|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.190.136.245
Folks, let me try to clarify, IMO, what Pono is all about.
I have listened every single event Neil Young has been a part of to promote it. I also talked to him in person at an event in New York.
It is NOT about the hardware. Let us repeat. It is NOT about the hardware.
It is a reverse iTunes, where Apple decided to sell lossy slop masquerading as "CD Quality" to push sales of iPods. Pono was designed to get people to explore HIGHER resolution audio.
The whole push is to promote HIGH QUALITY DIGITAL MUSIC. This is a software push. It is a push to get musicians and record companies to offer to the public the quality they were accosted to many years ago.
Young is convinced the standard for digital should be 192 PCM. Anything else is a compromise, and all his albums have been remastered in 192.
It is working, because file quality is front and center in the media.
(Side note: At CES he tells a story, which he has told many times, that Steve Jobs was sitting in his palace listening to LPs, snickering at masses who were actually paying for music from iTunes. He thought the iPod was a lowly consumer grade product that was for convenience.)
Forget the player.
Follow Ups:
[PONO] is a reverse iTunes, where Apple decided to sell lossy slop masquerading as "CD Quality" to push sales of iPods.
Even from the beginning, iTunes had the ability to support uncompressed files. But as Abe already noted, the storage of the early iPod players was very limited. As far as the general public was/is concerned, the lossy iTunes downloads are indistinguishable from CD-quality, and the vast majority of listeners have an appetite for quantity over quality. However, even in these early days, the vast majority of songs ripped to various iTunes libraries were from listeners' own collections - they were not paid downloads from the iTunes store. In fact, Jobs himself acknowledged that fact in an open letter to iTunes users. In any case, the public spoke in favor of quantity over quality, and the iTunes store was giving them what they wanted. However, even Apple's AAC format was (and is) an improvement over the mp3's that were widespread at the time (and still are).
If you will check any number of sites which cover Apple and iTunes, you will read reports concerning the likelihood that, now that storage is cheap, the iTunes store will soon be offering lossless CD-quality files for download. These reports began to surface well before PONO even existed.
I love people who blame Apple for the prevalence of lossy music files. Wah! Wah! Wah! - blame the big corporations based on ignorance of history.
Finally, that lame anecdote regarding Jobs doesn't pass the giggle test.
1. Abe is an obvious (possibly even self-professed) Apple fan boy.
2. Apple was a dying company that was rescued by Steve Jobs, a psychopath.
3. Apple continues to follow Job's business strategy of locking in their customers and then exploiting them.
4. Sprezza Tura has an different opinion of Apple than Abe.
Just my opinion, FWIW which may not be much.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
3. Apple continues to follow Job's business strategy of locking in their customers and then exploiting them.No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple products but they must be doing something right having the highest market cap of any public company in the world along with the highest brand value. Fact. I guess success makes them a bad guy and a target. To be expected.
And if you're following Apple at all you'll see that the company isn't as locked into Job's old vision as it used to be.
It's going to be fun watching "Apple Pay" vs MCX "CurrentC". Which evil will win? ;-)
Edits: 01/19/15 01/19/15
"...they must be doing something right having the highest market cap of any public company in the world along with the highest brand value."
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Do you really expect gramps and gramma to be conversant with LINUX systems of the type that you use? The reason Apple has triumphed in the consumer market is because all kinds of people can actually use Apple products (imagine!).
This forum is about computer audio. I would assume that everyone here has some competence in computers. For reading the posts, most people claim to have this ability.
I run Linux headless on embedded systems. I use Windows 7 and 8.1 for day to day use because that's the way my systems are set up. (Depends on paid applications, among other things.) But I could run Linux perfectly well for office tasks, since the open source office applications that I use on Windows also run on Linux. It took some time for me to be come sufficiently familiar with Linux to be able to do system management to my satisfaction.
The majority of Gramps and Grammas that I use Windows. However, all the people that I am friends with are pretty smart. I don't hang out with fools. So perhaps you are right. I don't personally know any fools who are supporting Apple's market cap. I've been around the computer industry for 50 years, and I've seen a lot of companies rise and fall.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony whether you realize it or not there are many technical professionals who CHOOSE to use Mac as I do. I have a couple decades experience on UNIX as well as DOS/Windows since the beginning of the PC. Mac OS is breath for fresh air for me.
I made the switch from Windoze to Mac about 7 years ago. Linux is still not ready for prime time IMHO as a desktop environment (although great for the datacenter) and many open source applications are quite crippled. I know, having used OpenOffice and LibreOffice for a few years. MS Word, PPT, Excel even on Mac is far superior and more stable than the open source alternatives.
My only regret is not making the transition to Mac OS sooner. And when absolutely necessary, I can run Windoze just fine on my Mac.... as well as Linux, Solaris, etc.
So anyone who uses Apple equipment is a fool?
BTW, although I've used Macs since they first came out in the 80's, I've also used Windoze computers at work during my 26 years working for a couple of large financial institutions. I've also run LINUX on an iMac. Personally, I would never buy PC's running Windoze for myself, unless I didn't have any other choice. YMMV and all that.
You know, you are very bright in some ways (and I tip my hat to your engineering knowledge), but you have this inflexible, doctrinaire attitude on a number of subjects that's completely unjustified IMHO. You say that the MAJORITY of oldsters you know run Windoze. So are the others fools?
How about we stop with the Mac vs Windows debate..this is a Pono thread..specific to the music store..NOT the player.
A number of us can't help ourselves however. ;-)
"So anyone who uses Apple equipment is a fool?"
No, anyone who is not smart enough to use Windows systems after making a reasonable effort is a fool. Also, anyone who is unwilling to try to learn something new has passed his or her "use by date".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
1. Who cares if Abe is a fanboy? Big deal.
2. Jobs is/was no different than many(most) CEO's of major corporations. Being a psychopath is almost a job requirement for these type positions. No news here.
3. Apple is not locking anyone into anything. This is a free market people are free to purchase what they wish. Apple appeals to that segment of the market that has no desire to be a computer-techno-nerd and spend endless hours, days, weeks, etc., tinkering with and trying to get their toys working. Apple products work and are easy to understand/use. The rest of the industry could learn a lesson from Apple in this regard. Job's understood the market quite well and understood most average people have little if any tolerance for the typical computer/tech toy issues.
