversampling" and it wasn't really meant to be played back at those frequencies (there's a question of how much usable harmonics are up there from any given instrument anyway plus you can't hear beyond 20kHz regardless). On the playback side, the reconstruction filter or "anti-imaging filter" (also a low-pass filter design) is used to smooth out the digital "stair-steps" and reproduce the analog waveforms. "Oversampling" here achieves a similar effect in terms of filtering requirements. The primary difference is you can choose a playback DAC/Filter design, but as a consumer, you have no choice in what recording ADC they used. As long as a competent design is used, I'm happy. I don't claim to be able to hear these micro sub-0.1dB variations typically found in DAC differences.
Similarly, greater bit-depth while recording gives you a lot more headroom in terms of hitting the rails so-to-speak on your input gain with louder than expected sounds. To get maximum resolution, you'd want input gain set so your loudest sound is just below the maximum your amplifier will allow, but if something goes above that, you get clipping distortion (basically a square wave is created at the affected frequencies, which is very bad for ears and speakers alike). Go too low, though and you're wasting potential dynamic range as the softest sounds could have been more fully represented and without some filtering, your average volume output will be lower as well. Frankly, it's a bit harder to gauge maximum levels in a live concert environment than say in a studio, but it makes life simpler either way (i.e. more room to be off in the best gain setting since 24-bit gives you 144dB dynamic range and if your goal is only 96dB, you have 48dB of range to be off before you might clip). Of course, that means little if the mastering engineer is just going to compress the living crap out of the signal anyway so that there's nowhere near 96dB of dynamic range anyway (probably significantly less than vinyl in many cases, which typically peaks out around 55-60dB at most).
Even so, IMO a lack of dynamic range doesn't necessarily mean the sound quality isn't "clean" or "distinct" sounding. That is to say for example, while Tori Amos' "Boys For Pele" album has very good dynamic range and something like her "Scarlet's Walk" album probably has considerably less dynamic range, that doesn't mean that I think the Scarlet's Walk album "sounds bad". It sound clean and distinct and her voice is still natural sounding on playback. Her "Choirgirl Hotel" album, on the other hand is considerably more "grainy" and "rough" sounding to my ears. It's pretty squashed, but I think there's some other bad effects in the processing/mastering going on that make it sound flat and her voice less believable, etc. The point is that not everything in sound reproduction comes down to absolute frequency range and dynamic range. There's a lot more complex things going on along the way with modern mixing methods and DSP processing effects, etc.
Using SACD or whatever format this new PonoPlayer is going to use won't and can't negate problems present in the original recording, depending on the level of master available to go back and remaster. For example, I use Logic Pro and I have every input I ever recorded available with zero processing. But to fix something like processing effects that ruined the clarity of a vocal track or whatever, I have to go back and change or remove that processing. I can't just remix the levels of that track and expect those artifacts to magically improve. If I screwed up the input level even so and have clipping in the original recording, there's probably little I can do to correct it short of recording a new part. If it's just a tiny blip and non-crucial (e.g. during an instrument track), it could perhaps be edited in a waveform editor or even cut-out and then covered up with something more pleasant than a loud crackle, but your hands become more tied with what you can achieve.
Older recordings done on analog masters might even have more than one part going on per track in order to maximize the recording with a mere 4-track or 8-track setup. It can be difficult to address one part without affecting the other if they are concurrent. Processing effects may be hard recorded on the track (i.e. if you think using a slightly more pleasing distortion effect for a guitar part might sound worlds better, too bad, you're probably stuck with it if that's recorded that way on the analog track using an external pedal or whatever whereas in Logic Pro, by using Logic's digital "pedal" effects, I have a clean guitar signal recorded by itself on a track that I can go back and change to something else later on if I so desire).
The point is that even remastering old recordings might only get you so far. You're probably not going to be able to make a 1930's big band recording sound like it was recorded yesterday with modern studio equipment no matter how good of shape the available recording is in. In addition to the question of the limits of the recording medium used and the noise and other distortion levels present there, you also can't change the mics (both number and placement along with type) used or the ambient environment it was recorded in. On the other hand, I don't know what level of tools might be available. I'm pretty amazed at what can be done with a lot of patience restoring old film into a modern digital master. I'm not under the impression that sound editing is in quite the same league in that regard, though.
