PONO

[mpz]

Was just on Pono's site and found this:
4) balanced mode provides ultra-performance for advanced users, separating left and right channel outputs across the two jacks. Great for use with high-impedance headphones, high-end home stereo systems, or professional equipment using balanced XLR input connectors.

[restless]

They are finally shipping. Mine arrived today. Dave Mathews Band model. Sound is very good on B&W Headphones. They also have an option mentioned for LINE OUT to XLR connects, but have not been able to find that yet. Some music cables for using both headphone out/line out as a balanced input to headphones was found at Moon Audio. ($35 extra for that connection)

Did a quick download of their Music software for download to the PONO. It is basically like others, but seems a little easier to work with. Updates worked better after the download of the latest software for the PONO player. Downloads to the player from your existing HI RES FLAC or WAV content was rather quick. They also have simple CD ripping with their software.

Their music store is still a bit high on pricing. Can find similar albums on HDTRACKS for less. But, you can buy from anyone, or rip your own, and download.

The player also included a 64GB micro SDHC card, and will accept a 128GB card. The device memory internal is only 58GB.

A lot of what I download was MP3, since that was what was on my system at the time. My other PC has additional FLAC/WAV files, so need to set it up tomorrow. The MP3 sounds very good, and probably better than the IPOD (hard drive) I use for traveling.

The software even has a setup for Media serving, which looks like it was done with JRIVER assistance. I am not sure if only those that have bought PONO can download the software for the PC, but you do have to sign up for the download.

In general, I was just looking for a backup for my IPOD, since the DISK units used in those players cannot be sourced any longer (at least that was APPLE's excuse for not making them any longer). This has turned out better than I expected. Useful software and hardware with adequate storage, not tied to APPLE. And Not costing $$$$$.

[sharky]

The Pono MusicWorld 20 (the software player) is JRIver Media Center 20 with a different skin and a few features removed. It's done by JRiver for Pono. For me, that's good. Can you say free version of JRiver anyone?

[indyscammer]

FYI....linky link

[plm]

I got a chance to put one through its paces for a few hours the other day, and was massively underwhelmed. Comparing it in my hifi against my W4S DAC-2DSDse (which uses the same series of ESS DAC) and using its balanced outputs set in line-out mode it wasn't even in the same ballpark. The high end was fatiguing, and it lacked definition. Kick drums and snares didn't sound remotely precise.

I actually think it sounded a little better on its single-ended outputs, although for full disclosure I did use different music selections than when I was using the balanced outputs.

Driving a pair of Sennheiser HD600s I would honestly say that my iPod Classic 160gb (playing carefully encoded 320kbps MP3s) was at least a match for it, playing the exact same track in 24/96 FLAC on the Pono.

I haven't been so disappointed in something that ought to be awesome in a long time.

[vcautokid]

Hmmm, curious how well it would do in line with the Stealths if possible. Just curious.

[vneal]

My Pono was a Neil Young signed edition. I paid $400
I sold to a friend who is a Neil Young nut for a grand
The money spoke

[drtrey3]

$500 speaks loudly!

I checked out the website yesterday and they do have some nice tracks, most are a little pricey though.

Trey

[monkumonku]

Jan 8, 2015 8:59:07 GMT -5 vneal said:

My Pono was a Neil Young signed edition. I paid $400
I sold to a friend who is a Neil Young nut for a grand
The money spoke

Gee I hate to think what you would have sold it to an enemy for.

[vneal]

Jan 8, 2015 10:01:35 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

Jan 8, 2015 8:59:07 GMT -5 vneal said:

My Pono was a Neil Young signed edition. I paid $400
I sold to a friend who is a Neil Young nut for a grand
The money spoke

Gee I hate to think what you would have sold it to an enemy for.

I did not want to sell it. There were 5000 made. The name was etched in. He bought it and does not even use it. He is a collector

[villock]

Jan 8, 2015 10:25:59 GMT -5 vneal said:

Jan 8, 2015 10:01:35 GMT -5 monkumonku said:

Gee I hate to think what you would have sold it to an enemy for.

