Pono fails to Please [Archive]

geoff

March 5th 15, 09:56 AM

On 5/03/2015 2:47 p.m., JackA wrote:
> http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/02/02/pono-fails-miserably-itunes-blind-listening-test
>
> If you're not familiar with Pono... https://ponomusic.force.com/
>
> Same ol' masters used, doubt anything was remixed that would make an
> audible difference. But I do not expect Neil Young to know that -
> he's far from an audiophile.
>
> Doesn't say whether the subjects had a clue abvout how good music is suposed to sound ....

geoff

Peter Larsen[_3_]

March 5th 15, 10:18 AM

"geoff" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> On 5/03/2015 2:47 p.m., JackA wrote:

>> http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/02/02/pono-fails-miserably-itunes-blind-listening-test

>> If you're not familiar with Pono... https://ponomusic.force.com/
>>
>> Same ol' masters used, doubt anything was remixed that would make an
>> audible difference. But I do not expect Neil Young to know that -
>> he's far from an audiophile.

> Doesn't say whether the subjects had a clue abvout how good music is
> suposed to sound ....

nonesuch

> geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Luxey

March 5th 15, 11:51 AM

On Thursday, 5 March 2015 10:56:32 UTC+1, geoff wrote:

> > Doesn't say whether the subjects had a clue abvout how good music is suposed > > to sound ....

I'm not really buying that concept. Commercial recordings are meant to sound commercial. Average uninformed listener is perfect crash test dummy, IMO.

I say recordings should be made in the best suitable fidelity, not the best possible, or available. Sometimes Lo-Fi is what one needs.

Necr..., sorry, Audiophilia for audiophiles.

Tobiah

March 5th 15, 05:45 PM

On 03/04/2015 05:47 PM, JackA wrote:
> http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/02/02/pono-fails-miserably-itunes-blind-listening-test
>
> If you're not familiar with Pono... https://ponomusic.force.com/
>
> Same ol' masters used, doubt anything was remixed that would make an
> audible difference. But I do not expect Neil Young to know that -
> he's far from an audiophile.
>
> Jack
>

He doesn't seem to indicate how he matched the levels. It's common
for a respondent to favor a slightly louder version.

Tobiah

Trevor

March 6th 15, 01:51 AM

On 5/03/2015 10:51 PM, Luxey wrote:
> Sometimes Lo-Fi is what one needs.

I can't say I've ever had that "need", but I'll take your word for it
you have.

Trevor.

JackA

March 6th 15, 02:38 PM

On Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 12:46:09 PM UTC-5, Tobiah wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 05:47 PM, JackA wrote:
> > http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2015/02/02/pono-fails-miserably-itunes-blind-listening-test
> >
> > If you're not familiar with Pono... https://ponomusic.force.com/
> >
> > Same ol' masters used, doubt anything was remixed that would make an
> > audible difference. But I do not expect Neil Young to know that -
> > he's far from an audiophile.
> >
> > Jack
> >
>
> He doesn't seem to indicate how he matched the levels. It's common
> for a respondent to favor a slightly louder version.
>
> Tobiah

A very good point!!! I'm not saying this is a valid, unbiased comparison, but I haven't found any others comparisons yet!!

Jack

JackA

March 6th 15, 03:02 PM

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 9:00:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> JackA wrote: "Same ol' masters used, doubt anything was remixed that would make an audible difference. But I do not expect Neil Young to know that - he's far from an audiophile. "
>
>
> That's the point: There should be very little audible difference! If there is,
> it's in the MIXIING or MASTERING.

Some time back I found a Roberta Flack CD in the budget bin; Best Of or similar. I quickly shelved it, provided no thrills - a lot of Atlantic Records hiss. BUT, someone remixed at least a couple of her hit songs, and they excited me!!

As I feel, as others object, you want Genuine Remastering - go remix the multi-tracks! Screw Master tapes, make a new one!

Jack

Scott Dorsey

March 6th 15, 03:46 PM

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>On 5/03/2015 10:51 PM, Luxey wrote:
>> Sometimes Lo-Fi is what one needs.
>
>I can't say I've ever had that "need", but I'll take your word for it
>you have.