Either way, I'm still of the opinion that anything more than perhaps 18-bit on the playback side is overkill and frankly 16-bit is more than adequate for all but the most dynamic recordings (at least I'd never want to listen to music on a regular basis that had to be played at ear-damaging levels to hear the full limit of human hearing's capability for dynamic range. Anything but brief peaks in the 105+ range are hearing destroying levels, IMO and I typically try to keep my average playback level below 90dB for that reason. I do record my own music at 24/96, though for headroom reasons only. I haven't not been able to discern any audible difference between a final 24/96 mix output and the final 16/44.1 output (not hard to compare when you have Logic Pro running the original waveforms to compare against the final bounce.)
So we went from 5GB for $399 to 64GB for $399 13 years later. And I thought the price of memory dropped more than that.
Well a few years ago they introduced the 160gb iPod Classic. The new iOS devices have so much more tech and use solid state storage instead of a much cheaper HDD.
Neil Young to Debut 'PonoPlayer' High-Definition iPod Competitor This Week
Mr. Magnus, I can't express in words how relieved I am reading your post. There are not a lot of people who have their audiophiliac priorities in the right order. It is very frustrating to see most people fall in aiming for redundant specs, completely missing the weakest link. Here we are reading about a device that will play higher bitrate audio files than 224kbps AAC, and completely disregard the 10dB dips and peaks in our listening room.
Nothing will ever change the fact that a huge portion of consumers are fine with listening to music with only one came-with-the-player earbud, through their wool hat, or from laptop speakers. Some people require more, so they listen through Koss Portapro headphones or the latest 2.1 "Huge sound from a tiny box" from Creative. A few will require even more, and are considered knowledgeable on the matter. They listen to $1500 Genelecs (only because of the brand) sitting on $300 stands, and would never believe that $300 Behringer speakers and a day of work with the room acoustics would sound hugely better.
That's why there is no point in Pono, and why it will still sell some.
Mr. Magnus, I can't express in words how relieved I am reading your post. There are not a lot of people who have their audiophiliac priorities in the right order. It is very frustrating to see most people fall in aiming for redundant specs, completely missing the weakest link. Here we are reading about a device that will play higher bitrate audio files than 224kbps AAC, and completely disregard the 10dB dips and peaks in our listening room.
Nothing will ever change the fact that a huge portion of consumers are fine with listening to music with only one came-with-the-player earbud, through their wool hat, or from laptop speakers. Some people require more, so they listen through Koss Portapro headphones or the latest 2.1 "Huge sound from a tiny box" from Creative. A few will require even more, and are considered knowledgeable on the matter. They listen to $1500 Genelecs (only because of the brand) sitting on $300 stands, and would never believe that $300 Behringer speakers and a day of work with the room acoustics would sound hugely better.
That's why there is no point in Pono, and why it will still sell some.
Maybe some of the Pono buyers will actually use high quality cans and perhaps even an amp. This is a portable player so I would think that most will be using it with headphones. And there are some very nice ones available from a few hundred on up. IMO, it's not targeted to the budget crowd or your typical everyday user. I'm thinking maybe more upmarket like Astell and Kerns but not quite that high priced. Thoughts?
It's not that I don't enjoy high quality music. It's that most consumers could give a flying rats about that. I can't stress how many people I come across in my line of work that say this to me all the time.
Seems as if he's trying to edge out the few other competitors in this niche market.
Though I won't be purchasing one, I wish him luck if only because it makes me happy to see the dedicated music player market still alive and kicking.
Though I won't be purchasing one, I wish him luck if only because it makes me happy to see the dedicated music player market still alive and kicking.
My point is just that CD can't offer more than stereo. I realize most of your comments are about resolution and theory, but claiming Redbook is the answer fails in other ways. Also, I'd love to see a website/database that gives quality reports on CDs vs other formats. For actual audio products, not theoretical tolerances of the media. You seem to be of the opinion that every CD made after some date (1990?) should be great and whatever album you want shouldn't need a higher quality version made. But it's certainly not the case. I just bought Imagine Dragons on MP3 because the CD wasn't any better. Worst recording I've heard since Adele's 19. Very sad to have such crappy sound, both have such wonderful writing by the artists. I'd upgrade both in a heartbeat if an upgrade existed.
This device will almost certainly be aimed at stereo, but at least it should have the ability to play codecs that offer more channels. Whenever I see a "high-end" CDp, I just move on. Pointless device to me if it can't handle more than the basic CDs. That's why I have an Oppo.
----------
I know it's fun to rip on audiophiles, but if you are going to point out unreasonableness in others, you should at least have reason in your comments.
For instance, most audiophiles that spend ridiculous amounts on wires and other esoteric products have also spent quite a bit on room mods first. Or even built a specialized room for their audio.