4. I have a different opinion as well. I prefer to get work done on my computer rather than having to constantly dink with the thing something I was constantly doing with my Windows based systems. Sometimes just to get the damn thing turned on!!!!
Let's add with respect to Pono:
-a poster quotes Mark Waldrep, a bitter competitor who on his blog made
numerous false statements about Pono
-Abe continually asks "what is the point" of the pono player and is told repeatedly this thread is not about the player, but the download store.
-Abe continually asks "what is the point" of the music store and is told repeatedly:
-they have exclusive content not available anywhere else currently,
-that Neil Young has convinced other veteran musicians to remaster their catalogs for beyond CD resolution distribution,
-that if an album becomes available in a higher resolution at some point in the future, the purchaser will have free access that download,
-their content dwarfs HDT and Acoustics Sounds combined,
-even if none of the above were the case, a third download store is good for the consumer, as competition always is.
Despite all this, the response is a trolling, "So there is no point".
THAT is a good summary.
"1. Abe is an obvious (possibly even self-professed) Apple fan boy." Check.
"2. Apple was a dying company that was rescued by Steve Jobs, a psychopath." As opposed to Microsoft run by a reasonably sane Steve Ballmer(pictured above).
"3. Apple continues to follow Job's business strategy of locking in their customers and then exploiting them." As opposed to Microsoft, see #2 above.
"4. Sprezza Tura has an different opinion of Apple than Abe." Check.
Some say the world is run by psychopaths. I don't believe that Linus Torvalds is one. I could care less about Steve Ballmer.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
During the period of Apple's huge success with the iPhome, Steve Ballmer was running Microsoft into the ground.I was a Palm (Treo) Fanboy, so WTFDIK?
To the extent that ANYONE is supporting resolution greater than MP3, or even 16/44.1, more power to them.
Never purchased music from Apple but my wife has had an iPod since nearly forever and rips her CDs at as high a quality as she can, even if it doesn't hold many hours of music.
Edits: 01/18/15 01/18/15
nt
OK, edited post to add clarity!
"I was a Palm Fanboy,"
Sorry you couldn't find a girlfriend!
Maybe you can try getting rid of the animated cats.
'Cause you guy are AWFUL!
Don't worry, the Palm was THE best PDA before it finally went belly up. I had a couple Palm Pilot models over the years and they were awesome!
I then jumped on BlackBerry because of the tactile keyboard but hated everything else about it including it's antiquated OS, clunky operation, junk Applications. It was a real P.O.S. that I was happy to dump after a year of pain and suffering!!
I finally made the move to iPhone and haven't looked back.
The jury is still out but the early reviews are very favorable even if it may fall short of the $2400 A$K.http://parttimeaudiophile.com/2014/11/19/review-pono-music-player-part-1/
http://www.whathifi.com/pono/ponoplayer/review
Edits: 01/17/15
For those focused on the player, it should be noted that at CES this year there were 6 or 7 new portable hi rez file players introduced from a number of companies..FiiO, Calyx, Sony, Audio Technica....LH Labs is crowdfunding one and there are a bunch more. And they are ALL more expensive except for the FiiO I believe.
For some reason folks seem to think Pono and A&K are the only two.
- Why would I or the general public want a Pono Player?
- Does the Pono Player have digital outputs or just analog jacks?
- Why would I or the general pubic want to download their hi-res music from Pono vs. the several other sites that offer hi-res music like HDTracks.com, SuperHiRez.com, NativeDSD.com, and other existing sites?
Call me dense (I've been called worse!) but I still don't get it.
I 'spose the A&Ks were there first but, because of the NY-hype train, the Pono is first high-end portable I knew about. In addition to playing all formats (DSD is said to be on the way), the Pono likely has SQ better than any iPod ever and at a competitive price.
I don't know about digital outs but apparently it can be used as a source for your home system (altho' you'll still need to keep your computer nearby as the storage is pretty low capacity).
To me, the real significance of Pono is bringing awareness of better quality digital to the public and the Pono music store. I held off on computer audio for a few years 'cuz there were barely any titles I was willing to pay for. The selection from HDT is pretty good now but I would like an even bigger selection, thank you. If Pono is successful, I suspect *all* new releases will be available in 24 bit. All because of the gravitas of NY.
I'd say that's a good thing!
ok. let's go REeallllllll Sloooooowww.There is NO reason for anyone to want a Pono player any more than the would want an A&K, Calyx, LH Labs, new Sony Walkman, or any of the other dozen new hirez players that hit the market. MAYBE they want it because Ayre Acoustics designed, or because it they like crowd funded products..simple enough????
Next:
Go to your computer....
G O O G L E: "Pono Player Inputs Outputs"Next:
There is no reason for anyone to shop at Ponomusic.com, but competition is GOOD for the consumer, is that simple enough?
Also, just maybe they want the entire Neil Young catalog and part of the CSN/CSNY catalog in 192.
Edits: 01/16/15
OK, I think I get it now.... let me summarize in my own words, sloooowly.1) There is no good reason why anyone would need a Pono player with all the other choices out there. In fairness I will give Pono a weak thumbs up on price for a high-end portable hi-rez player since the others you mentioned are more expensive.
2) It does not have a digital output so you MUST use it's built-in DAC which may actually be very good.... BUT with no digital output forget about using it as a transport with your existing DAC in your home system. Pono has analog outputs only. No big deal. I suppose if I had a reason to do that I could use my iPod, iPhone, or iPad as they all have digital out.
There is no reason for anyone to shop at Ponomusic.com, but competition is GOOD for the consumer, is that simple enough?
3) You said it best. There is no compelling reason to shop at Ponomusic.com. It's all about marketing buzz to foster awareness and competition.
So let me summarize the summary for the very slooooow among us.- There are several other portable hi-rez players on the market that don't look like a boner in your pocket or a wedge in your ass. So unless you like the funky Pono boner, buy something more practical.
- There are already several other sources of hi-rez music downloand sites that are much easier to navigate so there is no need for Ponomusic.com
- Pono Player, Ponomusic, and Neil Young are all about marketing buzz to foster competition and awareness in hi-rez. He and his altruistic infomercial buddies have nothing to gain except the warm fuzzy feeling they share in educating the public.
