Neil Young to Debut 'PonoPlayer' High-Definition iPod Competitor This Week

[0007776]

Someone tell Neil that these devices aren't in anymore. It's about streaming music these days. What? I'm suppose to carry an iPhone (an object already built into my lifestyle) and this? And for $400?

I could see this taking over from the iPod for the very small market that still wants stand alone music players, and care about high quality audio. I don't think that's a very large or profitable market anymore though as music players on phones, and streaming music is good enough for 90% of people.

 

[pake]

If you look at the screen on the image you'll see that songs are not labelled right, it displays the artist and song name together and below unknown artist.

Surely if you make a promotion image, you try to use correctly tagged songs, right?

Not sure if the image is official, but if it is, then it is a scary hint at a mediocre user interface.

 

[iOzzie]

I could see this taking over from the iPod for the very small market that still wants stand alone music players, and care about high quality audio. I don't think that's a very large or profitable market anymore though as music players on phones, and streaming music is good enough for 90% of people.

What is the point if its capacity is under the current classics?

 

[FelixDerKater]

Make a phone or team with a phone maker...

 

[Tech198]

Looks like something out of Play-school... plastic and odd shape..

How can you comfortable hold these ?

Its like Apple, "no one would ever thing of making a round Mac Pro."

meaning, its either different or cool looking, since we've never seen this shape before...

 

[patent10021]

omg looks just like the iRiver players from 2003ish

 

[0007776]

What is the point if its capacity is under the current classics?

My guess is hardware that sounds better to people who actually are able to hear a difference between different quality levels of music.

 

[scottsjack]

I could see this taking over from the iPod for the very small market that still wants stand alone music players, and care about high quality audio. I don't think that's a very large or profitable market anymore though as music players on phones, and streaming music is good enough for 90% of people.

Exactly. People who actually think that iTunes downloads sound good should stick to them. A few will always want far better quality in both audio and video. They may not be a large market neither is anything else high-end.

 

[p0drunner]

As a frequent traveler, I like having a standalone device for music that's not my phone. Would love to have an iPod classic form-factor kind of device, even if it's 3x thicker that has no moving parts, has a decent DAC and headphone amp, and plays Apple lossless as well as FLAC. Let's say 256GB capacity. I'd happily pay $500 for it, which would be a bargain compared to other options.

 

[AppleScruff1]

As a frequent traveler, I like having a standalone device for music that's not my phone. Would love to have an iPod classic form-factor kind of device, even if it's 3x thicker that has no moving parts, has a decent DAC and headphone amp, and plays Apple lossless as well as FLAC. Let's say 256GB capacity. I'd happily pay $500 for it, which would be a bargain compared to other options.

There are some portable media players that will play FLAC and other high quality formats. They aren't cheap and are a niche market for audiophiles or those who want a no compromise portable music source. Something like the Astell & Kern AK100 Mk1 and Mk2. They run about $700 and have micro SD storage and are capable of 24 Bit/192 kHz playback. Now throw in a portable headphone amp and a high quality set of headphones and you have the ultimate portable music experience.

Here's a bit of info on this player at B&H Photo and Video:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=926010&Q=&is=REG&A=details

And the Mk2 version at $799:
http://www.moon-audio.com/astell-ke...tore=default&gclid=CLD9wLPgib0CFZTm7Aodw3cAOg

Sorry but consumers don't want this overpriced ugly mp3 player with a propriety file format. They want the seamless integration between iOS devices and the unbeatable iTunes store. And with iTunes Mastering on many albums you already get stunning high fidelity audio as an Apple consumer.

Maybe some people will prefer a higher quality sound than the iPod is capable of?

 

[Porco]

The 1080p movie download analogy only works if you forget about Blu-Ray discs and their overall superior quality.

So the iTunes Store offers compressed 1080p movies and 256 AAC music downloads instead of BR discs and CDs. Neither of these downloadable formats on offer are as HQ as their optical media counterparts, but the compromises are appropriate considering current ISP bandwidth limitations don't you think?

No. I don't think the compromises are appropriate at all, that's my point!

I don't think we should draw the analogy you made (or thought I was making). I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, but I apologise if that's how it read to you.

What I was getting at was that, quite aside from what the technical demands of the content require (i.e. more data in the case of video over just audio) the fact that Apple, and others, sell huge (3-5GB) files at a similar price to a music album that can be only 10% of the file size of a movie shows they can cope with selling 5GB files quite happily.

This is why it doesn't make sense that music albums must be so compressed. Selling lossless files as an option would present no challenge if it's ok to send the kind of files sizes that iTunes' movie files (even standard def!) are.

To put it another way: why is it a problem to download 600MB of hearing-fodder but not 5000MB of seeing-fodder?

Or to put it another way still: why should a music album be compressed so much when a lossless version still wouldn't even approach the file size of an iTunes 'HD' movie?

