The end of pono?

Anyone who's ever read some of my other posts knows that I sometimes go off on people who have no experience with audio but claim that they know better than us regular people because they understand the science involved.

http://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-what-neil-young-is-selling-1678446860

Read that and you'll see why.

This genius knows what the limits of human hearing are just by looking at the resolution specs on digital music files? What's so disappointing is that he does have a partial understanding of some of the factors needed for better sound quality. Because of that, he's very convincing. Probably 99 out of 100 people that read that article, would believe him without question.

"01-13-15: Rpeluso
Curious to know, are you in the 99, or are you the one?
Rpeluso (Threads | Answers | This Thread)"

I can't be in the 99. If I wasn't part of the 1, there's no way I could made my last post.

I don't think I was clear in my first post. When I said 99 out of 100 people would believe the article without question, it was in a mainstream context, not audiophile. If an average person read that article they're likely to believe because it sounds convincing. You really can't fault them for in either, because they just don't know. That's a huge problem for high res audio because the misinformation contained in articles like this closes the door.

"Is it possible that for 9,999 out of 10,000 there isn't an audible difference with high resolution files?"

Yes, but there's different reasons as to why people end up in the 99.

"Maybe the article is good advice for the vast majority."

How so? If the vast majority of people don't have all the facts, I can't see how that would be good.

"Is it possible that the difference that some find to be audible is a result of differences in the hardware or software used to play the high resolution files?"

Absolutely. And that's a major point. If people dismiss high res, the chances of them getting their hands on better audio gear are very low.

"Claims of superiority among CD players are common so comparing different circuitry and signal paths used to play different resolution files will always be apples and oranges at some level."

I agree that its not exact, so you would need to look at general trends.

"Is it impossible for a high resolution capable source to sound inferior to a standard resolution source?"

No, its not impossible. In fact, people get results like all the time. Its easy to find a standard res sources that sound better than a high res source.

"Why then can we assume that the high resolution is superior without question?"

If you're looking at the music files themselves, I don't see how high res could be inferior. That's not the issue. Equipment and setup would be the cause for inferior sound. (assuming everyone has the same taste.

"01-14-15: Rpeluso
I guess this proves that cynicism, or something like that, is difficult to convey in writing. How shall I say this that's acceptable? If you have your head so far up your own derrier, how would you know some see you as a derrier? Does that work? Is derrier even spelled correctly? Does anyone (other that Geoff Kait) get it and care? Beside me, of course."

I'm not sure I get it, but I can tell you for sure that most people think I'm and ass. So I'll assume the comment was directed at me. And if it wasn't, give it a little time and you'll probably change your mind.

"01-14-15: Rpeluso
Something you're proud of? Or a perception you wish to change?"

Interesting question. I never really thought about changing. I just figured, once an ass, always an ass. To be honest, I don't know, I'll have to think it over.

If you don't mind, what was it in my previous posts that led you to the conclusion that I was an ass? It may help me sort it all out.

That's exactly my point. I don't think we disagree on this. All I was trying to say, was that after reading the article I posted the link to, the average person (non audiophile), is very likely to believe it and not question further. Its a pretty convincing piece, but its biased and doesn't tell the whole story. So the result now is that the door is closed for many people with regards to high rez music. Thinking that's all there is, people won't look to get better sound.

My argument is that at least give these people all the facts and let them choose if they want high rez or not. There will be plenty of people that will opt out and not want to get involved. And that's perfectly OK. But we don't want to loose any potential converts due solely to ignorance. If high rez is going to survive, we need to have as many people on board as we can. Just give them a choice based on all the facts.

"Once the cost of Data and capabilities of the nation’s Cellular system expands, so will Lossless music players, and Apple will be out front with this NEW technology that by then is 10 years old (a guess)."

Its already been out for years. iTunes can play high resolution files using the ALAC Codex. I think WAV supports high res, as well.

"Conversion by Codex is not the same a native playing a high res recording. That is like having a stereo record playing on a monaural system. It plays all the music but it is not in Stereo.
The iphone-6 uses the DAC chip make by Cirrus Logic 33821201 a custom chip made only for Apple. It is perhaps possible that this chip could produce native hi res throughput, however it appears Apple dummy downs (limits) the chip with software or the chip is not capable of hi res regardless of the operating software. It’s all proprietary, however one thing is for sure i phone 6 cannot produce native hi res music playback.
Swdealmaker (Threads | Answers | This Thread)"

I'm not sure I see where you are going with this. With your dac chip example, I don't think its the same as comparing stereo to mono. A lot of companies make dac chips to play the same format. Take Redbook CD, for example. There are any number of dac chips made by different manufacturers that conform to the Redbook standard. With your Apple example, are you saying that the chip in an iPhone is not really playing a supported format like mp-3 or ALAC, and its really just playing some proprietary format that's something else, and we're just not aware of it?