Edits: 01/16/15 01/16/15
You are a real negative assclown in regards to this topic.Your stupid little "summary" is so shortsightd, it further illustrates what a small thinker you are.
Continue to be swarmy, with trolling posts, while I enjoy the entire Neil Young catalog and all the other exclusive content I purchased from Pono. And no, I don't have a player.
I love watching stew in your own juices,
So much anger...
Edits: 01/16/15
I tend to break things down to their basics to get beyond the smoke and mirrors. If that's being an a-hole so be it. I thought I was paraphrasing and supporting what you said.I'm not angry. Just relieved that I finally understand this Pono thing.
Edits: 01/16/15
FAIL.Your "breakdown" is laced with anger And cynicism.
What you can't get though your thick head is that the Pono store has thousands upon thousands of CD Quality downloads not available anywhere else..NOT "hires".. But simple CD quality...of many albums out of print or only available as expensive import title....like....
Jack Bruce, Harry Chapin, John Martyn, Levon Helm, Judy Collins, and hundreds more.
I pegged it...small thinker,...high Rez is a scam, Pono offers no benefit, all hype blah blah blah
Edits: 01/16/15
The Pono player looks to be a reasonably priced, for the SQ, player. I don't know how it compares to the A&Ks or the others but I'm confident that it doesn't suck. People can buy it or not; I have no idea why Abe has to dump on it.
The Pono Music store is the real boon for computer audiophiles. It gives us more choices and, I suspect, will lead to all new releases being available in hi-rez. Abe's cynicism does not change the fact that NY has captured the attention of the music industry executives, producers, and musicians. Pono can certainly improve their website but, hey, they just got started. I'm disappointed that the prices are so high (CD rez titles should sell for, maybe, $10) but they're not any higher than HDT or the others. I have found one CD-rez for $8 on Pono, as well as a 24 bit Norah Jones for $12. So, maybe we'll see better values in the future?
The Pono player looks to be a reasonably priced, for the SQ, player. I don't know how it compares to the A&Ks or the others but I'm confident that it doesn't suck. People can buy it or not; I have no idea why Abe has to dump on it.
There is NO reason for anyone to want a Pono player any more than the would want an A&K, Calyx, LH Labs, new Sony Walkman, or any of the other dozen new hirez players that hit the market.
The Pono Music store is the real boon for computer audiophiles....
There is no reason for anyone to shop at Ponomusic.com, but competition is GOOD for the consumer...
Not my words above but if there's no reason to buy the Pono player and no reason to shop at Ponomusic.com, my short summary point #3 in my post further up doesn't sound so far fetched anymore. If my summary sounds off, then WHAT is the point? Thanks.
There may not be a reason for YOU to buy a Pono player but please don't speak for everyone. Certainly there are a lot of people who will find the Pono's combination of price, features, and SQ to make it the "right" product for them. Others will gravitate to other players. It's all good!
Likewise, there may be no reason for YOU to shop at Pono Music but they have *do* have titles that are unavailable at HDT. Granted, the examples I've found so far are 16/44 but c'mon! And when your favorite artists start releasing NEW material in hi-rez, you can probably thank NY and Pono!
And there is no reason for you to be on this thread.
BYE BYE.
So many people dislike having their words bounced back at them.
No one else was asking the tough questions and I truly didn't understand the appeal but with your help, I'm pretty clear on it now. BYE BYE.
Yes what is the point of this thread?
So you met Neil Young, big deal. lol
Who's being angry? I believe that your input helped me produce a fair assessment in my summary. I'm done. Thank you.
nt
Cut-Throat
but having a new DL store is of no interest? Okey-dokey.
nt
Cut-Throat
Foged-bout-it...
LOST CAUSE.
But I haven't bought any music from their site. As Neil Young has stated, the prices are set by the labels and I find that to be very high - same comment regarding HD Tracks.
But, what it does let me do is to load 24/96 Flac files from LP's that I've recorded and to take them on the road with me. I can listen to music with headphones or connect it to the truck stereo with an adapter cable.
I compared 24/96 to 24/192 and couldn't tell any difference. With the huge increase in file size 24/96 works well for me.
agree on pricing..absolutely.
For portable use, 96 is all you will ever need IMO.
I would like to see hi-res replace CD as the industry standard format, but I don't think it's going to happen unless there is near price parity.
For a typical standard length album, the CD, iTunes download, and the download from the artist's web site are all in the $8-12 range. If the hi-res version goes for $20-25, only audiophiles and a few fanatic fans will be willing to pay the premium. The other 99% will keep the cash and buy the lower res version. That is the situation today.
But if the CDs were $10 and the hi-res versions $12, I think you would see a significant percentage of buyers opting for the hi-res. If you can get 10% of all buyers to pay $12 for the hi-res version, you will make more money than if you get 1% to pay $20.
We are in agreement.
Some of those PONO files appear to be just high-rez containers of lower rez recordings. To me, that's a much worse deception than what you claim Apple was doing on iTunes. (And in any case, iTunes can support files up to 24/192 - my beef is that iTunes does not support multi-channel.) There are several columns and posts on the site below relating directly to problems with PONO if you're interested.
"Some of those PONO files appear to be just high-rez containers of lower rez recordings."
Care to be specific???
BTW, in no way is Pono perfect..they fully admit there is a long way to go for the user experience...they are working on it daily. Search functions, and other issues are being worked out. They will continue to make mistakes. They have open TWO WEEKS.
"99% of the Pono catalog of so-called “master quality” albums or “high-resolution” albums will be nothing more than rips of standard resolution compact discs." I believe this assertion (from Mark Waldrep) is based on spectrographic evidence of "hi-rez" PONO files that Mark had shared in earlier columns at the site I referenced above. I saw these earlier columns, but they're several months old and tedious to find, and since there does not seem to be a good search function at that site, you have to plow through the column/blog titles 10 at a time or so to find the ones with the spectrographs.
Here's the libelous quote. Mark Waldrep had better have some evidence or he should expect to get his ass sued for making a libelous remark.