That is why it makes no sense to me. I do get what you're saying, that current AAC files and HD movies are analogous as lower-quality versions of the optical physical formats, but I guess I'm saying that doesn't need to be the case any more for music, as proven by the ability of Apple and others to sell much larger files, of whatever type, than lossless music requires.

Furthermore, it seems plain odd that if consumers are supposedly going to replay their favourite music albums many times but only watch movies they rent or buy a few times that so much data is assigned for movies and not for music.

The bottom line is, an album of lossless CD-quality music on iTunes would have a smaller file size than an iTunes movie file. So why can't they offer the option? They offer standard def, 720p and 1080p video and the world hasn't ended - they could offer 'HD audio', people would get that straight away.

 

[macgeek01]

The latest revision: "Musician and songwriter Neil Young, who also has experience directing, has been working on a competitor to Apple's iPod for several years now, which is now close to seeing a release date"

3rd time is a charm! Nice to see Mac Rumors listen to feedback but they should shown people the previous versions like other sites to be totally honest.

 

[Technarchy]

Late...to...the...party

 

[sshambles]

Too little, too late, too triangle.

 

[sillypooh]

But, does it blend? My guess is Oh yes!

 

[ZipZapRap]

I'd buy it.
sound quality on phones is (insert swear word of your choice here)

 

[phrehdd]

Geeks will buy this.

Should I say thank you or something else to your comment?

Being someone who enjoys music and listen on both my iPhone and home audio system, I find that I use Apple Lossless for my iPhone with good headphones or the ear pods (along with Dirac i-device app) so I can get the full sound that is otherwise discarded in favour of a compressed file. Apple's AAC 256 bitrate is great compared to MP3 but on some music, there are some losses that can be found in playback compared to some higher fidelity files.

Since storage is far cheaper these days, it makes perfect sense that one can have a portable device and high quality music files. I have all my CDs in Apple lossless and also have HDtrack's 96/24 flac files along with some music that is multi-channel.

I don't consider myself a music geek but like to fully* enjoy my tunes at home and also on the road so to speak.

The price of this player is about right for what it offers. I'll look forward to seeing how it hits the market and hopefully have menus that are not in super small fonts which are hard to read at times on the iPhone.

To those that like 256 bitrate AAC files - keep enjoying because in the end, that is what it is all about. For the rest of us, we welcome better sound and not being on the lemming train being told compressed files are just as good.

 

[D-Dave]

Someone tell Neil that these devices aren't in anymore. It's about streaming music these days. What? I'm suppose to carry an iPhone (an object already built into my lifestyle) and this? And for $400?

This sounds pretty much like "Cameras are not in anymore. It's about Smartphone cameras these days."
My point is that you can not take the same pictures with your smartphone as you can with a "real" camera...and you can not stream music in the same quality as when you listen to it from a good, in the case of this device maybe superior, source...

So in the end, this product is not for the "good enough for me"-crowd but for those that want more.

 

[IAlberta]

Another blast from the past..

 

[Beta Particle]

the BIGGEST problem in music sound quality is at the mastering stage.

Absolutely - and this is why the Pono is not just a music player, but a service which will be selling albums that have really good mastering without the compressed dynamic range most releases have today.

There's some small benefit to increasing resolution from 16-bit to perhaps 18-bit theoretically as the ear can hear a full 120dB of dynamic range, but there's two problems left.

Yes, but if you are using PCM, the lowest bits are a long way from being full resolution.

Here is a -90dB sine wave represented in 16-bit, on state-of-the-art equipment:

And here is a -90dB sine wave represented in 24-bit:

DSD (1-bit) does not have this problem, but has other issues to deal with which make it less desirable than high res PCM.


Now of course -90dB is an extreme example, but it illustrates why 24-bit is actually better than 16-bit, even in ranges that 16-bit should be able to represent. (undithered 16-bit should have 96dB dynamic range)

I believe headphones are the number one cause of hearing damage short of something like being around gunfire.

Headphones themselves are not the problem, the problem is using open headphones or earbuds at really loud volumes to try and block out external noise.
A good pair of sealed headphones/IEMs at reasonable volume levels will not damage your hearing.

The real reason is that most of the "high definition" formats out there like SACD or DVD-Audio *SOUNDED BETTER* is that the music companies created another MASTER (i.e. re-mixed the album to sound good rather than sound LOUD on radio, etc.) for that format. So yes, that version sounds much better on a high end playback system, but it has NOTHING to do with the SACD disc itself.

Yes, but if the only way to get that master is to buy the high definition format, then you have no choice.

As for AAC, it has been proven in double-blind testing to be completely audio transparent at the 256-bit rate. I've compared it myself with lossless, CD and 256 AAC versions on my ribbon speakers and I have yet to hear a difference due to encoding in AAC.

