The end of pono?

We are all part of the 99, the key to relocating to being a 1 is identifying the topic which is difficult when we all choose to believe that we are always a 1.

Is it possible that for 9,999 out of 10,000 there isn't an audible difference with high resolution files? Maybe the article is good advice for the vast majority. My biggest reservation would be the value in a portable player as it would also require upgraded headphones beyond what most anyone has to have a chance of hearing a difference. I have even dropped back to MP3 for my iPod because it is extremely difficult to hear the difference with my work system. The files are not the primary limiting factor.

Is it possible that the difference that some find to be audible is a result of differences in the hardware or software used to play the high resolution files? Claims of superiority among CD players are common so comparing different circuitry and signal paths used to play different resolution files will always be apples and oranges at some level. Is it impossible for a high resolution capable source to sound inferior to a standard resolution source? Why then can we assume that the high resolution is superior without question?

I don't think I was clear in my first post. When I said 99 out of 100 people would believe the article without question, it was in a mainstream context, not audiophile. If an average person read that article they're likely to believe because it sounds convincing. You really can't fault them for in either, because they just don't know. That's a huge problem for high res audio because the misinformation contained in articles like this closes the door.

"Is it possible that for 9,999 out of 10,000 there isn't an audible difference with high resolution files?"

Yes, but there's different reasons as to why people end up in the 99.

"Maybe the article is good advice for the vast majority."

How so? If the vast majority of people don't have all the facts, I can't see how that would be good.

"Is it possible that the difference that some find to be audible is a result of differences in the hardware or software used to play the high resolution files?"

Absolutely. And that's a major point. If people dismiss high res, the chances of them getting their hands on better audio gear are very low.

"Claims of superiority among CD players are common so comparing different circuitry and signal paths used to play different resolution files will always be apples and oranges at some level."

I agree that its not exact, so you would need to look at general trends.

"Is it impossible for a high resolution capable source to sound inferior to a standard resolution source?"

No, its not impossible. In fact, people get results like all the time. Its easy to find a standard res sources that sound better than a high res source.

"Why then can we assume that the high resolution is superior without question?"

If you're looking at the music files themselves, I don't see how high res could be inferior. That's not the issue. Equipment and setup would be the cause for inferior sound. (assuming everyone has the same taste.

So this was an interview from this year's cse and straight from Neil's mouth. There is no doubt that Pono hardware is soon to be gone. It looks like Harman is the first to bite and will be producing Pono certified car systems.

The only way to compare hi-res and standard res is to have the exact same recording captured in both formats, no resampling. I have such a recording of Lush Life. The 192 version definitely is better.

The difference however is not huge. The vocals are a bit more smooth and natural, not as edgy. This could easily be attributed to the digital filter differences at the two frequencies in most DACs. I use the same filter for both in my DAC, so its only the format in this case.

The goal is to make the standard res as good as high-res, and the Overdrive SE DAC does this. Unless you do immediate A/B, the differences are really small and recording dependent. I used to upsample most tracks that I really played a lot, but not anymore since the Overdrive. 44.1 sounds amazing. This is the way it should be.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

I guess this proves that cynicism, or something like that, is difficult to convey in writing. How shall I say this that's acceptable? If you have your head so far up your own derrier, how would you know some see you as a derrier? Does that work? Is derrier even spelled correctly? Does anyone (other that Geoff Kait) get it and care? Beside me, of course.