"What you will not hear is how 99% of the Pono catalog of “so-called” “master quality” albums or “high-resolution albums” will be nothing more than rips of standard resolution compact discs. I doubt that Neil will talk about his belief that using different sampling rates creatively during the recording process or the fact that his own catalog will never be available in high-resolution audio (because it wasn’t recorded in high-resolution!)."
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
thank you Tony.Totally incorrect, and a total fabrication.
Like I said previously, an AGGRESSIVE and NEGATIVE campaign against Pono.
Part of his problem, and it is HIS problem..is that he defines hirez as only music recorded in 192 Khz natively.
The fact is a 192 capture of any analog source also qualifies, since it is superior to the standard, which is CD quality.
When a film is mastered for BluRay from the original negatives, it is the HIGHEST resolution that film will ever be available in.
He has no right to force his definition on every one else.
Edits: 01/16/15
Are you saying Waldrep defines hi-rez as music recorded ONLY at 192 KHz natively? If that is indeed what you're saying, then you're pretty free and easy with the attributions yourself.
And BTW, who is FORCING definitions on everyone else?
The Waldrep quote above says Neil Young's catalog doesn't count as hires because it wasn't recorded in hires. I have heard others make this stupid claim that analog master tapes are not hires. They are idiots.
That being said, he is right about the fact that there will be lots of titles that are only 16/44 if that's all that exists for those titles.
I would have to agree that anyone who says SOTA analog is not high resolution is well..
As far as 44/16, as you said if that is all there is, that is all there is for certain recordings. And Pono has been upfront about this.
There must be a whole lot of folks who feel threatened by Pono..I don't see the reason for some of the negative spin.
such as glitches in Pono Music World software and the Pono player firmware (these bugs are being worked out as they come up). Also, the Pono store could be easier to browse (eg, by genre or file resolution). But, hey, they just got started . . . no doubt they will continue to evolve.
But, yeah, some of the press and posts in this thread are way over-the-top in their criticism. IMO, Pono is a HUGE boon for computer audiophiles.
Absolutely! There are valid criticisms!
I will be the first one to admit nothing is grouped by category..resolution, artist, genre...etc...in the works.
But they have been open TWO WEEKS!
There are several SIGNIFICANT advantages over HDT and SHR:
-first, as you mentioned, if a title is only available currently in 44.1/16 and later becomes available in higher resolution, you get that, free.
-there is a MESSAGE BOARD...users are free to post REVIEWS and discuss releases.
-There are STILL no user reviews allowed at the competition.
-Titles not available anywhere else
-long out of print or import only CD tiles
-Constant communication from management on their blog posts
-There will be 4 Million tracks available by the end of the year. Dwarfing HDT after 5 years and others.
GOOD RIDDANCE TO THE SHORT SIGHTED!!!
About to make my first purchase today..
both 24 bit, paid $30 including tax. Not bad compared to HDT. There was some funky interaction btw my copy of JRNC, which was open, and PMW which is required to DL. But, otherwise, it went smoothly.
Thanks for that info!
One album (Wilco's Yankee Foxtrot Hotel) was $16.29 - about identical to HDTracks after the 10% coupon. The other was a 24/44 from Kasey Chambers ($12.29)that is NOT available from HDT.
Don't tell Abe . . don't want to give him a reason to shop PonoMusic ;P
Don't worry I won't tell Small Thinker.
I think he got his panties in a bunch because I dared indict his beloved Apple in their role in the destroying audio quality.
"Don't worry I won't tell Small Thinker.
I think he got his panties in a bunch because I dared indict his beloved Apple in their role in the destroying audio quality."
Not to defend Abe because he is often a putz and in this thread is pretty wrong as usually... It is not just Apple. The average consumer never listened to anything close to decent quality. Maybe you are too young, but in the good old days...what do you think most people listened to 45s... and on what equipment? Ask Tony. Most people did no have anything approaching hifi, and the mass market sadly is where the $$$ is.
Hope the Pono thing works... We would benefit.
You make a good point that many consumers never had anything near good fidelity in their homes, but many did.And going back to the era of 45's, is really not applicable here.
There was a period between 1989 and around 2002 where CDs sounded very very good, with plenty of dynamic range in the mastering and the use of the original master tapes, along with superb boutique mastering from Mobile Fidelity and DCC, and great labels like Telarc.
Along comes Apple and flips over the apple cart, er, so to speak.
It is certainly NOT all Apple's fault, It takes two to tango, and consumers were convinced by shrewd marketing, and finally musicians caved in too.
I appreciate you saying that regardless of whether you give a damn about Pono or not, ultimately all of us will benefit...more selection, competition, and new remasterings done with care. Where is the downside?
Edits: 01/18/15
"There was a period between 1989 and around 2002 where CDs sounded very very good, with plenty of dynamic range in the mastering and the use of the original master tapes, along with superb boutique mastering from Mobile Fidelity and DCC, and great labels like Telarc."
True, lots of very good stuff... Some people did actually care and and mastered properly.
I forgot about Jobs' Sacred Cow that made mp3s the de facto format. That, indeed, might explain Abe's insistence that there is no reason for Pono to exist.
and you bought the CD-rez from Pono, they will give you the higher rez file for free.
Uh Huh..try that at HDT or SHR.
With respect to Pono, Waldrep has zero credibility as he has made several completely incorrect statements. So let's leave him out of this thread.
Let's go back to the original discussion - if there is evidence that a critical mass of hi-rez downloads from PONO is indeed hi-rez, as confirmed by spectrographs, then I will gladly concede the point and we can move on. OTOH, if most of it is CD-rez recordings in hi-rez containers, then I'm sure you will do the same. ;-)
And I am certain you are going to examine all of Acoustic Sounds, HDT, and Qobuz files as well for good measure?
When HDT first opened their shop their were numerous upsampled files found, and these were outed by customers..HDT had to realize that the expense of hiring someone to spot check was needed.
I am sure the Pono organization is sitting on pins and needles waiting for you to check they are not selling upsampled CDs so you can concede and they can move on. Right now they are in a living hell of a holding pattern waiting for your results.
with everything he buys.
I suspect PONO will be living at the whim of whatever resolution the record companies decide to send their way.
