sovembol said:

while im all for complete lossless technology, i dont know why people expect it to be such an amazing new sound experience. quite frankly the average person cant tell the difference between an mp3 or wav file, and i doubt most will hear a difference with pono.

besides that, if you remaster an album, you will hear a difference on an system through any file type. the hype isnt about remastering stuff for pono, its supposedly that you will hear exactly what the artist hears in the studio. but i cant imagine there being any real significant difference.

[Edited 6/10/14 17:51pm]

An affordable, simple player that does FLAC (also in 24-bit) is all we ever need.

Of course it will also play mp3z and do it all gaplessly.

Of course it drives your headphone perfectly...

.

So what is this player? Brand/type?

savagedreams said:

while im all for complete lossless technology, i dont know why people expect it to be such an amazing new sound experience. quite frankly the average person cant tell the difference between an mp3 or wav file, and i doubt most will hear a difference with pono.

besides that, if you remaster an album, you will hear a difference on an system through any file type. the hype isnt about remastering stuff for pono, its supposedly that you will hear exactly what the artist hears in the studio. but i cant imagine there being any real significant difference.

[Edited 6/10/14 17:51pm]

I'd agree with most of what you said except in that you will be able to see a huge difference between mp3 and WAV/FLAC if you play it on decent equipment.

If you play it on a cheap pair of Ipod headphones then there is no difference because the cheap headphone won't show you the range.

I have a set of Sennheiser HD650's and a DAC from my laptop. If I play an MP3 and a FLAC side by side then you will hear a huge difference. If I plug in my ipod headphones then no discernable difference.

Pono is at least an attempt to get lossless music on the agenda but if people try and play these files through crappy equipment then it really will be the emperors new clothes.

The remastering is also a scam unless people have the ability to bring out the depth of the music. With a set of over ear cans that are decent, you will hear the band all around you on a good remaster. With an MP3 it will feel flat and very hard to pull out certain instruments.

EyeHatechu said:

sovembol said:

Lol. At first I thought it said porno.

Me too.

Me three

sovembol said:

Lol. At first I thought it said porno.

Me four

We need to retitle this thread

MrGooodNight said:

KlyphIsBackAgain said:

If they are 320 (hell, 256 really), nope. You're not hearing a difference. You're trying to convince yourself you are, but you're not. (And yes, I have good equipment)

You are deaf.

Your gear is sub-par (and I am not an audiophile).

Or some other cause.

But depending on the material the difference between 256 Kbit MP3 and uncompressed CD should be audible.

udo said:

KlyphIsBackAgain said:

udo said:

You are deaf.

Your gear is sub-par (and I am not an audiophile).

Or some other cause.

But depending on the material the difference between 256 Kbit MP3 and uncompressed CD should be audible.

No, it shouldn't. And believe me, my equipment is far from sub-par. But it's like trying to convince a religious person there is no god. I could throw out all the science in the world but it won't change what you believe. So enjoy yourself!

Dude - your opinion is fine with me. Until I made the leap and bought some reference headphones, a decent DAC and did an A/B test then I couldn't hear a difference. If you try and shove a FLAC file through a cheap set of headphones then it WONT work.

I am the same with wine - much more than £50 a bottle and its too subtle for me to know the difference. But going from £5 to £30 and oh yeah I can see whats going on.

I am not trying to argue the difference between 320kbps versus FLAC because that is the difference between the £50 and £55 bottle wine - too subtle and either needs expensive equipment or Dumbo ears.

The fundamentals of this argument are for me (for example) people having to buy a 192kbps single from Itunes versus a WAV/FLAC from the 3rdEyeGirl site (The Breakdown being a perfect example) - I'd rather they stuck it out in 256 or 320 but we get Apples sh*t 192 format instead. And that compresssion is fine for most cheap headphones but not if you can actually tell the difference with decent kit.

Actually - I'd love some new CD's or Vinyl from P but then I am just being too wishful.

MrGooodNight said:

KlyphIsBackAgain said:

udo said: No, it shouldn't. And believe me, my equipment is far from sub-par. But it's like trying to convince a religious person there is no god. I could throw out all the science in the world but it won't change what you believe. So enjoy yourself!

Dude - your opinion is fine with me. Until I made the leap and bought some reference headphones, a decent DAC and did an A/B test then I couldn't hear a difference. If you try and shove a FLAC file through a cheap set of headphones then it WONT work.

I am the same with wine - much more than £50 a bottle and its too subtle for me to know the difference. But going from £5 to £30 and oh yeah I can see whats going on.

I am not trying to argue the difference between 320kbps versus FLAC because that is the difference between the £50 and £55 bottle wine - too subtle and either needs expensive equipment or Dumbo ears.

The fundamentals of this argument are for me (for example) people having to buy a 192kbps single from Itunes versus a WAV/FLAC from the 3rdEyeGirl site (The Breakdown being a perfect example) - I'd rather they stuck it out in 256 or 320 but we get Apples sh*t 192 format instead. And that compresssion is fine for most cheap headphones but not if you can actually tell the difference with decent kit.

Actually - I'd love some new CD's or Vinyl from P but then I am just being too wishful.

Well, actually, iTunes files are encoded in 256 AAC, so......

but yeah, I'd love some new vinyl too (don't really see the point in CD's anymore).

[Edited 6/11/14 6:34am]

I don't think another digital format is really needed, but we'll see...