There is, sort of.

For example, if you're releasing a pop music disc that you expect people to
be playing on cheap equipment, you don't want to put a lot of actual deep
low end on it... because their speakers will just bottom out rather than
actually reproducing any of it. So accurate 20c-20kc presentation on the
recording may produce a less pleasant result for the consumer than some
bandlimiting.

Part of what is interesting about both Pono and the Blu-Ray formats is that
it can allow you to present several different versions of the same original
under one wrapper, to deal with different listening conditions.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

JackA

March 6th 15, 04:00 PM

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 10:47:02 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
> >On 5/03/2015 10:51 PM, Luxey wrote:
> >> Sometimes Lo-Fi is what one needs.
> >
> >I can't say I've ever had that "need", but I'll take your word for it
> >you have.
>
> There is, sort of.
>
> For example, if you're releasing a pop music disc that you expect people to
> be playing on cheap equipment, you don't want to put a lot of actual deep
> low end on it... because their speakers will just bottom out rather than
> actually reproducing any of it. So accurate 20c-20kc presentation on the
> recording may produce a less pleasant result for the consumer than some
> bandlimiting.
>
> Part of what is interesting about both Pono and the Blu-Ray formats is that
> it can allow you to present several different versions of the same original
> under one wrapper, to deal with different listening conditions.

I'll never know. Sony's Blue-Spec is just a marketing excuse.

As I feel, it's not the "electronics" that make the difference, it's the audio source that does. It will sound good on even the cheapest equipment.

I mean, all I use is an 11 Year Old Acer laptop and $25 Phillips headphones, and it doesn't take long to decipher extraordinary sound quality.

Jack

> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

John Williamson

March 6th 15, 04:29 PM

On 06/03/2015 16:00, JackA wrote:
> As I feel, it's not the "electronics" that make the difference, it's the audio source that does. It will sound good on even the cheapest equipment.
>
> I mean, all I use is an 11 Year Old Acer laptop and $25 Phillips headphones, and it doesn't take long to decipher extraordinary sound quality.
>
Before you start criticising sound quality on any recording, buy a
decent ($150 plus, preferably $300 or more) pair of headphones. Keep the
laptop, and spend a few dozen bucks on a decent DAC to drive the
headphones. Then you'll be listening to a sort of reasonable low end
audio quality. If this is the gear you're using to do your "remixes",
then you will be horrified by what you hear using the gear I specify.
The Beyer DT100 headphones aren't *too* horrendous for balance, though
everyone has their own favourites at that price point. You'll almost
always find a few pairs of the Beyers in every radio studio, though.

$25 headphones can't be made well enough for critical listening due to
the materials and fabrication costs.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

JackA

March 6th 15, 04:43 PM

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 11:29:17 AM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 16:00, JackA wrote:
> > As I feel, it's not the "electronics" that make the difference, it's the audio source that does. It will sound good on even the cheapest equipment..
> >
> > I mean, all I use is an 11 Year Old Acer laptop and $25 Phillips headphones, and it doesn't take long to decipher extraordinary sound quality.
> >
> Before you start criticising sound quality on any recording, buy a
> decent ($150 plus, preferably $300 or more) pair of headphones. Keep the
> laptop, and spend a few dozen bucks on a decent DAC to drive the
> headphones. Then you'll be listening to a sort of reasonable low end
> audio quality. If this is the gear you're using to do your "remixes",
> then you will be horrified by what you hear using the gear I specify.
> The Beyer DT100 headphones aren't *too* horrendous for balance, though
> everyone has their own favourites at that price point. You'll almost
> always find a few pairs of the Beyers in every radio studio, though.
>
> $25 headphones can't be made well enough for critical listening due to
> the materials and fabrication costs.

I have a better pair of Audio Technica's (over the ear), but at first listening glance, too muddy on bass. Maybe give them a second try.

But, really, John, when I impress myself, others are impressed, too, by my remixing and/or audio enhancements. I'll look into the Beyers - never heard of them before. As soon as I purchased these Phillips, I went online to find others that saluted them, it didn't take long. They, if anything, have lasted longer than any other of headphones I purchased!