That's where QOBUZ and TITAL find themselves now, as regards CD quality streams. Just because there is an analog master somewhere in a vault does not mean a record company is gonna take the time to make a new hi rez digital master to send out to PONO when they can use the 16/44.1 that's handy.
Just as I thought.Mark Waldrep is a COMPETITOR, who has routinely critiqued competing formats, and especially analog and DSD!
Pray tell how he examined the Pono catalog months ago when the store has only been open for two weeks? Did he purchase all 2.5 millions tracks?
Looking back at his post he shows a very aggressive and negative attitude towards Pono, going back a year.
Next. I love the internet.
Edits: 01/16/15 01/16/15
Maybe we can download some "hi-rez" PONO files and compare spectrographs. BTW, I think Waldrep's criticisms of analogue and DSD are quite justified.
I also think your characterization of Waldrep's attitude towards PONO is itself agressive and misleading. No big deal however - let's see the spectrographs.
"I also think your characterization of Waldrep's attitude towards PONO is itself agressive and misleading."
Not from reviewing his last 12 months of blog posts.
Oh - so you did this in a couple of hours? Very credible, I must say.
Actually, on more than one occasion, he's said that he wishes PONO well (did you miss that in your reviewing?) - his criticisms mainly have to do with the less-than-hi-rez material on the site.
nt
Cut-Throat
You can't be serious.
When you purchase music from Pono it is just like downloading from HDTracks or superhirez or qobuz.
You buy each Track and Download it ?
Cut-Throat
Correct. NOT a streaming service.
It's a dedicated player like an iPod is a dedicated player. But the Pono handles hi-res files that you can download from the Pono website.... or any other hi-res website for that matter. You put the files on the Pono via your PC and play them through your headphones or home system.
Unless it has a digital out, you are at the mercy of the Pono's internal DAC and analog output.... which may be fairly good but I would still like the option of driving my own DACs if I had the Pono. After all, even an iPod or iPhone can drive external DACs (and with the right software they can also play hi-res music).
Last summer under the assumption that PONO was going to do something fundamentally different with the source material, presumably from analog tapes and records.
But basically it's was supposed to be the next best thing to analog, better then what is currently offered.
It's a bit little vague now. I'm not sure how the hardware fits into things, I don't think that it is the big issue as the delivery technology exists.
Does PonoPlayer have a digital out, or just analog jacks?
No, idea, 'cause I don't give a hoot about da playa.
No, idea, 'cause I don't give a hoot about da playa.
Then what truly differentiates PONO, the company, from the other hi-res download sites, aside from the fact that they don't have the marketing power that Neil has with all of his already wealthy geezer artist friends?
"Oh man, I'm just blown away by the sound." The video reminds me of late night infomercials. ;-)
Wanna know what else separates Pono? He hired Bruce Botnick, who has spent 5 years in recording and mastering studios as his manager of content acquisition.
You may have heard of him. He produced just about every session for Elketra in the 60s and produced a band called The Doors, and produced the superb 96 khz remasters of their catalog.
HDT and Suprhirez have nos such person on staff with these qualifications.
How about the fact that NY can call Paul McCartney and the members of Pink Floyd and ask them to master their catalog at 192?
How about the fact that McCartney said yes, and it is in process?
Any other "small picture" questions dude?
playback? The bigger that group of artists gets, the more likely we all benefit. Right?There are still a lot of people who believe that MP3 is CD quality. High profile artists praising hi-rez helps everyone. I am a little bummed that the Rolling Stones weren't more vocal about the ABKCO SACDs.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 01/16/15
Yeh.. you won't find an Mp3 or AAC on the Pono Music store.
Sprezza has a Poner.
...all my music is AIFF on iTunes. I'm assuming that won't transfer to Pono. Plus, they need to expand beyond classic rock. The player is a great idea but...
did you bother looking? There are thousands of jazz and classical titles.
????
Transfer to Pono???
If you are talking about using the actual player, it plays ALL Formats.
You can do anything you want with music you purchase from the Pono Music store. Load it on your server, import it into iTunes, etc.
Did you not read my initial post? It is NOT about the player.
..I can plug it into my computer and it'll download (sync) all my music from the iTunes library I have?
As I mentioned, I don't own a player, and don't know much about them, but I DO know they can be mounted like external storage on your computer, so you can transfer the contents of an iTunes library.
I do not know, however, if there is some built in sync function.
Just try to convince the average person that 96/24 sounds better than 44/16, let alone 192. I purchase primarily for the re-master anyway, not the resolution. Once the word gets out, that folks are listening 90% to the re-master and 10% to the high resolution the scam, ummm, I mean the show will be over.Shit, I would be as happy as could be if I could get Spotify to stream in CD quality. I'd pay triple what I pay now.
Disclaimer for the literalists out there: The percentages are not a scientific evaluation and are for illustrative purposes only...:)
Edits: 01/15/15
what I pay now."
Actually, more like double from either TIDAL or QOBUZ.
It is a reverse iTunes, where Apple decided to sell lossy slop masquerading as "CD Quality" to push sales of iPods. Pono was designed to get people to explore HIGHER resolution audio.
Before you slam Apple too hard lets not forget that the first iPod launched in 2001 and had a whopping 5GB capacity necessitating lossy compression to reduce file sizes.
An uncompressed hi-res 24-bit / 192KHz stereo audio file consumes about 0.2GB per 3 minute song. That 5GB iPod would hold less than 25 hi-res songs!
And lets look at internet bandwidth to consumers around that time. In 2002 only ~25% of home internet users had 'broadband' service with an average download speed of less than 0.5Mbs.
That single 0.2GB song would take nearly 1 hour to download! For a typical 'dial-up' modem user, make that 10 hours to download one song! ...Again, necessitating the need for smaller lossy music files.
Pono in 2015, too little too late? Dedicated players on the decline*.
* Showing iPod sales only because it is the only dedicated player that sells in any significant volume. It will be interesting to observe how Pono does over the next year or so. Will it be around 3 years from now?
Edits: 01/15/15
Three years from now Abe?
Not a chance. Nobody could be more old-school and behind the times than I am and yet my goal is to reduce that amount of stuff that I walk around with, not increase it, and smart phones are becoming almost irresistable for that very reason.
