DarrenMc

This always struck me as the fundamental flaw in the whole Pono concept. (and "worthwhile" of course, must take into account both the cost of the player and the hassle of hauling it around when you've already got a phone). If there's no point in using it away from home and no point in using it at home... where else will you use it?

This sounds like an incredibly important finding! However, the fact that you're sharing it with the dozen or so people reading a comment thread on a computer audio forum (of all places), rather than submitting your research papers in climate science for international peer review, tells me all I need to know about whether or not I should be taking you seriously.

I suffered a serious acoustic injury at a concert a couple of years ago. My ears (particularly the right) have been ringing ever since. At first, it was essentially impossible for me to listen to music and I was devastated, but if I can offer some simple hope to new sufferers: after a while, you just get used to it and you cease to notice it.

What gives you the right to question what I hear? I heard what I heard. I sat down last night and renamed some of my files with the "AUDIOPHILE VERSION" extension. They really did sound better. Who is the bully here, exactly? (Granted, it's not clear how this works, or even how it could work... but theoretical improbability hasn't been a consideration up until this point in the conversation so it's unclear to me why it suddenly matters now).

What I've found is that if I append the words "AUDIOPHILE VERSION" to the filenames of all my music files, they sound better. True story. (or, that is, at least as likely to be true as the effect you're describing here).

+1 for the HiFiMan HP. It's amazing how good and how cheap gear is these days.

lol

Part of the problem for "the high end" is that their competitor (the "low end") is getting much, much, much better and cheaper. This is certainly not "hi-fi" to anyone's ears (even mine), but I remember in the late 80s I had my eye on some small powered speakers from Acoustic Research (the kind you'd plug your walkman into) that cost.... $500! Nowadays, for casual background listening while I'm making dinner I sometimes don't bother to fire up the main rig, instead I put on a pair of Altec Lansing 2.1 computer speakers that cost $100 (ie: about one-tenth the price of the AR speakers in real terms, and they sound better). Turn down the bass and turn up the treble to balance them out and they're not terrible. In these days of economic inequality, job insecurity, and expensive housing (I live in Canada), it's gonna be hard to convince more than a tiny handful of people to drop multiple kilobucks on a sound system when $100 gets you as much as it does.

This discussion is pretty much identical to the one you'd have if you tried to argue a believer in homeopathy out of their delusions. 1. It's impossible in theory. 2. It fails all properly conducted (ie: blind) tests. 3. Ergo, it probably isn't true. Move on, and leave the believers to it.

It is apparent to me that the vast majority would not, and I think the differences are instructive. HD video is an clear and unambiguous upgrade over SD in theory (ie: the differences should be immediately discernable by the human eye); and in practice the difference is in fact immediately apparent to everyone with normal eyesight and a $600 TV. No eye training or five figure systems required. DBT is a tool for convincing skeptics, but in this case there are no skeptics, so DBT is never mentioned.

Fair point. Some of my favourite rock musicians have classical chops and I love them for it. However, I'm thinking about what I've heard about the Asian "Tiger Moms", chaining their children to the piano (it is said) in order that their children learn discipline (whether the child shows any enthusiasm for music or not). Bach seems to be one of the cudgels of choice in these cases. FWIW, I've seen online comments from the graduates of this method, who say "it made me good at math, but I couldn't care less about music". If the enthusiasm for this child-rearing practice wanes, the clientele for Bach sheet music diminishes. As for Pono, there's little to talk about (those who think the device is destined to be a pointless commercial failure have made their case), so IMHO little is lost by diverting this thread into a genuinely interesting philosophical direction.

That describes the circumstances of creation of much of the "popular music" of the last 50 years. (These days, they even have computer algorithms that try to evaluate the "hit potential" of songs). But it doesn't describe all of it, and I think that's what you're missing. You are correct that popularity will not ensure longevity (Al Jolson), but popularity is not necessarily begat from cynicism either. Do you think the Beatles were sitting around in Abbey Road studios bouncing tracks for "Sgt. Pepper" on a 4-track because they needed the money? (They were already "bigger than Jesus" by that point.) Because they wanted to make Capitol Record rich(er)? Of course not. They were artists, making art, and they made the art they wanted to make. Whether it was "good" or "bad" art is of course up to the listener, and future generations will decide whether it lasts. But please don't tell me Sgt. Pepper came from a cynical place, because that's patent nonsense. BTW, Al Jolson is not the only one vulnerable to shifting cultural sensibilities. It is undeniable that Bach lasts partly because it's a class-marker. People often listen to Bach because they like to think of themselves as the sort of upper class people who listen to Bach. (Those piano students aren't being made to slave away over the classics because they, or their parents, like the classics). We'll see whether that lasts.

+1

My apologies, I was not trying to imply those composers were mediocre. (I know nothing about them and would not presume to pass judgement). I do think that Aerosmith will be forgotten by all but musicologists, by reason of mediocrity. (And I *am* familiar with them).

Of course. However, you're ignoring survivorship bias. The examples of classical music "you know" happen to be the ones that stood the test of time. No pop music from the second half of the 20th century has yet been exposed to the test of time, so none can be said to have passed it. Most of today's pop music will be forgotten, of course. But some of it will be remembered, just as Beethoven is. You appeared to be saying that no popular music of the second half of the 20th century will be remembered. (Certainly, if the Beatles will be forgotten as you claim, then everything else from the last 50 years will be too, as the Beatles would be considered "rock music most likely to last"). You also mentioned "the Great American Songbook" as an example of something which has lasted. I think you might be overstating the degree to which this is the case. As for the "Dark Ages", I suspect that your definition of that term and mine will differ substantially, so I'll leave it at that.