Jack

>
>
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.

geoff

March 6th 15, 10:27 PM

On 7/03/2015 5:00 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> I mean, all I use is an 11 Year Old Acer laptop and $25 Phillips
> headphones, and it doesn't take long to decipher extraordinary sound
> quality.

Naa. Those headphones have a huge notch at 3kHz.

geoff

geoff

March 6th 15, 10:28 PM

On 7/03/2015 5:43 a.m., JackA wrote:

>
> I have a better pair of Audio Technica's (over the ear), but at first
> listening glance, too muddy on bass. Maybe give them a second try.

Naa, no bass is much better.

geoff

JackA

March 6th 15, 10:59 PM

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 5:28:12 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 7/03/2015 5:43 a.m., JackA wrote:
>
> >
> > I have a better pair of Audio Technica's (over the ear), but at first
> > listening glance, too muddy on bass. Maybe give them a second try.
>
> Naa, no bass is much better.

One day, I'll be a record stamper and you a pliable pile of vinyl, I'll tell them to increase the hydraulic pressure to maximum. Then, you can dictate what a "flat" response is!

Anyway, did someone pass gas or was that Hank singing?

Jack
>
> geoff

Les Cargill[_4_]

March 7th 15, 03:20 AM

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 5/03/2015 10:51 PM, Luxey wrote:
>>> Sometimes Lo-Fi is what one needs.
>>
>> I can't say I've ever had that "need", but I'll take your word for it
>> you have.
>
> There is, sort of.
>
> For example, if you're releasing a pop music disc that you expect people to
> be playing on cheap equipment, you don't want to put a lot of actual deep
> low end on it... because their speakers will just bottom out rather than
> actually reproducing any of it. So accurate 20c-20kc presentation on the
> recording may produce a less pleasant result for the consumer than some
> bandlimiting.
>

I am starting to think there should be metadata in the CD that gets sent
to the playback equipment and the playback equipment adjusts itself to
the material. Nothing huge, just a few facts.

The playback gear could possibly develop the metadata from the signal
on the media, but that would take longer.

But then it's not always the same playback from the same media.

> Part of what is interesting about both Pono and the Blu-Ray formats is that
> it can allow you to present several different versions of the same original
> under one wrapper, to deal with different listening conditions.
> --scott
>

I still don't understand why they are all not identical at the analog
output, within the tolerances of the decoders. The first op amp in the
analog stage pretty much has to destroy any differences unless they're
*REALLY* critical analog stages.

CD, Blu-Ray and Pono should not have any difference at all. With video
it's different because the resolutions really are perceptibly different.
If you've seen 4K material on a really nice big screen, it's kinda
weird. Immersive. Perhaps you get used to it, but there are times it's
almost like being there.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill[_4_]

March 7th 15, 03:24 AM

John Williamson wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 16:00, JackA wrote:
>> As I feel, it's not the "electronics" that make the difference, it's
>> the audio source that does. It will sound good on even the cheapest
>> equipment.
>>
>> I mean, all I use is an 11 Year Old Acer laptop and $25 Phillips
>> headphones, and it doesn't take long to decipher extraordinary sound
>> quality.
>>
> Before you start criticising sound quality on any recording, buy a
> decent ($150 plus, preferably $300 or more) pair of headphones. Keep the
> laptop, and spend a few dozen bucks on a decent DAC to drive the
> headphones. Then you'll be listening to a sort of reasonable low end
> audio quality. If this is the gear you're using to do your "remixes",
> then you will be horrified by what you hear using the gear I specify.
> The Beyer DT100 headphones aren't *too* horrendous for balance, though
> everyone has their own favourites at that price point. You'll almost
> always find a few pairs of the Beyers in every radio studio, though.
>
> $25 headphones can't be made well enough for critical listening due to
> the materials and fabrication costs.
>
>

I simply have to disagree. I think the cheap Koss KTX-PRO1 work
remarkably well. But I don't have much time in on expensive headphones.