I don't listen to music while walking, it's too dangerous as I rely on hearing to keep track on the environment around me when afoot. But I might if stopped. However I can use my nano or even my dumb phone, it's an absolutely unneeded thing for mobile users but might be OK at home...
Rick
Apple does what all corporations do, exploit.
It is the overwhelming consensus in the pro audio industry that Apple is a huge factor in the downward spiral in the quality of recorded music and the butcher jobs masquerading as "remasters".
As Neil Young said at CES, technology has propelled forward every other art form, film, video, photography, CAD, but music production has taken a huge step backward.
People really don't realize how little Steve Jobs though of his customers.
"People really don't realize how little Steve Jobs though of his customers."So are you suggesting that Jobs should have made hi-res music files available for download when they launched the iTunes Store?
Edits: 01/15/15
I am not sure we are having the same conversation.No one is suggesting that, for obvious reasons.
Apple sold 128 AAC as "CD Quality". This was an outright lie.
They also supplied horrid ear buds with iPods (I know exactly how much those cost to make) which necessitated turning up the volume on the unit to be able to hear anything resembling music.
It is no accident that Apple is called the most succesful failure of all time. If not for the iPod (which Jobs did NOT invent) and then the iphone/ipad, and just left to sell computers the company would have been liquidated years ago.
EDIT: There is absolutely no reason why apple can't sell lossless CD files (forget hirez) except for the fact they don't give one shit.
Edits: 01/15/15
Apple treats its customers like tools. Some even deserve to be treated as such, but that's another thread.
Yes they do and yes it is.
The problem is we have all been screwed byApple's effect on the sound quality.
I am not sure we are having the same conversation.
You brought up Apple in your original post.
Apple sold 128 AAC as "CD Quality". This was an outright lie.
Yeah, and CD quality was sold as "Perfect Sound Forever". The gall of those CD peddling assholes!
They also supplied horrid ear buds with iPods (I know exactly how much those cost to make) which necessitated turning up the volume on the unit to be able to hear anything resembling music.
Yeah, and car manufacturers always equip their cars with the best tires. At least you get tires on your car! Does Pono come with a set of earbuds? No!? Those evil bastards!
It is no accident that Apple is called the most succesful failure of all time. If not for the iPod (which Jobs did NOT invent) and then the iphone/ipad, and just left to sell computers the company would have been liquidated years ago.
Really? With the highest market valuation and brand value of any company... greater than Exxon, Microsoft, Google, Coca-Cola, IBM, etc., they're considered a failure? How terrible of Apple to perfect technology to appeal to the masses and create entirely new markets and thousands of jobs worldwide. They should be locked up!
There is absolutely no reason why apple can't sell lossless CD files (forget hirez) except for the fact they don't give one shit.
Maybe they shouldn't give a shit because music downloads, like player sales, are on the decline anyway. Streaming services are where it's at.
I have nothing against the Pono Player but if it's not about the hardware as you say, why do we need Pono at all? We already have hi-res download stores. How is Pono helping the music industry? The new artists? It's interesting that the Top Pono Artists on the Pono Music Store are old geezers who's albums I already own, and some in 'hi-res'.
You divert, and bring in left field topics, and tangents galore. This is clearly your pattern.
Give it a break.
If you don't understand that Neil Young running a download store is a major thing, then you are playing dumb, or you really are clueless.
Neil Young has personal relationships with just about every major rock and pop artist out there. They are smelling what he is cooking and now want to take control of how their fans hear their recordings.
You really are not a big picture guy.
"We already have hi-res download stores."
Read that article I linked to. The entire article. It gives a good alternative view and questions why one would need Pono at all.
Neil Young has personal relationships with just about every major rock and pop artist out there. They are smelling what he is cooking and now want to take control of how their fans hear their recordings.
That is exactly one of the major points brought up in the article I linked to.
I've read the article. It has been linked everywhere.
There are valid points, but it is cynical as hell..and I can't believe I am saying that, since I am cynical as hell!!
The fact is at CES, RMAF, and in the mainstream media they are talking about Pono. They are not talking about Qobuz. Not talking about HDTracks. Not talking about Superhirez.
Let me repeat, I don't give a damn about the player. I would rather put $400 up in a bonfire to keep me warm, and god knows it is cold as hell. But I do give a damn about providing incentives for labels and artists to release their best sounding masters.
Listen to the CSNY 1974 192 release...it is stunning..and that is how all archival releases should sound.
One might have assumed that CSNY 1974 in hi-res would be a perfect launch title for the Pono music store, but it's only there in 44.1/16.
Agree, but it is coming.
CSN ('77) is there is 24/192!
I think its available on a CD/DVD set.
..Blu Ray for the 192 I believe.
.
but I've yet to type in an artist that didn't return at least a few albums. I thought I's finally stump Pono with "Sarah Harmer" but they actually have all of her albums that I'm aware of.
I'm not worried about the depth of the catalog..it will grow.
Record companies chase trends, and if putting titles on Pono gets them exposure they will do it.
Sounds like an exelent idea. Now let's see how it goes over in the mass market. I would think it needs a certain level of acceptance to make it.
Or we can just get a pony!
Didn't they do the harvest DVD-A in 176.4?
I see no reason to use 192 kHz if they are doing D-> A conversion of the final mix-down off the DAW and sampling that. In that case, the capture method is mute so long as it's a good method.
But if they were down-sampling the 176.4 to get Redbook 44.1 I could see the desire for a multiple rate... or no?
Did they even down-sample like that? Or just capture multiple sub-masters, at each of the formats they need? I.e., 16/44, 16/48, 24/96, 24/192, etc.
Cheers,
Presto
The DVD-A you are referring to is a legacy product. All of Neil Young's albums have been remastered at 192 for Pono, and I believe possibly for Blu Ray.
It is EXTREMELY rare to separate captures at different sample rates. In most cases if a CD is going to be produced they simply create from the highest resolution capture that was made.
Young firmly believes 192 is needed based on his experienced.
You can check out the Pono store to see which of his titles are available and at what sample rates.
So they downsample to make lower-res formats... geez.
WHY?
Does it take that much longer to make a new master for that format from a DAC rather than perform a digital file conversion?
This is why I don't trust these "low res to high res" file comparisons. Unless BOTH are captured from the same analog signal, they're not the same files anymore. One is a *derivative* of the other.
