| >> | No.45045896
Hearing the difference now isn't the reason to encode to Pono. Pono uses lossless compression, while MP3 is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA - it's about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. Pono rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to Pono, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.
|
| >> | No.45045983
>>45045896
>>45045862
Of course not! Dr Dre Beats are the way to go. The ultra static dynamic magnetism within the upper echelon of the headphone has a tendency to help sharpen and brighten the lower range of the midrange, allowing both the warm sound of dynamic headphones and more precise tones of electrostatics to come in shape.
The treble is where the clarity and calamity shines, you can literally touch the body of the treble while listening, thanks to thermodynamic activated noise cancelling outside noise won't affect the treble quality which is an issue in most headphones. We're not just talking about your screaming mother, but outside frequencies you cannot hear still decrease the sound quality. Thanks to the thermodynamics the treble truly shines.
Finally the mids, the perfectly crafted V shaped sound signature making the headphone more fun, without reducing neutrality like the Denon's or Ultrasones. Dr Dre knows your brain has trouble registering abundant mid frequencies that are too forward and solidified, thus the mids remain where they should be. Slightly recessed with a many musical tones entwined with the sparkly high yet not buried by the mind crushing bass.
Dr Dre knows bass better than anyone and boy has he shown it. The Beats have a bass with the lush sonics only apparent in subwoofers while keeping the analytical veil of the higher end AKG line, it's not a question of either or with Beats. You get the perfect cold sound of the AKG's with the planarmagnetically enhanced sub frequencies you normally can't find in headphones. The bass dances around while the sonics caress the mids bringing both forward, yet without recessing the beautifully scent filled treble. The bass doesn't only vibrate your body, it vibrates your soul and subconscious. Only thanks to the psychologically altered rotational velocidensities engineered into the sub frequencies.
The Beats are a complete package and you would be stupid to get anything else.
|
| >> | No.45047423
>>45047375
>http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/
>The main reason it knocked the wind out of me was its conclusions. It was designed to show whether real people, with good ears, can hear any differences between “high-resolution” audio and the 44.1kHz/16-bit CD standard. And the answer Moran and Meyer came up with, after hundreds of trials with dozens of subjects using four different top-tier systems playing a wide variety of music, is, “No, they can't.”
>The number of times out of 554 that the listeners correctly identified which system was which was 276, or 49.82 percent — exactly the same thing that would have happened if they had based their responses on flipping a coin. Audiophiles and working engineers did slightly better, or 52.7-percent correct, while those who could hear above 15 kHz actually did worse, or 45.3 percent.
|
| >> | No.45051753
>>45051691
This is way dumber than I thought. Neil Young said he was going to release a .PONO format with high range frequencies but less file size than FLAC.
lol, just lol at what TinyMixTapes wrote:
"what the Kickstarter actually clarifies is that Pono is not a new audio file format at all. Instead, the PonoPlayer is equipped to play FLACs. “CD lossless” FLACs, “high-resolution” FLACs, “higher-resolution” FLACs, and “ultra-high resolution” FLACs, but still the same FLACs that have been available as a format since 2001. Also, how could a 128 GB PonoPlayer hold the long-promised “1,000 to 2,000 albums” if they’re all in massive FLAC files? Well, it couldn’t! Not even close! As an updated post on Consequence of Sound reveals, “the device will hold up to 5,000 tracks, which would be about 417 12-song albums.” And that’s at “CD lossless” quality, the lowest of four available on the PonoMusic store.
Does that not matter to you? Seems pretty important to me."
lmao
|
| >> | No.45051946
>Pearl Jam, Neil Young, Tom Petty, Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Foo Fighters, Willie Nelson, Patti Smith, Arcade Fire, Beck, Dave Mathews Band, Herbie Hancock, Norah Jones, Lenny Kravitz, Pearl Jam and more coming.
>Pearl Jam, Neil Young
>Pearl Jam and more coming
lmao
|
| >> | No.45052100
http://www.antiquiet.com/music/2014/03/neil-young-pono-hands-on-first-impression/
>At first, I didn’t notice any real difference. The guitars and light drumming that open Heart Of Gold seemed standard to me. However, when Young’s vocals cut in, that was when my eyes widened. It actually sounded like Neil Young was singing the song into my ear from an inch away, the clarity in his voice unlike anything I’d ever heard before. As a kid who grew up in the digital age, it was almost ominous to me.
>I then decided to try out Bob Dylan’s Blowing In The Wind. As soon as the song started, I exclaimed, (extremely loud due to the noise canceling nature of the headphones), “This Dylan song is sick!” The instruments had a much fuller and more prominent sound, and you feel like you’re sitting in a small room watching Bob Dylan or Neil Young sing their classic tunes. Finally, the last song I tried was Metallica’s Enter Sandman, this time using a pair of standard issued Apple headphones. With this one, I was surprised to actually hear more sounds than the version I have on my iPod, which I believe I ripped from YouTube circa 2007. Needless to say, this was probably the most impressive of the three tracks, with the roaring guitars and James Hetfield’s aggressive vocals searing my eardrums.
>With this one, I was surprised to actually hear more sounds than the version I have on my iPod, which I believe I ripped from YouTube circa 2007.
>It sounds better than a 128 kbps Youtube rip
Is this satire?
|