I did a sort of quick A/B with a Blue Sky setup, and the only
significant differences were a bit more bass extension in the Koss. I
mean speakers and headphones are always different, but I didn't hear
anything obvious in the KTX-PRO1 that wasn't in the monitors.

Headphones are about design, not materials nor fab costs.

--
Les Cargill

JackA

March 7th 15, 03:47 AM

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 10:25:49 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
> John Williamson wrote:
> > On 06/03/2015 16:00, JackA wrote:
> >> As I feel, it's not the "electronics" that make the difference, it's
> >> the audio source that does. It will sound good on even the cheapest
> >> equipment.
> >>
> >> I mean, all I use is an 11 Year Old Acer laptop and $25 Phillips
> >> headphones, and it doesn't take long to decipher extraordinary sound
> >> quality.
> >>
> > Before you start criticising sound quality on any recording, buy a
> > decent ($150 plus, preferably $300 or more) pair of headphones. Keep the
> > laptop, and spend a few dozen bucks on a decent DAC to drive the
> > headphones. Then you'll be listening to a sort of reasonable low end
> > audio quality. If this is the gear you're using to do your "remixes",
> > then you will be horrified by what you hear using the gear I specify.
> > The Beyer DT100 headphones aren't *too* horrendous for balance, though
> > everyone has their own favourites at that price point. You'll almost
> > always find a few pairs of the Beyers in every radio studio, though.
> >
> > $25 headphones can't be made well enough for critical listening due to
> > the materials and fabrication costs.
> >
> >
>
>
> I simply have to disagree. I think the cheap Koss KTX-PRO1 work
> remarkably well. But I don't have much time in on expensive headphones.
>
> I did a sort of quick A/B with a Blue Sky setup, and the only
> significant differences were a bit more bass extension in the Koss. I
> mean speakers and headphones are always different, but I didn't hear
> anything obvious in the KTX-PRO1 that wasn't in the monitors.
>
> Headphones are about design, not materials nor fab costs.

But, Les, doesn't design include selection of materials?
I would think you'd want the driver to be light-weight. Maybe why some, maybe even my cheapo Phillips, have aluminum voice coils rather than copper.

Copper per cubic inch = .322 pound
Aluminum " " " = .098 pound

Jack

Jack
>
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Nil[_2_]

March 7th 15, 06:38 AM

On 06 Mar 2015, Les Cargill > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> I am starting to think there should be metadata in the CD that
> gets sent to the playback equipment and the playback equipment
> adjusts itself to the material. Nothing huge, just a few facts.

It's already available for volume: it's called ReplayGain. It's
optional - the playback gain metadata is stamped in the file and if
your playback device can recognize it you can use it or not. It could
easily be done for EQ or compression, if people wanted to standardize
on it.

Scott Dorsey

March 7th 15, 02:39 PM

JackA > wrote:
>As I feel, it's not the "electronics" that make the difference, it's the audio source that does. It will sound good on even the cheapest equipment.
>
>I mean, all I use is an 11 Year Old Acer laptop and $25 Phillips headphones, and it doesn't take long to decipher extraordinary sound quality.
>

See, Jack, this is why it's obvious that you are deliberately trolling. Over
the years, I have heard plenty of people bragging about how great their monitor
chain is, but this is the first time in my life I have ever heard anyone brag
about how awful their monitoring was.

I really, really suggest you consider investing in a decent pair of entry
level monitors like the Tannoy Reveals, which will allow you to actually
hear what is going on when you mix. Then I suggest investing in the Dave
Moulton "Golden Ears" training program and actually doing the exercises for
fifteen minutes or so a day, which will allow you to understand what you are
hearing. I think that these two things will be very much apt to direct you
away from the whole smiley filter philosophy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

March 7th 15, 02:45 PM

Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>I am starting to think there should be metadata in the CD that gets sent
>to the playback equipment and the playback equipment adjusts itself to
>the material. Nothing huge, just a few facts.

Dolby Digital does this to a limited extent. It's possible to direct
the "night mode" limiting and I _think_ also some aspects of the 5.2->2
mixdown at mix time and put stuff into the DD datastream to control them.