AAC sucks. I have ABX'ed lossy and lossless formats again and again, and I can do 20/20 in the foobar comparator standing on my head.

One of the problems that most people don't realize is that when you compress to a lossy format, you need to reduce the volume or else you are going to have intersample clipping.

Even if you reduce the gain before encoding, and level-match the test, I can easily ABX AAC and ALAC.

Another blast from the past..

You should look up the old iriver players.

 

[zhenya]

Sounds like you missed the point to this product. It's a PORTABLE device, meaning it is designed for the very things you just finished saying it isn't designed for.

If you want to sit down and listen to hi-def music as a primary activity, you will already have a $8,000 home stereo system, complete with amp, pre-amp, receiver, high end DAC, SACD player and tower speakers, or $1500 headphones.

The pono is a good idea, just not well implemented. It would need to be a multifunction device (phone or small tablet, camera, video-audio recorder, etc) and need to be flat, and have 256 GB storage because hi-res files or even SACD files are huge. It would also need to come with its own high quality in-ear headphones, otherwise the hi-def audio chain is incomplete and you won't hear much difference between hi-rez and normal MP3 quality using ordinary ear buds.

Neil needs to go back to the drawing board on this one.

This is not intended to be a portable device in that model; it is intended to be a replacement for the 'kits' that audiophiles are currently carrying around that look something like this:

I agree though that the 128GB size seems ludicrous; for people looking at high-res, it should be at least twice that if not more. It's not like the target market for this device wouldn't pay for it.

 

[jimthing]

It's an unfunny joke that Apple (and other large online music stores) still don't offer lossless files for sale. I know there are some who do, but they typically only offer a very limited selection compared to the likes of iTunes and Amazon. I imagine the music companies might be to blame, but whoever's fault it is, it's stupid.

Meanwhile they sell 1080p video files of multiple GBs. And Apple themselves (I think it was Steve Jobs years ago) have pointed out people tend to re-listen to music more often than they re-watch movies. It makes no sense.

So while I share many of the misgivings about this specific product, at least someone is trying, and maybe, just maybe it will add a little more pressure towards the day where most music is available at at least (proper) CD quality everywhere…

^This^.

It's not about this device, it's about LOSSLESS music, and that's what Neil Young's subcontext in doing this: offer an alternative, nudging the big players into the QUALITATIVE not just QUANTITATIVE music realm.

Apple should be offering ALAC by now for use on Macs with their infinite (external) storage capabilities at the very least, yet they do not. Instead, all they've done is push their inferior "Mastered For iTunes" 256kbps aac, which is proven by audio testers (using proper equipment, not just their ears which can be subjective!) to often be WORSE than the non-MFiT version. Making buying them laughable.

I encoded all my CDs into ALAC on a 2012 Mac Mini with additional storage for home use for this very reason: the future. For the moment, ALAC users can easily automatically encode to smaller files in iTunes using the setting to do so on transferring music to iDevice.

Certainly, how ironic is it that multi-GB 1080p (ie. high res) movies are available from Apple, yet much much smaller ALAC music files are still not. While BD's offer even better quality for a VASTLY bigger file size on their discs, lossless music can offer CD quality (at the very least) ALAC's at a fraction of these file sizes.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Should I say thank you or something else to your comment?

Being someone who enjoys music and listen on both my iPhone and home audio system, I find that I use Apple Lossless for my iPhone with good headphones or the ear pods (along with Dirac i-device app) so I can get the full sound that is otherwise discarded in favour of a compressed file. Apple's AAC 256 bitrate is great compared to MP3 but on some music, there are some losses that can be found in playback compared to some higher fidelity files.

Since storage is far cheaper these days, it makes perfect sense that one can have a portable device and high quality music files. I have all my CDs in Apple lossless and also have HDtrack's 96/24 flac files along with some music that is multi-channel.

I don't consider myself a music geek but like to fully* enjoy my tunes at home and also on the road so to speak.

The price of this player is about right for what it offers. I'll look forward to seeing how it hits the market and hopefully have menus that are not in super small fonts which are hard to read at times on the iPhone.

To those that like 256 bitrate AAC files - keep enjoying because in the end, that is what it is all about. For the rest of us, we welcome better sound and not being on the lemming train being told compressed files are just as good.

Well you could say thank you as most here are geeks.

 

[Lancer]

I agree, the stand along mp3 is dead. People want either a tablet or smart phone with large storage for all their music. The larger the storage the higher quality music you can carry before running out of space.

This will fail.

 

[imajez]

Grief! Most of this thread is like a bunch of blind people complaining that somebody invented a television and that they don't 'see' any point to a TV's existence.

High end audio gear has always sold in small numbers [and always will] compared to cheaper audio gear. Not sure why people seem to think that if you do not completely dominate the market place, then your product is a failure.
Yet I bet many of the same folks would witter on about best selling artists not having the integrity/coolness of more niche artists.