PONO audio format

[Siekmanski]

I stumbled over this on the internet, very respected producers, singers and songwriters talking about a new audio format, PONO.
A 24bit / 192kHz sound format that brings back the feel of the vinyl days......

Do they really don't know the difference between, "dynamic range compression" ( see loudness war ) and "lossy music data compression" ?
Do they really think a human being can hear beyond 20 kHz frequency ?
I bet Neil Young and his "friends" can talk with bats too. 

I couldn't believe it, are they brainwashed or just stupid ?????? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH8I0LUjrqw  you must watch this !!!! at 6:38 they are explaining the differences of mp3, CD and PONO 

Have a look here, http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html  :icon14:

What's next ???  infrared and ultraviolet in videos ? 

[jj2007]

Googling for hifi cables review gold copper is about as much fun as doing it for tin foil hat 

[Siekmanski]

Yeah, "audiophile bulls**t"...... they spent a lot of money believing all those nonsense....... 

[rrr314159]

Dunno if I agree siekmanski, off the top of my head; don't know much about it but here are some counter-thoughts

Young people can, in fact, hear over 20K in actual tests. I mean, they play the high tone and u can hear it directly. When older u can't do that but still it might be "subliminal"ly effective Or, not... but I wouldn't be surprised.

in the old days we all "knew" that more than 33 frames/second video was wasted, to human eye that's smooth motion. Based on lab tests where subjects couldn't tell the difference. But in fact HDTV shows that all the way up to 60 fps makes a difference, and I verify that with my own software. Even beyond 60 seems there's a difference, the word that occurs to me is "glutinous", it has an oily smooth motion that is definitely not there at 33 or (maybe, IMHO, without studying it much) even at 60. This proves to me that very subtle sensory differences, not (evidently) measurable in the lab, can affect human perception.

If I have this right Pono's at 24 bit, 192 Khz? These numbers don't seem utterly excessive, compared to 16 and 44.1? You have a lot more experience in these things so I'm not disputing directly, just some words of caution. I was a professional expert in video rates 30 years ago and, as I say, extremely wrong; the whole industry's common wisdom was incorrect, as we see today.

Also - those are some big names on that video! Niel Young has always been a whack job and his latest stuff that I've heard ("Walk With Me") is sheer garbage. Not to diss his great songwriting ability but that has little correlation with good sense, let's face it. However some of those other people I find it hard to ignore. Elvis Costello AFAIK is very solid and sensible. Guys like Elton John, Dave Grohl, Bruce Springsteen, Sting ... surely not all of them have been hyped? All great musicians but (much more important in this context) seem to be intelligent solid people, (as I happen to know Elvis Costello is).

Then there's the question of money, again I can't believe they're all bs'ing just to make a few bucks on Pono? On average they already have lots of money. Out of friendship for Niel Young? Again hard to believe.

If you insist they're all wrong the best explanation I can think of, the Pono sample was simply played louder than the MP3 being compared. Also they gave them the best dope to listen to pono, inferior stuff for MP3. Yeah, it's possible, but ...

Then of course there's the natural tendency to figure, anything hyped so heavily must be garbage. Almost always true, but not, in fact, always.

Bottom line, I wouldn't be so sure if I were you. Again u know a lot more about it but, as your comment about 20K reveals, sometimes an expert is too confident in his expertise! I know from personal experience a young person can hear all the way up to, don't remember exactly, less than 23K ... Definitely, it was over 20K.

One good thing, within a year or whatever the truth about it will be clear to everyone, as millions listen to it w/o volume and chemicals influencing judgement

[Siekmanski]

Young people can, in fact, hear over 20K in actual tests. I mean, they play the high tone and u can hear it directly. When older u can't do that but still it might be "subliminal"ly effective Or, not... but I wouldn't be surprised

Babies maybe..

They know there facts  http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

in the old days we all "knew" that more than 33 frames/second video was wasted, to human eye that's smooth motion. Based on lab tests where subjects couldn't tell the difference. But in fact HDTV shows that all the way up to 60 fps makes a difference, and I verify that with my own software. Even beyond 60 seems there's a difference, the word that occurs to me is "glutinous", it has an oily smooth motion that is definitely not there at 33 or (maybe, IMHO, without studying it much) even at 60. This proves to me that very subtle sensory differences, not (evidently) measurable in the lab, can affect human perception.

Yes you're right 24 fps was enough for smooth video but, back then tvs and monitors had a larger response time ( and after glow ) then nowadays.
So we now see lower frame rates as jerky on modern equipment.

