PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:43 pm
Can we talk about Pono?
Page 1 of 6
Re: PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 1:45 pm
I'm going to wait until the format can be played on my iOS devices.
Re: PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:02 pm
marketing hoopla from the site:
my take on what that means: they're probably using a Wolfson DAC or codec in their design... it's not going to be a format war, but more about the sum of the parts combined. Regarding the format playability:
FLAC is ALAC... or is it ALAC is FLAC?
• All circuitry is zero-feedback. Feedback can only correct an error after it has occurred, which means that it can never correct for all errors. By using proprietary ultra-linear circuitry with wide bandwidth and low output impedance, there is no need for unnatural sounding feedback.
• The DAC (Digital-to-Analog Converter) chip being used is widely recognized in the audio and engineering community as one of the best sounding DAC chips available today.
• The output buffer used to drive the headphones is fully discrete so that all individual parameters and circuit values and parts quality can be fully optimized for the absolute finest sound quality. The output impedance is very low so that the PonoPlayer delivers perfectly flat frequency response and wide volume range using virtually any set of headphones
my take on what that means: they're probably using a Wolfson DAC or codec in their design... it's not going to be a format war, but more about the sum of the parts combined. Regarding the format playability:
FLAC is ALAC... or is it ALAC is FLAC?
Re: PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:04 pm
This is what an idiot looks like.LoopStationZebra wrote:
Re: PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:14 pm
Thank god Neil is here to save us from the "error in the algorithm."
Re: PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:59 pm
it's gonna sound awesome on my 
Re: PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:55 pm
And sounds awesome with these too: 
Re: PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:34 pm
Pono? More like Po-NO!
Re: PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:22 pm
There's some beautiful multing going on in this thread. I'm rubbing one out just thinking about it...
Re: PONO
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:01 pm
which one can run the 200 faster... PONO or iPod?
Re: PONO
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:31 pm
PONO looks like an expensive toblerone, no thank you!
I do not want a media player that looks and probably operates like a child's toy
I do not want a media player that looks and probably operates like a child's toy
Re: PONO
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:15 pm
i know right.
but something more hard core like this:
but something more hard core like this:
Re: PONO
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:42 pm
The real trick is going to be persuading punters to pony up 24.99 for what they have got used to getting for 6.99.
Re: PONO
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:26 pm
Dead
On
Arrival
That said, I can't wait to incoporate these superior convertors into my mastering work flow.
On
Arrival
That said, I can't wait to incoporate these superior convertors into my mastering work flow.
Re: PONO
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:34 pm
I've been reading some criticisms about the whole Pono thing and in some of these articles people are talking about hi-res portable players like the Fiio X5 and the Calyx M.
The thing I don't get about making devices like this is that if it's meant to be portable then presumably the user is going to be listening with headphones. So my question is whether even the best best headphones have the ability to reproduce the frequency range needed to hear the difference between compressed formats and 24/96 lossless, not to mention the difference between 16/44.1 lossless which can already be loaded onto an Apple device and 24/96?
And if you're not using it with headphones and with a home system instead then why have a portable device in the first place?
The thing I don't get about making devices like this is that if it's meant to be portable then presumably the user is going to be listening with headphones. So my question is whether even the best best headphones have the ability to reproduce the frequency range needed to hear the difference between compressed formats and 24/96 lossless, not to mention the difference between 16/44.1 lossless which can already be loaded onto an Apple device and 24/96?
And if you're not using it with headphones and with a home system instead then why have a portable device in the first place?