

PonoPlayer: Neil Young’s new streaming device sounds no better than an iPhone - smacktoward
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2015/02/ponoplayer_review_neil_young_s_new_streaming_device_sounds_no_better_than.single.html

======
jdietrich
The PonoPlayer sounds no better than the iPhone to _an untrained listener_
using _mediocre headphones_. The writer misses some important quantitative
differences, because he knows very little about audio engineering.

The most crucial and easily understandable difference IMO is the headphone
amplifier. The iPhone has good quality digital-to-analog converters and
generally sounds fine through easy to drive headphones, but it falters if you
use large high-impedance headphones that need a lot of power. Hook up a pair
of Sennheiser HD650s or AKG K701s to an iPhone and things go badly wrong - the
bass disappears and transients start to distort, because the tiny headphone
amp just doesn't have the power to cope.

Yes, the audiophile world is full of bullshit, but that doesn't mean that all
quality audio products are bullshit. Professional audio engineers with degrees
in physics or engineering are not fools, and they do not do critical listening
through $130 headphones and whatever converter and amp happens to be on their
device. They use $2000 converters, $4000 monitors and $600 headphones because
they are measurably better in all sorts of ways to cheaper equipment.

If you're listening to music for pleasure, use whatever equipment you like. If
you don't hear the difference that better equipment makes, then don't pay the
extra. The only thing that matters is your enjoyment of the music. Conversely,
just because you can't hear a difference, don't assume that it isn't there.
Really understanding audio and being able to critically assess recordings and
audio equipment takes a great deal of training and practice.

~~~
tmllyd
Yes, when discussing Pono it's important to differentiate between Pono the
device and Pono the push towards higher sampling rates. The former may very
well be better than other mobile devices in important ways as you mentioned.

The latter is not backed up by evidence, but perched precariously on a
conflation of the sound of low bit rate lossy compression and RedBook CD
(which while on the edge, is adequate for delivery as far as the current
evidence shows), and the naive misconception that faster and faster sampling
equals better sound.

There are solid technical reasons why 192 kHz sampling is too fast [1], even
ignoring the evidence that shows that we don't benefit from the additional
bandwidth (note the difference between modulator speed and sample rate!).

There are scenarios when up-sampling an already digitised signal before
certain kinds of processing is very beneficial (to reduce aliasing in the
audible range), but that's an entirely separate discussion.

[1] [http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-
theory.pdf](http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf)

------
tzs
> But here’s the catch: According to people who study human physiology,
> 44.1-kHz recordings provide enough upper-end treble to exceed the
> capabilities of our ears. Anything higher and you’re spending money for
> sounds your dog can listen to but you can’t.

You can't hear above 20 kHz in the sense that if someone plays a 22 kHz tone
and asks if you hear a tone, you won't be able to answer correctly more
accurately than if you just guessed.

However, that doesn't mean that it makes no difference if music above 20 kHz
is present.

See the paper "Inaudible high-frequency sounds affect brain activity:
Hypersonic effect" [1], available for free online here [2].

They exposed listeners to gamelan music, which is rich in content above 22
KHz, sometimes with the ultrasonic sound included, sometimes with it removed,
and looked at brain responses via EEG and PET. They clearly found statistical
differences in brain response when the ultrasonic components were included.

They also did long double blind listening tests where the participants were
asked to subjectively rate the sound, and the music that included the
ultrasonics was rated higher.

[1] T. Oohashi, E. Nishina, M. Honda, Y. Yonekura, Y. Fuwamoto, N. Kawai, T.
Maekawa, S. Nakamura, H. Fukuyama, and H. Shibasaki. Inaudible high-frequency
sounds affect brain activity: Hypersonic effect. Journal of Neurophysiology,
83(6):3548–3558, 2000

[2]
[http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full](http://jn.physiology.org/content/83/6/3548.full)

~~~
tmllyd
Flawed methodology and their results have since failed to be reproduced [1].
There's a run-down of the major issues with it in post #156 here [2] (all
verifiable by reading the research paper).

There are also various studies which essentially show the opposite results
([3], [4]).

[1]
[http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12375](http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12375)

[2] [http://www.head-fi.org/t/266217/from-cd-to-sacd-how-much-
of-...](http://www.head-fi.org/t/266217/from-cd-to-sacd-how-much-of-
difference/150)

[3]
[http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195](http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195)

[4]
[http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=13185](http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=13185)

~~~
tzs
The run-down in post #156 at link is not very impressive.

His first criticism is that the listeners knew the test was ABBA, with the
listeners knowing that A and B are different. He thinks that is a flaw. It
would be if the test were "can listeners tell the difference between A and
B?". It's not when the test is "do listeners prefer A or B?".

His second criticism is that there are slight differences in the spectra below
20 KHz. That's a legitimate criticism.

Third, fourth, and fifth are ad hominem and similar bogus arguments.

The sixth criticism is that if people do find they like the music with the
high frequency components better it is because it is leading to more alpha
waves and a relaxed state, which makes the people think they like the music
more. He says that this isn't hearing and concludes that this somehow makes it
irrelevant. This is ridiculous because it doesn't matter HOW it affects
perception. If high frequencies somehow induce relaxation which makes us
perceive the music more positively, presumably that would happen during a live
concert. Hence, if we want the recorded music to be perceived as being as good
as the live, we'd need those frequencies.

------
stolio
I'm getting kind of tired of the pseudo-scientific smackdowns.

 _I like my headphones just fine, and I couldn 't tell the difference on
them!_ So what? Those are consumer headphones, they're designed to sound
_good_ not _accurate_. If you're testing two music players you might use a
pair of headphones that's designed to give an accurate representation of the
signal they're given.

Is 192kHz a sham? Probably. But so is going _lalalala nothing sounds better
than an iPhone, you idiots are buying snake-oil_

~~~
quesera
> I'm getting kind of tired of the pseudo-scientific smackdowns.

Were you expecting a scientific treatise on _Slate_?

Try this instead:

[http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-
young.html](http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)

~~~
stolio
I just want people who pretend to be scientific to take themselves seriously
enough that if somebody says "Your headphones suck" that they say "do they?
Why?"

That article is better :) 192 is silly pretty much always, 24 bits isn't very
useful for playback, but a music player with better digital-to-analog
converters and a better amplification stage than an iPhone? That should make a
difference. An iPhone does ten million things, there should be a way to make a
better music player that only does one.

(edit: now that I think about it 24 bits could be useful for playback.)