>The playback gear could possibly develop the metadata from the signal
>on the media, but that would take longer.
>
>But then it's not always the same playback from the same media.

Right. I am not sure that this is a bad thing.

>> Part of what is interesting about both Pono and the Blu-Ray formats is that
>> it can allow you to present several different versions of the same original
>> under one wrapper, to deal with different listening conditions.
>
>I still don't understand why they are all not identical at the analog
>output, within the tolerances of the decoders. The first op amp in the
>analog stage pretty much has to destroy any differences unless they're
>*REALLY* critical analog stages.

With Blu-Ray, you can issue very different versions! You can have a 5.1
mix and a stereo mix! You can have a special compressed-for-the-car mix!
You can make them so they aren't identical at the analogue output because
you don't want them to be!

>CD, Blu-Ray and Pono should not have any difference at all. With video
>it's different because the resolutions really are perceptibly different.

They probably aren't, BUT the Blu-Ray and Pono both have enough space in
there to allow you to bundle multiple versions in the same package.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

March 7th 15, 02:46 PM

In article >,
Nil > wrote:
>On 06 Mar 2015, Les Cargill > wrote in
>rec.audio.pro:
>
>> I am starting to think there should be metadata in the CD that
>> gets sent to the playback equipment and the playback equipment
>> adjusts itself to the material. Nothing huge, just a few facts.
>
>It's already available for volume: it's called ReplayGain. It's
>optional - the playback gain metadata is stamped in the file and if
>your playback device can recognize it you can use it or not. It could
>easily be done for EQ or compression, if people wanted to standardize
>on it.

This is an an MP3 file, though... not in a CD.

Be interesting to make it an extension on the Broadcast WAV format, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

hank alrich

March 7th 15, 06:33 PM

Scott Dorsey > could have written:

> I think that these two things will be very much apt to direct you
> away from the whole **smelly** filter philosophy.

<** I fixed it for you! **>

That's not a real philosophy, Pancho; it's a Sears philosophy.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

hank alrich

March 7th 15, 06:33 PM

Tobiah > wrote:

> He doesn't seem to indicate how he matched the levels.

Strike Anywhere works for me.

> It's common for a respondent to favor a slightly louder version.

A hotter level. Get 'em at the hardware store.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

Nil[_2_]

March 7th 15, 07:27 PM

On 07 Mar 2015, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> This is an an MP3 file, though... not in a CD.

ReplayGain tags can be carried in any file that supports ID3 tags,
which includes most lossless and lossy compressed files. Not CDs,
though. I know that CDs can contain CD-TEXT info, but it's very limited
and most players ignore it even if it's present.

> Be interesting to make it an extension on the Broadcast WAV
> format, though.

People have to want it, but I guess most don't know about it or
understand the advantage.

geoff

March 8th 15, 05:24 AM

On 8/03/2015 3:39 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Then I suggest investing in the Dave
> Moulton "Golden Ears" training program and actually doing the exercises for
> fifteen minutes or so a day, which will allow you to understand what you are
> hearing.

No need - JackAss can clearly identify the missing 3kHz and boost the
****ter out of it.

geoff

JackA

March 8th 15, 10:25 PM

On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 9:39:51 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> JackA > wrote:
> >As I feel, it's not the "electronics" that make the difference, it's the audio source that does. It will sound good on even the cheapest equipment.
> >
> >I mean, all I use is an 11 Year Old Acer laptop and $25 Phillips headphones, and it doesn't take long to decipher extraordinary sound quality.
> >
>
> See, Jack, this is why it's obvious that you are deliberately trolling. Over
> the years, I have heard plenty of people bragging about how great their monitor
> chain is, but this is the first time in my life I have ever heard anyone brag
> about how awful their monitoring was.

Go look them up on Amazon. 4+ star review. You act as though I don't know quality sound when I hear it. And I do agree with one review, they are lacking on the high-end treble (I compensate). Other than that, I care not to search and search for anything else. I just taped them back up, headband thingy was broken. What a bit more ear pressure does for audio!!!