I did not want to sell it. There were 5000 made. The name was etched in. He bought it and does not even use it. He is a collector

Your friend must have broke your arm to get you to sell it for a grand

[DYohn]

I was a Pono Kickstarter supporter and I posted my early review around here somewhere. I like it, however I have stopped using my Pono and gone back to my iPhone with Beyerdynamic A200P external DAC/headphone amp for a few reasons, the main two being that Pono software is flaky with very bad implementation of shuffle play and track skip function that does not always work, and the fact that it lacks bass and desperately needs on-board EQ so that I can use my preferred IEMs while traveling. I like the Pono and what they are trying to do with their music store, but the player, to me, falls short. Maybe they will release a firmware update some day that addresses my issues.

[KeithL]

As those who "follow me" know, I'm firmly in favor of more stores entering the high-res music market, and I wish Pono Music well on that score.

However, one issue I have with their business model is that they originally claimed - or, more accurately, implied - that they were going to be selling music that was produced, or at least "selected", by artists specifically for them (exclusive content). This was part of their claim to being "not just a player, but an ecosystem" - my words but their sentiment. But later, in one or two interviews, when asked about their pricing, they responded pretty much "we'll be selling the albums at the prices determined by the studios that issued them". To me, that statement strongly suggests that, rather than selling "their own content", they are simply another "store" selling the same line of products you can buy at HDTracks or Acoustic Sounds. Now, as I said, I'm all for more competition, and another good store to buy from is fine with me, but this does lead me to to ask one question.....

Does Pono Music have ANY EXCLUSIVE CONTENT, or ARE they simply another store selling the standard product lines?

I'm asking this simply because I'm lazy. If they do have exclusive content, then I'm interested in checking it out; however, if they sell the same products, for the same prices, as HDTracks, then I already have an account there. (And I also have an account at Acoustic Sounds, who I also buy from, and who sometimes undercuts HDTracks on some items by a few bucks). In fact, if they are selling the same products, from the same studios, then perhaps a little price competition would be in order 

(Here is my personal "take" on that - which is ENTIRELY MY OWN GUESS, based on what I've seen so far, but NOT on any inside information of any sort: The player came first, and was well received on Kickstarter, so they planned/hoped to use that to leverage creating their own "ecosystem" a-la iTunes. We all know that selling music on iTunes is a major cash cow for Apple. They also planned, or still do plan, to eventually do some sorts of deals where performers would either "endorse" specific albums for them, or even release exclusive content through them.... but that hasn't come to pass - at least yet. So, in the mean time, they're selling "the regular product lines" so they "have product to put on the shelves". Again, as I said, I don't have a problem with this, but they WILL have to do something to convince me to buy from them - like either coming up with some exclusive content - or some aggressive pricing on the standard offerings. I'm not going to "switch stores" simply because Neil Young has his picture on the sign in front of theirs.)

So, for any of you who have looked and compared....... (and to save lazy moi some work looking)

What, if any, content do they have on Pono Music THAT I CAN'T ALREADY BUY ON HDTRACKS OR ACOUSTIC SOUNDS?
Or, for that matter, has anybody noticed any particular tracks or artists where they're CHEAPER than the other guys?

Nov 9, 2014 17:11:45 GMT -5 solarrdadd said:

Pono has been rather quiet about not making the october release of the players and the music store other than to say it (the player) will be released for general sales next year. is there any reason the store didn't open up to sell all that music that they were supposed to have. did they explain what the hold up is on making the players and the release of the digital music? just wondering how all the people who put their money up are feeling about the company missing it's first mark.

if anyone has any real light to shine on this, please post it. i can't find anything for the most part on either subject. i am not interested in the player, i am however, interested in the digital music.

[KeithL]

As you've noted, using a particular brand of DAC chip does not automatically mean that a product will sound great. The other circuitry around the DAC chip is actually more important. (A really poor chip could simply be "impossible to help" but, honestly, there aren't that many really poor chips left - and the highest end Sabre chip only costs about $20 more than the cheapest piece of junk - parts cost. Most of the good chips can sound anywhere between "great" and "awful" depending on how good the rest of your design is.)

The W4S DAC uses the top-line Sabre DAC, and it sounds great, but the original DragonFly also used a Sabre DAC, and, at least to me, it sounded decidedly "meh" (I hear the new one is much better - but I haven't heard it). The Sabre chip used in the DragonFly is lower down the product line, but the specs aren't that much worse. When used in the context of product advertising, naming the DAC chip you use is pretty much an advertising ploy (although it does at least prove you didn't use one of the crappy 50 cent ones.)