[dedndave]

age does have a lot to do with it
of course, the crap that many younger people listen to doesn't really require the best equipment - rofl
most of us forum members are older, and can't hear much past 16 KHz

and, there is something to the IMD info in the link
when a 10 KHz note beats with a 2 KHz note, it produces sum and difference tones at 8 and 12 KHz (probably 30 DB down)
but "bring back the sound of vinyl" is strictly a step backwards

as for gold connectors....
i can see it for something like a guitar, where constant movement is involved
even so, give me nickel or silver   :P
one advantage of gold is anti-corrosion, that's about it
problem is, the plating is so thin, and gold is malleable, it'll wear quickly

[rrr314159]

Maybe it wasn't over 20K but I definitely thought as old as 10 years I could hear up to 20K. Could be mis-remembering, admittedly.

Yes, they know their facts. About math or equipment no problem, but human ear facts are not so nail-downable. Also, talking about the other end, u can feel bass frequencies at not-too-loud volume.

Then there's the "space" of the recording. By turning your head, u know, u can locate sounds pretty well in space; and do so automatically, without thinking about it. Are frequencies an inch apart correlated exactly right? Have they tested such things? Could higher sampling rates have an impact?

Another topic, imperfections. Audio scientists focus on perfection of sound and recordings; human listeners can and do also respond to imperfections. For instance a guitar is never quite in tune; as u press on the strings it wavers a bit; doesn't sound right otherwise; one reason why keyboard guitar sounds are never convincing (altho I've heard some that try to mimic the effect). Admittedly if recording is accurate it should reproduce imperfections just as well as "perfections" ...

The point is I can imagine technicians failing to consider these 3 examples of subtleties (they weren't mentioned, of course, in that very informative ref you give), and who knows what else

Bottom line u (and that ref) could be 100% right; no skin off my nose, it's fine with me. But I'll reserve judgement until I (and millions of other guinea pigs) hear it. Humans have a way of fooling (lit., making fools of) technicians ...

[dedndave]

i recall older Crown amplifiers had fairly flat response to 100 Khz, with low distortion
surely, they had a reason for attaining that goal
and, believe me, they sound very nice   

[rrr314159]

That's an example of the sort of thing I mean. A flat response at a particular frequency, "bad" from the engineering point of view, for some reason might sound better to a human listener. And it may only apply to that particular amp, given all its other unique characteristics; may only apply to certain listeners. Or, not, what do I know? But I'll bet that sort of thing is true, and won't be understood by engineers for a long time.

Here's another example (there are thousands no doubt). The majority of those Pono fans we saw on the video are high on something (let's face it). Do the audio scientists test people in that condition? No. Is it possible it changes the frequency response - or, simply, the response - of the human ear, and brain, to the music? Yes. Could it possibly make the ear more acute? Well, maybe but I doubt it, more likely the exact opposite. Believe me I'm not in favor of drugs. But the point is: here's a major, important factor in the way those people hear the music, that the engineers have never tested; never even thought of!

Humans have a way of being much more - and, much less - than the experts can imagine

[jj2007]

One nice thing about the Masm32 forum is that we can jump from profound philosophical debates with an agnostic touch straight into deeply religious issues :t

Is it worth paying for premium cables?

Over the years, researchers and reviewers have carried out numerous experiments to test whether listeners really do consistently perceive some audio cables as better than others. Some results have suggested that cables can indeed improve sound quality: earlier this year, the Audio Society of Minnesota conducted a series of blind tests with more than 50 participants, and found a slight overall preference for the sound from more expensive hi-fi cables. Another interesting test was carried out by AVReview in 2008: here, most participants couldn't hear a difference between an £8 cable and a £500 one, but one panel member did consistently get it right.

Equally, though, there are plenty of tests in which no difference is detected between cables. Back in 1995, Sound & Vision magazine carried out a series of tests that led it to conclude firmly that "there is no basis for the commonly held notion that cables make a difference in the sound of audio systems".

More recently, users of the audio enthusiast forum Head-Fi found themselves unable to reliably spot the difference between a cheap Radio Shack cable and far more expensive premium cables. And in 2008, in one notorious blind test, a room full of audiophiles failed to spot the difference between premium audio cables and coat-hanger wire.

For the fans of sober facts, there is also a dedicated Speaker Wire page by Roger Russell. Caution, he is pulling your leg: "It may be a total shock to some people to know that a typical 8-ohm four layer woofer voice coil contains about 120 feet of number 28 solid copper wire."

And he quotes, further down:

It reminds me of the Percy Bysshe Shelley poem Ozymandias but for speaker wire it translates to "Look upon my expensive wires ye mighty and despair."

