VandyMan

I think I was banned for foul language. Anyway, at the time, it was totally worth it. Sorry, if you are embarrassed that your site has been criticized for being negative about Pono. I will say what I please. If that is a problem for you, go ahead and ban me. At Least then we will all know what you are about.

If you are going to censor my comments, just remove the whole xxxing thing. Don't be editing me. I have no problem with you making $$$ off this site. In fact, I hope you make a nice living from it. However, lets no pretend that we are all buddies hanging in your living room.

They are saying that better than 44.1/16 is not needed, not that MP3 and AAC are sufficient. Monty's arguments are based on established science and testing. He is clearly an expert in the field. Where has it "been shown" (as in proven?) that his arguments miss "the point of high-res" unless the point is to sell, sell, sell? The article mentions Pono right in the title. How is that not relevant? Because you and Chris disagree with the author? If we are going to discuss Pono, how can we not talk about the merits of hi-res audio?

When I'm at a party, the host does not show me ads or try to sell me a premium membership. These forums are as good as they are in large part because Chris allows free open discussion. If people have negative comments that are Pono related (and HD audio certainly is), why should they be self-censored?

Very well written article questioning the need for 192/24 in Pono. Most of his sources have been discussed around here before, but he puts it all together nicely. Sound bite: Despite Pono's promise, experts pan HD audio | Internet & Media - CNET News

I ordered the black Pono too. Like Skeptic, I'm interested in the potential of better masters with documented "provenance." I have done ABX testing of 44.1 vs 96 vs 192 using a high-quality headphone setup and heard no difference that I could reliably distinguish. [off topic: If you try such a test, be really careful that your tracks are all from the same master. Some people do this test using a track from HD Tracks vs their own CD rip (for example) and unknowingly end up comparing different masters. Also, I am told that some down samplers can cause audible difference. Not sure about that though.]

You are correct that confirmation bias could play a role in a persons preference of one correction curve vs uncorrected or vs a different correction curve. However, unlike audio cables, a different waveform is produced, so we know that a real change has happened. It can easily be measured. Also, since research has established what shape curve people prefer, we have a fairly good idea of what the final corrected curve should look like.

Since you don't know their costs, I don't see how you know what price will generate an "adequate" profit. The main cost of software is not the download or the package. It is the R&D. I don't disagree that the price is on the high side. I said so in another topic when the product was introduced. However, I don't pretend to know what it should cost or how much profit they make or should make. All I know is what I personally am willing to pay.

So, if they burned it onto a $1 CD for you, the price would be ok? This is a very sophisticated piece of software that has a fairly small audience. I'm sure it cost Dirac 500K (minimum) to develop it, write the docs, create the website, market it, and pay people like "flak" to support it. I see this as a product for people with expensive audio systems. For us, spending hundreds of dollars to really improve our systems is a bargain, given how much we already have invested. If that is not you, there are several free alternatives, but don't expect them to be easier than Dirac. Most are far more complex. That is why I'm sticking with my Tact for now (I don't have the time to learn a new system.) Dirac should make a less expensive lite version for those that can't afford the full version and don't want to delve too deeply. As to your attacks on the Dirac sales person "flak," he has been super helpful to lots of CA readers in half a dozen Dirac topics here. I read his interactions with you as his trying to be helpful and you being very frustrated and wanting to vent more than wanting to work on a solution. We have all been there, but you need to stop taking it out on this guy. He doesn't own the company, he probably does not work on commission, and he really was trying to help you.

For Linux users, they said that you can copy files directly to the SD-Card since they will have no desktop app. I'm sure you could do the same on Mac or PC. The desktop app will almost certainly provide this too.

If they define quality to include the mastering, how would you know by listening that you have the best quality? You would only know if you compared it to all the other versions of the album. If Pono bases this solely on bit-depth and sample rate, I agree with you.

Thanks for posting the NY interview from AudioStream. NY said all the right things. I think he is clear that the mastering is far more important than the resolution. Also, he was open about there being really nothing new about Pono, as long as you are willing to shop around and put together the pieces yourself. I appreciate his stated goals and I think I will back the project even though I don't imagine having much use for the Pono player. Maybe my nephew will get it for Christmas.

They have not spoken about how the light will work that I have seen. I'm guessing that it will not light for all 192/24, but will use meta data in the FLAC file to know if the file is certified. I'd like to know too.

Why would anyone want to help you with that attitude? I think you really just came here for an argument.

Was that is for your column? Looking forward to reading about it.