>
> I really, really suggest you consider investing in a decent pair of entry
> level monitors like the Tannoy Reveals, which will allow you to actually
> hear what is going on when you mix. Then I suggest investing in the Dave
> Moulton "Golden Ears" training program and actually doing the exercises for
> fifteen minutes or so a day, which will allow you to understand what you are
> hearing. I think that these two things will be very much apt to direct you
> away from the whole smiley filter philosophy.

Scott, if I were doing this (audio) professionally, I change everything, but it's a hobby and it keeps me off the street! :)

Thanks.

Jack

> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

JackA

March 8th 15, 10:28 PM

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 12:24:41 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
> On 8/03/2015 3:39 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Then I suggest investing in the Dave
> > Moulton "Golden Ears" training program and actually doing the exercises for
> > fifteen minutes or so a day, which will allow you to understand what you are
> > hearing.
>
>
> No need - JackAss can clearly identify the missing 3kHz and boost the
> ****ter out of it.

Like to give you 3kHurts!!

Jack :)

>
> geoff

jason

March 9th 15, 01:34 AM

On 7 Mar 2015 09:39:44 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
article >
>
> Then I suggest investing in the Dave
> Moulton "Golden Ears" training program and actually doing the exercises for
> fifteen minutes or so a day, which will allow you to understand what you are
> hearing.

When I began traipsing around 15 years ago recording local chamber groups
because my wife had written some of the music they performed, I bought
Moulton's course and found it very useful.

JackA

March 9th 15, 02:03 AM

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 9:34:49 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2015 09:39:44 -0500 "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in
> article >
> >
> > Then I suggest investing in the Dave
> > Moulton "Golden Ears" training program and actually doing the exercises for
> > fifteen minutes or so a day, which will allow you to understand what you are
> > hearing.
>
> When I began traipsing around 15 years ago recording local chamber groups
> because my wife had written some of the music they performed, I bought
> Moulton's course and found it very useful.

Favorite lyrics, Simon And Garfunkel...

"People hearing without listening"

Jack

Trevor

March 10th 15, 10:38 AM

On 7/03/2015 2:46 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> On 5/03/2015 10:51 PM, Luxey wrote:
>>> Sometimes Lo-Fi is what one needs.
>>
>> I can't say I've ever had that "need", but I'll take your word for it
>> you have.
>
> There is, sort of.
>
> For example, if you're releasing a pop music disc that you expect people to
> be playing on cheap equipment, you don't want to put a lot of actual deep
> low end on it... because their speakers will just bottom out rather than
> actually reproducing any of it. So accurate 20c-20kc presentation on the
> recording may produce a less pleasant result for the consumer than some
> bandlimiting.

The band limiting is best applied at the user end IMO. The usual low cut
filter switch is often good enough for the job. And of course many
mini-Fi systems are already HP filtered to suit their mini speakers any way.

> Part of what is interesting about both Pono and the Blu-Ray formats is that
> it can allow you to present several different versions of the same original
> under one wrapper, to deal with different listening conditions.

Yes, something else to confuse the general public who buy that stuff.
Trying to produce versions to suit every possible listening device and
environment is an exercise in futility.

Trevor.

[email protected]

March 10th 15, 10:47 AM

Trevor wrote: "The band limiting is best applied at the user end IMO. The usual low cut
filter switch is often good enough for the job. And of course many
mini-Fi systems are already HP filtered to suit their mini speakers any way.

> Part of what is interesting about both Pono and the Blu-Ray formats is that
> it can allow you to present several different versions of the same original
> under one wrapper, to deal with different listening conditions. "

YES! Tell the so-called experts on here that engineering for the lowest
denominator is ruining our recorded music legacy. I got tired of the ones
over at GearSlutz prattling on about how music had to "translate" well
on amplifiers the size of a Tic-Tac(like the ones inside of smart phones
and tablets). Wanna TRANSLATE something - get a job at the U-frickn'-
N!

My iPod, and other mobile devices, reproduce high-dynamic and ample
bottomed stuff quite well, without noticeable side-effects, thank you.