Is Neil Young trying to put it on? Text by Daniel Boluda 03/16/2014 Pono, Young's new bet, will give you more quality than an MP3, but you probably do not distinguish it from a CD. Technologically, this has definitely been the week of Pono , the week of the new contraption with which the musician Neil Young intends little less than revolutionize the way we listen to the songs. The old rocker, an entrepreneur, has recruited many of the gods of the current musical Olympus for an ecstatic video presentation in which all gloss, with rather unscientific terms, the virtues of the new player. Pono is above all quite logical news. We all know that mp3 files, even those of good quality, carry a degree of compression, loss of detail. The good news is that the songs take up little and at the time of Napster , Soulseek , Kazaa and company, when computers still come with gigas in double digits, they served to count the disks by hundreds without having to toil away a fortune on space. Now that the Teras sell at a balance price, it seems to make sense that the weight per song increases: our player will have 500 gb instead of 32 and we will not fill it with mp3, well then it will be that the songs we have , instead of five megs occupy twice, or four times, and we recover and audio quality taken from us these perverse sound engineers of the past. That the quality of the music returns to be above the amount, that the iPods are sold by how well they sound their songs, not because they fit 100,000. Totally in favor. That said. Https://vimeo.com/88705147 Nothing new In the page of Pono, Neil and his are put to give us answers on his apparatus. First doubt and main, is Pono a new type of file? Will HeartOfGold.pono exist? No. Pono is a player that used as standard FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) files . These files, which compress less than mp3 without the songs ending up occupying as movies, are already well known by anyone who downloads music legally or aloud. Portals like Bandcamp offer indeed discs in these formats. To give you an idea, in the lowest definition FLAC (equivalent to CD quality), a three-minute song occupies approximately 20mb. And I say lower definition because, as in the case of mp3, FLAC files also offer different degrees of sound quality, from the mentioned standard CD (44.1 kHz / 16 bit), which Neil Young considers poop, to mulch Mental (192 kHz / 24 bit), which is a bit what he sells us. Having resolved this doubt, it is possible to say that Pono is nothing new. It does not open a different market. Today there are applications for smartphone ( Poweramp and many others) that let you play from your mobile FLAC files. Okay, the phones are not meant to play music, but neither by those Pono is a revolution. Brands like Fiio , Astell & Kern or to own Sony have in the notebook market FLAC players also have the advantage of not look like a Toblerone. Has not anyone thought of the aesthetic implications of that thing tucked into the pocket of some jeans? Call me crazy. Pono-02 Audiophile yes, science too Aesthetics enough, let's go back to the headline. Is Neil Young trying to put it on? To get closer to the answer, we will have to talk about numbers, of which we have just seen. What does that mean 44.1 kHz / 16 bit? These parameters reflect the amount of information our devices (in general) invest in representing sound waves for every second of sound. Do not get lost, easier. Imagine that this is an exercise in pointillism, but instead of making an impressionistic landscape our device has to draw a second sound wave. Those 44.1 kHz / 16 bit means that you will draw 44,100 dots using a palette of just over 65,000 colors (2 raised to 16). Applying primary mathematics here, we will find that 44,100 dots in a second equals 4,410 dots in a tenth of a second, 441 dots in a hundredth of a second, and 44.1 dots in a thousandth of a second. To draw the wave that runs a thousandth of a second, the CD quality draws 44 dots and unites them. The quality proposed by Pono changes the 44 dots by 192, and instead of 65,000 colors, it uses more than 16 million. Yes? There they have a thousandth and 44 points. There they have a thousandth and 44 points. Have you ever heard a thousandth of a second of looping audio? Well, whatever it sounds like, an infernal whistle. Neil's whistle has a definition of the host, but sounds just as hellish as the other. In theory, the human ear is not able to distinguish between reproductions of 44.1 kHz and 192 kHz just as our eyes can not distinguish between 30 frames per second and 10,000 frames per second. Reproduced in real time, we see the same thing. In the world of video more frames per second make sense to get the effect of slow motion, but in the audio, we are always going to listen at the correct speed, does not seem to make much sense. Our ears are not God Unfortunately our body has limits. Our auditory spectrum goes from 20Hz to 20,000Hz, and that, in fact, only in an ideal world: not everyone listens to the whole spectrum and in any case is only done during a few years of youth in which we have the eardrums to the top. From certain parameters, we have the same eight as 80. AsÃºmamoslo and let's move on. You will imagine that when the CD was invented and the scientists of the time were put to establish the quality that would have not finished with that of 44.1kHz / 16bits by chance. They stuck their elbows, did experiments, and said, "It's worth it so far." [EDIT: The fundamental reason is that to reproduce the audible spectrum by the human being, to understand us, we need a sample frequency of at least twice the bandwidth of the most problematic frequency, which is 20,000hz. That is, you need at least 40,000hz, so 44,100 is good enough. Below that, we would lose potentially audible frequencies]. It's a long story, but in this article, a man named Chris Montgomery and knows something about this, it does quite well. There are 18 folios if we remove the graphs, but the key to me is the following. Empirical evidence