:P

[rrr314159]

Hesitate to voice opinion on cable issue, I know the great faith many audiophiles have: "Spend thee more gold and silver, and thee shall hear the voice of the living god from thy speakers". OTOH go to radio shack and the devil will hiss from the same speakers. (Parenthetically, Radio Shack is going out of business, end of an era)

But, as a working musician, it sounds (no pun intended) like the debate misses the point. The reason you want the best guitar cables (for instance) is not that you get a better sound under normal conditions; there's no difference. Instead, two things. First, better quality cables stand more abuse. Especially the plugs, which will break / come loose readily on cheap cables. Second, there can easily be stray electromagnetic fields on stage, usually manifesting as 60 cycle hum (50 cycle in EU). The better cables have better shielding (and of course twisted pair coax configuration) to eliminate hum entirely in many circumstances where the cheap ones won't. You should in any case be careful laying out cables, try not to cross and wind, use straight lines etc (good sound men know how to do this) to reduce not only hum but stepping on them, tripping over etc.

How much does that apply to your living room? Not being an audiophile (don't mean to denigrate anyone's religion) I don't know in detail, but such practical reasons probably apply much less than on stage. So from my half-relevant experience cheap audio cables are prob just as good as expensive

BTW this brings up the point, if and when I hear Pono I'm the last guy to tell the difference, if there is one. And, the last to care. My only point in all this is, I don't trust "expert's" judgment beyond limited technical issues.

Another example I thought of, the Nyquist criterion depends on exact sine waves, theoretically and practically. Of course music can almost be decomposed into sine waves, but is it exact? The hysteresis present in real air, at real varying temperatures, and all the other non-linearities of stubborn reality, shows the answer is "no, not exactly". To the extent that real music varies from precise sine waves, to that extent Nyquist doesn't apply

[dedndave]

the 28 awg (or whatever size) copper wire is wound on a somewhat massive core
it will dissipate heat rather nicely

8 ohm (or 4 or 16 ohm) systems are low impedance (duh)
that means lower voltage and higher current
it doesn't hurt to have a little beef at higher power levels
you don't want to melt the insulation - lol

i remember, many years ago, seeing a semi truck pulled off to the side of the road
the cab was on fire
guy had a 1000 watt CB rig (i.e. illegal), powered with some less-than-adequate 12-volt wiring   :lol:

[hutch--]

Into my 20s I could hear 28k and that was tested with a signal generator. Good nick vinyls would go over 30k if you had decent equipment and any decent power amp would produce 100k within a couple of DB. A CD clipped at 22.5k sounds OK and its usually a lot more quiet than a vinyl but they don't have the frequency range of a good vinyl. Digital audio tape does better than both. I used to tune the cross over notch on a class AB power amp that I used to build at 100k and YES you can hear the difference.

Even as you get older and loose frequency range in your hearing, you can still hear the shaping on lower frequency sounds if you have the higher top end wave shaping.

[Siekmanski]

Hi Hutch,

Into my 20s I could hear 28k and that was tested with a signal generator.

Are you sure it was measured in Hz or was it the samplerate ?

[Siekmanski]

If you resample 192kHz to 48kHz sample rate ( integer division by 4 ) you don't produce any intermodulation distortion and humans can't notice the difference between the two.
How to resample 48kHz to 44.1kHz so we can put it on a CD without introducing intermodulation distortion ?
In fact this is really simple:
1) Find the first common integer divisor for the resampling ratio.

48000/44100  = 1,08843537414966
160/147      = 1,08843537414966

48000*147/160 = 44100

2) Now oversample the 48000Hz audio data 147 times, do this with a sine interpolator to prevent intermodulation distortion. ( sine wave is a pure signal without harmonics )
3) Now pick every 160th sample from the audio data and you have a perfect 44.1kHz copy.

Now let's talk about the bit depth,

The bit depth has no impact on the frequency response, only on the signal to noise ratio (SNR)
24bit digital audio has a theoretical maximum SNR of 144 dB, compared to 96 dB for 16bit.

Digital sound is representated as 0 dB as loudest.
For 16bit -96 dB is complete silence.
For 24bit -144 dB is complete silence.

With 16bit we can cheat and fool our brain to add dither and so increase the effective dynamic range.
The perceived dynamic range of 16-bit audio can be as high as 120 dB with noise-shaped dither, taking advantage of the frequency response of the human ear.

120dB is greater than the difference between a mosquito somewhere in the same room and a jackhammer a foot away.... or the difference between a deserted 'soundproof' room and a sound loud enough to cause hearing damage in seconds.

44.1kHz 16bit  audio is enough to store all we can hear, and will be enough forever. !!!!!!

The Fletcher-Munson curves shows how we perceive sound at different frequencies and sound pressure levels:



The only thing what Neil Young and "friends" have to do is blame the producers. They started the "Loudness War" and thereby ruined the sound.
They use multiband compressors to make the sound as loud as possible. Much of it is clipped and sound awful, just to be the loudest on the radio.

I can of course record this message and upsample it to the 88kHz - 192kHz range and ask Neil Young to listen to it on his PONO player and ask for a response.