Not a fair comparison! ;)
Cheers,
Presto
I understand what you are saying with a gun to your head you could not tell the difference between a CD produced from a 44.1K capture and one downsampled from a 192K file. I know this from making CDs from my own 192 and DSD recordings.
State of the art SRC's are more than good.
Are you aware of how the Beatles 2009 releases were prepared?
192 captures, downsampled to 44.1/24 for mastering, then 44.1/16 for the CDs, unless you have the superb USB stick.
Okay. This is what I am after, so please confirm:
DAW -> fantastic quality DAC -> 192 Capture
DAW -> fantastic quality DAC -> 44.1 Capture
192 Capture -> resample -> 44.1 Resample.
You're saying the 44.1 Capture versus 44.1 Resample would be?
Digital theory stuff! Quantization noise? Huh what?
Darn. I could do this experiment at home. I don't do a lot of recording though and my ADC capabilities here are not that great.
However... since the ADC is the same for EACH, it's still a valid control in the experiment, except now you have the "Well, this only works with high quality equipment" caveat.
TO THE LAB! :)
Cheers,
Presto
actually, I am saying what Tony said..there are no absolutes. You can get the results you desire either way.
I was just talking to a recording engineer based in L.A. and he said for all intents and purposes IzoTope SRC is totally transparent to his ears.
"I understand what you are saying with a gun to your head you could not tell the difference between a CD produced from a 44.1K capture and one downsampled from a 192K file. I know this from making CDs from my own 192 and DSD recordings."
Not my experience at all. I start with 176/24 downsample to 44/16 and the result is not at all the same. And it's not the playback chain either, because I use software SRC to upsample the 44/16 back up to 176/24 before playback so I compare files in the same format. The original sounds better. This is true no matter what settings are used with the 64 bit iZotope SRC. I have also tried direct capture at 44/16 vs. 176/24, but the differences are even greater. (This doesn't prove much, except that the ADC works differently at 44/16 than at 176/24, which is almost universally true with inexpensive sound cards, since they tend to have poor quality DSP firmware in their chips.)
The problem appears to be quite simple, even cassette tape has better resolution in some respects than 44/16 digital. (This does not apply to signal to noise ratio.) I am talking about cassette recordings made from live microphone feeds or reel to reel master tapes, recording on metal tape cassettes.
When I started doing cassette transfers about 8 years ago my friend who has an archive asked me to convert the tapes at 96/24, which was the highest resolution format that my sound card had at the time. My reaction was that this was BS, since cassette tapes were poor quality, despite owning two Nak players, the best one a CR-7. I was hoping to prove him wrong, but a few listening tests proved him right. 44/16 is incapable of capturing and reproducing the sound on a cassette tape, not to mention an LP or master tape.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Regardless, you can get superb results when starting with a high resolution file, then creating a redbook CD.There is one mastering engineer I know of, Steve Hoffman, who produces hybrid SACDs on the Audio Fidelity label and he insists on doing separate 44.1/16 and DSD captures for each layer.
Mobile Fidelity does not.
I find his results rather dull on the redbook layer, and MoFi's far more engaging, and since they have done many of the same titles, both on hybrid SACD, it is easy to compare.
Conversely, when producing a "Gold CD", he captures once at 192, the produces the CD from that.
Edits: 01/15/15
Definitely want separate takes to capture PCM and DSD. A conversion will end up with the weaknesses of both formats, not the strengths. This is not true when downsampling PCM, where the result can be as good as an original capture at the lower resolution or even better if the ADC filtering is inferior to the filtering used in the sample rate converter.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Way to many variables and there is no one answer.
A DSD capture, then converted to 176.4/24, mastered well, then made into a Redbook CD can be excellent, as the Japan Platinum SHM series clearly shows.
Is it better to capture 44.1/16 then above? I say start with the highest resolution possible regardless of the end format desired.
"This is not true when downsampling PCM, where the result can be as good as an original capture at the lower resolution or even better if the ADC filtering is inferior to the filtering used in the sample rate converter."
Absolutely, so when posters proclaim there should be one capture for the hi rez download release and another for CD, they really don't understand the variables.
My comparisons were of DSD downsampled to 88/24 or 176/24 vs. direct capture to these PCM formats. However, it is possible that the result of converting DSD to 44/16 will be as good as direct capture. (It could even be the same if the converter was native DSD and did its own conversion to PCM.
My attitude toward 44/16 down conversions now is: Who cares? I consider 44/16 to be a compressed format and of value only for historical purposes. There is no longer any market or technical need to distribute 44/16 recordings where there is already a hi-res digital master if the audience is people who care about sound quality. It's a waste of time to tweak the 44/16 version once one already has a great sounding hi-res master, IMO.
I believe that hi-res releases of new digital recordings should be priced with a very small discount for 44/16 format off of the studio master format. However, where remastering of classic analog recordings is involved, then high prices are entirely justified to cover the cost of amortizing the remastering process, which is a skilled process, something that requires both engineering and art and is not within the grasp of a button pushing technician.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I agree with you but you do realize that the CD is still the dominant form of physical consumption globally. There are still 250 million people annually who purchase CDs.
The music website for which I am the webmaster is now doing 90% of its business in downloads, not CDs. We are starting to worry that we will be stuck with a large inventory of CDs, like our inventory of unsellable cassette tapes.
I haven't purchased a physical CD in years. My last 400 music purchases have been downloads.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Yes from a financial, physical size and environmental point of view, CDs are done for. They are already gone.
The media discs may continue as a cheapish way to distribute small amounts of data for some time, although don't be surprised if solid state media takes over there as well.
New moguls will be established eventually.
Will it be PONO? Why not, as of now they are the only visible company being proactive of doing a better job analogizing media at the source, as opposed to compression techniques deployed by the current market leaders.
"CDs are done for.."On what planet?
As long as deluxe reissues of classic rock staples continue to be released, and their is an audience for it, they will continue.
Case in point..all the Jethro Tull, yes, King Crimson, ELP, John Martyn, and Pink Floyd packages, which have no download equivalent.Oh, and there is no way to consume the Beatles in lossless apart from CDs, or the Vinyl reissues.