Honestly, I was hoping they'd added another really high-quality digital player to the market, which is always a good thing

To me, if I were to even consider paying THAT much for a portable player, not having a digital output would be a deal breaker (it's why I got rid of my iPod). Personally, I don't see the purpose of a "super-high-end" portable player alone (even if this really was one). I have a good $1000 pair of headphones, but I'm not going to be using them at the gym, or the airport, or on the plane. I'm going to be using a $200 pair of headphones that still sounds decent, or at least good enough when I can hear them over the announcements and grunts of the guy on the next machine at the gym, and I do want the analog headphone outputs on my player to be able to run them reasonably well. But, if I'm going to take the time to load a huge pile of my favorite tunes on the device, I also want to  be able to plug it into my big system, or the one at my friend's house, and use it as a music SOURCE so I can "have all my tunes in my pocket"... and, since it has zero chance of being better than the DACs in my main system, that means it needs a digital output. (I'm not going to sit in my living room, at home, in front of my main system, and listen to a portable player that has no chance of sounding as good.... and being able to plug its analog headphone output into the "iPod input" on the front of my XMC-1 doesn't make the deal seem much better.)

(Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not knocking their efforts - it's really hard to make a portable device, which has to run for hours on a tiny little battery, sound as good as a "full sized" component. You can't reasonably compare the Pono to something like the DragonFly even - because the DF doesn't have to carry its power supply around inside itself, and the Pono does.)

So, to me, as a portable device, the Pono is overkill - even though it seems to fail to live up to that promise as well.
And, as a music storage device, it's useless - because it doesn't have a digital output.

I'm assuming the market they're really after is people with low-end home stereos, who really do a lot of portable listening.
They listen to good headphones, plugged into a decent player, and are totally, like "wow, that sounds so much better than my stereo".
And, for those folks, having a portable player that sounds better than their iPod, and can play high-res FLACs (which their iPod can't) is a plus.
And they can even plug "their tunes" into the iPod jack on their cheap stereo, and it probably WILL improve the sound.
(And, hey, if they were willing to pay $400 for an iPod, maybe they'll be willing to do the same for Pono - it seems to be at least as good a deal as an iPod.)
There are also plenty of similarly-priced alternatives; obviously they're hoping to leverage Neil Young to reach people who haven't looked very hard yet.

Incidentally, if you already HAVE an iPod, and it annoys you, and you're thinking about "upgrading" to a Pono..... look at RockBox ( www.rockbox.org/ )
That's a FREE piece of software you can use to root your iPod so it stops being an iPod and starts being able to play 24/192 FLAC files.
(DO read the warnings... you CAN brick your iPod doing this and Apple won't be inclined to help you if you do. )

Jan 7, 2015 23:49:28 GMT -5 plm said:

I got a chance to put one through its paces for a few hours the other day, and was massively underwhelmed. Comparing it in my hifi against my W4S DAC-2DSDse (which uses the same series of ESS DAC) and using its balanced outputs set in line-out mode it wasn't even in the same ballpark. The high end was fatiguing, and it lacked definition. Kick drums and snares didn't sound remotely precise.

I actually think it sounded a little better on its single-ended outputs, although for full disclosure I did use different music selections than when I was using the balanced outputs.

Driving a pair of Sennheiser HD600s I would honestly say that my iPod Classic 160gb (playing carefully encoded 320kbps MP3s) was at least a match for it, playing the exact same track in 24/96 FLAC on the Pono.

I haven't been so disappointed in something that ought to be awesome in a long time.

[audiobill]

Just to share from Dr. Aix's post today:

"After listening to Neil Young's position that "higher numbers are better" (meaning sample rate and word lengths), my resolve in trying to determine whether that true or not was reinvigorated. Neil believes that he's already proved it. Here's an extended quote from his press event on Tuesday (I will provide an audio file once I get back to LA for you to listen to but for some reason I'm having trouble importing videos into my laptop).

"Our base level is 44 - 16 and we go up to 192 - 24...which is good for you audiophiles. If you're not an audiophile, a larger number is better than a smaller one. Things go a lot faster, there's a lot more happening. And it's more fun to listen to. We proved that it's more fun to listen to. So we don't have to prove that anymore. All the musicians that I know, about a hundred of them got in my car where we played back our stuff. We had a little device that would switch back and forth between the songs and you could switch between all of the resolutions. We had four resolutions starting with the lowly MP3, and going up to the 192. They all came to the same conclusion...we didn't have to tell anybody anything. We had a 100% win at 192...over 96, over any compressed files that were supposedly going to playback at 192 quality. Some of them came close but they didn't come all the way. For some scientific reason, I can't really explain why...musicians can all hear what some scientists say we can't hear...but that's OK. The main thing is musicians can hear this. Musicians make their music in the studio. That's why I did this because I love what I hear."

This "study" that Pono did would be a groundbreaking addition to the science of acoustics and audiology and even a great AES paper. It would put the question to bed once and for all. But I don't I'm alone in being a little skeptical about his process, tools, procedures, and results. Stepping in to a 1972 Cadillac with a tricked out sound system driven by a Pono doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence in the results. I think more needs to be done.

I want to establish the same thing as Neil Young does...although I believe 96 kHz is more than enough. But it's going to take more than his assurances to make me a believer. And if he has indeed proved that 192 kHz is the spec that is "more fun to listen to" then why are there only 15,000 albums of the total of 2.1 million available on the PonoMusic website available at that resolution?"

[KeithL]

There are a lot of interesting questions raised by this......

For one, did those folks whose ears easily heard the difference KNOW WHICH ONE WAS PLAYING when they decided which one they liked better? I can almost guarantee you that, if you fill a room with people, and play "the regular CD quality version", then tell them you're going "to play the high-res audiophile version", most of them will hear a difference... whether it's there or not, and even if you actually lie to them and replay the exact same track. It's a well-known thing called "expectation bias". And any number of people have proven that wine tastes better when you pour it out of a bottle with a $100 price tag than when you pour the same exact wine out of a bottle with a $5 price tag. So I don't doubt for a minute that, if he told his friends "now I'm going to play the awesome audiophile version", they all heard an improvement - whether it was in their ears or in their heads.

(I'll bet we would even find out that you hear more of a difference when Neil Young tells you it should sound better than when a non-celebrity tells you it should sound better ).

HOWEVER, that still doesn't prove that there is no difference. And actually comparing the different versions isn't as trivial as you think - because only one was the original master version... which means that the versions at the other bit rates went through at least one resampling process... and each time that happens there are filters which are applied to the digital audio as part of the conversion process which make subtle but measurable differences. Therefore, it's virtually impossible for you or I to make a 100% proper comparison. Even if you buy all three versions from HDTracks, one is the original, and the others were created from it by altering the bit rate - which means that they have been through additional processing. Also, since most DACs treat the different sample rates slightly differently, there may also be differences there that relate to the specific DAC you use, but not to the "inherent quality" of the file itself.

The closest you could come to a fair comparison would be to start with a very high quality 24/192 version of a track, then, using the same conversion software and settings (as much as possible), convert that 192k "original" to 24/44 for one version, and convert it to 24/96 for another version, then compare those two versions. That way you would at least have two files, one at 44k and one at 96k, which started life as the same original, and went through pretty much the same conversion process. (At which point you will have eliminated everything except the possibility that your conversion software doesn't work exactly the same at different sample rates, and that your DAC itself may not work or sound the same at different sample rates.) If you use good quality conversion software, and a good DAC, then there's at least a good chance that you'll be able to tell with reasonable reliability whether there is or isn't an audible difference between 44k and 96k - WITH THAT SOURCE MATERIAL, THAT DAC, AND YOU AS THE "SAMPLE ANALYZER". And you should try this with a few dozen widely varying samples from different albums and sources to see if the difference (and which one you prefer) is repeatable or not. (If you seem to like 44k better with one album, can't hear the difference with another, and like 192k better with yet another album, then that suggests that there really are differences, but either they're different with different content, or that, while different, neither is clearly better.)

Of course, a 44k version taken from one master may sound better than a 192k version taken from another master, because the quality of the mixing and mastering probably makes a lot more difference than the sample rate, but I can tell you from my personal experience that, when I've had the ability to compare 44k and 192k versions of the same content, purportedly from the same mix and master, sometimes I hear a difference and sometimes I don't; but, when I do hear a difference, the 192k version always wins. Likewise, when I've converted a 192k file to 44k myself, I don't always hear a difference ; but, when I do hear a difference, the 192k file virtually always wins. And, if I convert a 44k file to 192k (which can't create new information but might affect the DAC or other equipment), I consistently fail to notice any significant difference (which is what I would expect). Now, obviously, my system isn't your system, my DACs aren't yours, my ears aren't your ears, my room isn't your room, and your results may vary

Jan 8, 2015 11:56:38 GMT -5 audiobill said:

Just to share from Dr. Aix's post today:

"After listening to Neil Young's position that "higher numbers are better" (meaning sample rate and word lengths), my resolve in trying to determine whether that true or not was reinvigorated. Neil believes that he's already proved it. Here's an extended quote from his press event on Tuesday (I will provide an audio file once I get back to LA for you to listen to but for some reason I'm having trouble importing videos into my laptop).

"Our base level is 44 - 16 and we go up to 192 - 24...which is good for you audiophiles. If you're not an audiophile, a larger number is better than a smaller one. Things go a lot faster, there's a lot more happening. And it's more fun to listen to. We proved that it's more fun to listen to. So we don't have to prove that anymore. All the musicians that I know, about a hundred of them got in my car where we played back our stuff. We had a little device that would switch back and forth between the songs and you could switch between all of the resolutions. We had four resolutions starting with the lowly MP3, and going up to the 192. They all came to the same conclusion...we didn't have to tell anybody anything. We had a 100% win at 192...over 96, over any compressed files that were supposedly going to playback at 192 quality. Some of them came close but they didn't come all the way. For some scientific reason, I can't really explain why...musicians can all hear what some scientists say we can't hear...but that's OK. The main thing is musicians can hear this. Musicians make their music in the studio. That's why I did this because I love what I hear."

This "study" that Pono did would be a groundbreaking addition to the science of acoustics and audiology and even a great AES paper. It would put the question to bed once and for all. But I don't I'm alone in being a little skeptical about his process, tools, procedures, and results. Stepping in to a 1972 Cadillac with a tricked out sound system driven by a Pono doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence in the results. I think more needs to be done.

I want to establish the same thing as Neil Young does...although I believe 96 kHz is more than enough. But it's going to take more than his assurances to make me a believer. And if he has indeed proved that 192 kHz is the spec that is "more fun to listen to" then why are there only 15,000 albums of the total of 2.1 million available on the PonoMusic website available at that resolution?"

[solarrdadd]

i see that the Pono store is finally open for business; anybody here purchase anything from them? if so, how did it sound and what was it's resolution? also, did you use a DAC other than the "Pono" player to play it back with?

[DYohn]

I've purchased several items from the Pono store, some in 16/44 and others in 24/192. The tracks sound great using Pono or my desktop setup. The same CD (QOTSA Like Clockwork) purchased from both iTunes and from Pono, both at 16/44, iTunes in ALAC and Pono in FLAC, A/B comparison (to my ears) the Pono version is noticeably better in several places. YMMV. The Pono music store prices are still generally higher than elsewhere.

I will also say that the 24/192 version of CSN&Y Deja Vu that came with my signature edition player is BY FAR the best sounding version of that recording I've ever heard, surpassing the vinyl release significantly. This indicates to me that the Pono folks really are "going back to the masters" at least for some things, not just offering the same tracks as everyone else.

[oldmanaudio]

Jan 16, 2015 15:13:32 GMT -5 DYohn said:

I've purchased several items from the Pono store, some in 16/44 and others in 24/192. The tracks sound great using Pono or my desktop setup. The same CD (QOTSA Like Clockwork) purchased from both iTunes and from Pono, both at 16/44, iTunes in ALAC and Pono in FLAC, A/B comparison (to my ears) the Pono version is noticeably better in several places. YMMV. The Pono music store prices are still generally higher than elsewhere.

I will also say that the 24/192 version of CSN&Y Deja Vu that came with my signature edition player is BY FAR the best sounding version of that recording I've ever heard, surpassing the vinyl release significantly. This indicates to me that the Pono folks really are "going back to the masters" at least for some things, not just offering the same tracks as everyone else.

 
Won't comment on the Pono, but THAT is an album I'd love love to hear in hi res!  Had a masterdisc of that back in the day and "Carry On" sounded like they were i my living room with me!

[jmilton]

Pono does DSD. (NOT a porn flick)

www.audiostream.com/content/pono-plays-dsd-now