supports the theory that 44.1 kHz / 16 bit gives the highest possible quality when playing music [he insists play that explained above as the 24 - bit recording has advantages]. Numerous controlled experiments corroborate this. The author cites one in which the subjects were asked to listen to two songs, one in high definition and the same one turned into CD quality. Obviously everything with equipment of extreme quality in rooms soundproofed to the effect and others. Of 554 trials, the experiment subjects matched the song in high definition 49.8% of the time. I mean, they had no fucking idea. Interesting questions 1. Does this mean that HD has no more definition? No. High definition has more definition, but your ears do not care the same way infrared light sweat your eyes because they do not see it. More. Is it possible that even if I do not hear these frequencies somehow manage to enrich my acoustic experience on some mysterious subconscious plane? Get to know. 2. How can so many famous, audiophile and respectable people claim to note the difference between CD quality and high definition? The question is very interesting. If you want to be honest, what I suggest is that you test yourselves. In this link you have a folder with two songs downloaded for free from the page of Nine Inch Nails , offering their album The Slip in different qualities . The file that occupies 136mb is a 96kHz / 24bit WAV, the 33mb file is the same file converted to a FLAC of 44.1kHz / 16 bits. Put both in a player, take your best speakers or helmets, turn around and ask someone to play them alternatively, to see if they can distinguish the "good" from the "bad." That and no other is the way to do it, because if a gentleman arrives with his Hawaiian necklace, he puts them in a Cadillac and says: "look at what difference, look how good it sounds compared to this one", is clearly conditioning his answer. I've blindly tested those files - and with others - and I can not tell the difference. As soon as I look at which is which, knowing that one occupies 100mb more than the other, I begin to hear bass drums and more defined pitches. Call it placebo effect, call it confirmation bias: Pono's video is not science, it's marketing. And very good. It would have been annoying to see Bruce blindly monitored, but do you imagine that he does not distinguish one thing from the other? We would not sell a Toblerone. Under If they are fixed, most of the guests in the video speak in totally subjective terms: "warmth", "amplitude", "realism", "sounds that do not collide against a wall". Already, they are not going to put to speak of hercios, but these subjective impressions, this of "to return the soul to the music", is not enough so that, at least I, discard the mentioned scientific experiments and run to spend me â‚¬ 400 in A 200mb songs player. On the other hand, the video does not reveal which equipment used the car (which we suppose would be the rehostia) nor if it was tried first the music in CD and soon in 192Khz / 24. What sounds like a pussy is this underwater listening, which implies that the difference between CD quality and 192k (eye that the diagram already anticipates a Pono 2 with 384kHz files that will make you fly) is like passing Of listening to music 60 meters deep to surface. What do I do, I shot with my mp3 of the Carrefour until 2021? DO NOT. It is said in the first paragraph and I repeat it now: the mp3 is improveable and today it makes a lot of sense for anyone interested in music to go from mp3 to CD quality FLAC, which are, says theory, in the The limit of what our ears can discern. The files are larger, but they are not mastodontic and being the memory at the price it seems fairly reasonable as a new standard. In the end, the type of file and its characteristics are just one of the many variables that define what quality comes music to our ears. It also depends on the quality of the recording, on the quality of the master, on the quality of our player and, perhaps most of all on this portable audio, the quality of our helmets. Unfortunately, and this is already a more personal opinion, helmets more mainstream (think of the Beats or Sony baratejos) are quite unimpressive. If you are interested in the topic, I suggest looking where to prove some degree , about Audio-Technica , a Hi-F iMAN , or about Beyerdinamic , to name a few lesser known brands that offer, I think, better value for money and do not work under the Theorem of "more severe = better sound". Bet 90% of those who read this will notice infinitely more difference by changing their helmets by substantially better ones (invest â‚¬ 90 or more in a brand of those mentioned, for example) than keeping their battle helmets and changing their mp3s by FLACs Giants. Headgrade Finally, think of conspiranoicos, who are interested in the more or less widespread use of these archives. On the one hand, artists and labels, who will resell your entire catalog to those qualities that not even the CD reaches. And other hardware companies that will come to you ( Sony already does) new (and expensive) playback equipment designed for this high fidelity. And of course, tons of gigabytes so that stores are all music. Let us be cautious. Conclusion : if you're buying a Pono mp3 regulero to spend an intelligent FLAC and have a headset to help you appreciate the difference, fantastic. If you buy it to listen to giant files in a headset â‚¬ 20 believing that God will come to see you in the form of music and suddenly you will live a mystical experience that you never discovered listening to a CD, maybe you have Cast. pono music vs hdtracks pono music player head fi pono music player headphones pono music player hardware pono music in canada pono music itunes pono music in europe pono music investment pono music international pono music in australia pono music iphone pono music ios pono music images pono music italia pono music jobs pono music joke pono music world jriver
Empowering the Asháninka to shield millions of acres of Amazon rainforest.