Pono may change this.
Edits: 01/16/15
That is a very narrow point of view of the market though.CD's are already lossey to begin with (compared to analog) which is why some find it preferable to roll the dice and find a good FLAC, or are tolerant of AAC. Worst case scenario you get CD quality with FLAC.
I literally cannot think of a practical benefit to physical CDs vs SS media.
128Gig of storage is the size of a fingernail now.It's quite possible that my town does not even have a legitimate "CD" store anymore.
In the very near future, you will see more new cars with 1/8" aux jacks then with CD players.It's cost and convenience, the same phenomenon that brought us 8-tracks, cassettes and CDs in the first place. DVD/ blueray was able to stay in the same footprint, but now it's not practical to make a machine with moving parts that holds more data.
Deprecation.
Edits: 01/16/15
The overall catalog of titles that are available for download at CD resolution is still just a fraction of the catalog available on CD. And even when there is a download available, I can usually buy the CD and have it shipped to my door for less than the cost of the download. That is what keeps the CD format alive for me, even though I haven't been spinning CDs since ~2010.
"I can usually buy the CD and have it shipped to my door for less than the cost of the download. "
What's up with that? That might be true if you know of thrift shops that do mail orders. Most prices on downloads are significantly cheaper than CDs, even before allowing for S&H.
If you know of some exceptions, please let us know.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Amazon.com
"We are all in God's hands... and God is a malign thug."
-Mark Twain
What you are seeing is sale pricing, probably due to overstocked inventory. Production costs and royalties have already been paid. Download sites also have sales pricing. What matters are prices you actually have to pay to get the music that you like. Also, there is the question of total cost, which means shipping and handling as well (or amortized membership fees for free shipping).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I'm afraid you are out of the loop on this subject.Amazon does not charge for shipping on $35 worth orders, it went up last year from $25. No membership fee, unless you want 2 day shipping for items, which costs $80 a year. I never pay shipping from Amazon unless I buy from a third party seller, which is often, because their prices are fantastic that shipping cost still makes it cheaper than a download, if it even available.
Who buys music they don't like? Odd comment.
Edits: 01/17/15
I looked at 44/16 downloads for titles that interested me. I wasted a fair amount of time, only came up with two. One was cheaper as a download, the other from Amazon. This may be a label issue. Both of the higher priced options were more than I usually pay for downloads of 44/16 quality. Of course, one can pay more, even substantially more, for better than CD quality. This only makes sense if you believe (as I do) that the higher resolution sounds better.
If the price is equal, I prefer the download since it saves the effort of ripping (and often tagging for music which is not mainstream, most of my stuff). There is also the space issue.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I agree with you I prefer a download over a physical product these days..but I can't get beyond the part of me that wants the DL to be cheaper, and it should be IMO.
Of course I believe, as you do, that higher than CD resolution sounds better.
To repeat the Pono store is in a state of flux. It will stabilize.
Just until 3 MONTHS ago, HDtracks search function was pathetic. And that is after 5 year in business.
Nope, Tony that is the reality. As someone who buys 250+ albums per year I can tell you that 90% of the time the disc is cheaper. I use all avenues for price comparisons,
Of course we are talking CD vs CD resolution download.But truth be told there ARE not that many CD download stores...Qobuz, Bandcamp, etc.
That's where the majority of music sales happen in this country.
"We are all in God's hands... and God is a malign thug."
-Mark Twain
um, more like Amazon.com
Amazon 24%, Walmart 22%.
This is a recent change, used to be the other way around.
"We are all in God's hands... and God is a malign thug."
-Mark Twain
In the greater scheme of things I agree with you.
However, if we are talking about narrow, there are millions of perfectly good working CD players installed in systems around the world, and quite frankly, it is still how most audiophiles listen.
At the last two CES, there were no less than 50 CD players and transports introduced.
Just a quick glance at this year the ones that stood out were a new transport from Bryston, CD players from Cambridge Audio, Roksan, Mcintosh, Marantz, and even CRAZY expensive models form Burmeser, etc.
Kinda does not fit with the narrative.
"I haven't purchased a physical CD in years. My last 400 music purchases have been downloads."
Sure, that is you. I am still at 50% physical product.
Clearly there will be large of inventories of CDs everywhere at one point..but not quite yet.
Yes, forget the player, it's all about the music.
I see all these Pono reviews but what I want to read is 'Pono music' reviews, ie 'I bought a Pono with Deja Vu on it and here's how it compares to vinyl or other copies'.
"We are all in God's hands... and God is a malign thug."
-Mark Twain
What some people are just NOT getting is that there is going to be a domino effect here.
Do you know that Paul McCartney is personally supervising the remastering of the Beatles catalog to be released on Pono in 192????
It will be a status symbol for artists to have their catalogs on Pono.
This is going to happen.
> > > aul McCartney is personally supervising the remastering of the Beatles catalog to be released on Pono in 192
Citation, please.
I've read elsewhere that this would require each of Paul, Ringo, Yoko, Olivia plus the labels to approve any new releases, and the odds of that are very near to zero.
All over the Pono message boards, and....Neil Young said so himself.
BTW, total misinformation. Macca, Yoko, and Ringo are 100% on the same page.
Just last year the entire Lennon, McCartney, and most of Harrison catalog's were released in hirez, remastered at Abbey Road by the same team. They are all superb sounding.
Edits: 01/15/15
but maybe you're right. Afterall, this may be the last time they can sell us the catalog - for the 4th or 5th time - while they're still alive. lol
But I already have the USB and, in my own testing, I can distinguish 16 from 24 bit but not 44 kHz from 96/192 kHz. So, I'll probably pass on buying the Beatles yet again.
I am going to buy a couple of albums tonite, and I finally found an example album that is selling for less on Pono than HDT. So, maybe prices *will* come down a bit? Regardless, I really want Pono to succeed and I appreciate your enthusiasm.
The USB stick sounds better than the CD IMO.
If they remaster at 192 or 96, you will buy it, who you kidding. :)
It is not just about the Beatles..we are talking about the catalogs of a large number of classic rock and pop artists.
Speaking of price. I do feel the prices of 192 albums on Pono are too high.
Maybe with demand it will come down, but who knows.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: