Pono Music

[magoo]

Anybody here join the kickstarter for Pono Music?

I got in on it at the beginning and my player is en route.

I was wondering if anyone here got a player and what they think of the sound quality?

I'll report back once mine arrives.

 

[FRZ]

Very curious to hear peoples impressions as well

 

[magoo]

Well my Pono arrived Friday.
Again, this was my premium from the Kickstarter campaign.
I think I paid this about a year ago or so.
I bought a Limited Edition, Crosby,Stills and Nash. I think I kicked in about 300 dollars at the time.
It was delivered only 2 weeks off their target date.

Nice wooden box, bamboo I think.

Whats inside.

Couple of shots of the player

The LEs have a signature and the run number, mine was 333/494.

So anyway......
First off, youre kinda on your own setting things up.
The website is beta and their tutorials weren't running.
I found out only posting on their chat board that my bonus of 2 full albums by CSN wasn't loaded on the player but instead in a SD micro disc in the box. No mention of this in the package.

The software is OK. Its kind of an android version of iTunes, I guess.

I had a hell of a time getting my computer to recognize the player so I could load music.

Finally through good old trial and error I figured it out late last night. I still cant make the player "sync" to the "PonoWorld" software, but I can copy and paste files just fine.

Currently all the music looks to be CD quality and no higher resolution like Neil Young advertised in all the play up to release.
That said, apparently all the kickstarter folks are grandfathered in on all their purchased music. So if a higher resolution album is released of something I buy, they will give it to me free of charge.

I bought three albums off the site, no problem. They were just over 12 bucks.

So how does it sound?
Well my tastes are sort of eclectic and old school.
I listen to a lot of CSN, David Crosby, Little Feat,Ry Cooder and Warren Zevon.

The music I listened to was through an old pair of Sennheiser HD 500s and on my Klipsch Surround system.

The music is crisp and honest.
The quality is identical to the CDs I happen to also own.
I ripped some music to the player and it sounds great.
I think this player definitely beats anything else I've used in the past.

The player itself is simply designed. Its triangular, light weight and functional.
On button between up and down volume buttons, touch screen for the rest.

If you want a digital player that has very honest sound reproduction, I'd definitely recommend this one.
I'm not sure about all Neil Young's "original mastered, higher resolution music" just yet.....but that may come along, it's early in the game.

 

[mikeblas]

What does "honest" mean in this context?

 

[magoo]

What does "honest" mean in this context?

Im not a music critic or audiophile, but to me the music is clean and crisp.
Nothing has been added or subtracted when compared to the CDs I have of these artists.

In other words it's honestly presented.

 

[Megalith]

The build quality of that looks like $30.

 

[magoo]

The build quality of that looks like $30.

I'm not a professional photographer. The pictures don't really tell the story.
The player is nicely built. I don't know what you're pointing out exactly? The skin is stainless steel, btw.
The sound is good, and that,I believe, is the point.

 

[BillR]

I'm not a professional photographer. The pictures don't really tell the story.
The player is nicely built. I don't know what you're pointing out exactly? The skin is stainless steel, btw.
The sound is good, and that,I believe, is the point.

This little comparison might help with your explanation, the Pono is nothing like most people are used to; as in nothing like MP-3 or similar formats.

One of the keys to all this is the format for the music and even more important the Pono uses all discrete components as opposed to the AMP on a chip most products use and all discrete components in the analog stages, something rare in todays world.

 

[B00nie]

Wow, a kickstarter to buy an iPod that's bigger, heavyer, probably more expensive and has more limited selection.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

 

[/usr/home]

Read the title as Porno Music. Am disappointed.

 

[Snufykat]

Read the title as Porno Music. Am disappointed.

Me too.

 

[Bone_Enterprise]

Had originally backed this, then pulled it, while it would have been nice to have a reference level portable source player, I am perfectly fine with my dedicated Note 3 w/128GB uSD for now, I may throw a DAC/AMP on it at some point, but for now it does a great job for what I need.

I do find it funny though that it looks like the iRiver players of yesteryear.

 

[FLECOM]

Wow, a kickstarter to buy an iPod that's bigger, heavyer, probably more expensive and has more limited selection.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

except it supports high resolution audio and has a D/A and analog section that doesn't suck??

also considering you can put your own music on it how can it have a more limited selection?

 

[magoo]

Wow, a kickstarter to buy an iPod that's bigger, heavyer, probably more expensive and has more limited selection.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

it ain't an iPod.
The music selection on the store beta site is pretty big, IMO.

Plus, I can put any of my CD quality mucic I own on the player.

Yeah. I backed it.
I like the player so far.

Now.....get off my lawn.

 

[Supercharged_Z06]

Not really getting the whole point of the Pono. I put FLAC files in my RockBox'ed Sansa Clip+ (about the size and weight of a small box of matches, cost me ~$30, see review here) and it drives my Etymotic ER-4P's to put golden sound into my ear canals just fine. (FLAC files ripped from my CDs)

Personal note: If you want to listen to quality sound, don't cheap out on cans/IEMs as they really make all the world of difference... If you have something that reproduces sound badly, it doesn't matter how good of a signal you feed it, it'll all sound like crap!

So, why pay $$$ for an awkward form factor player that can play music in a proprietary format that supposedly exceeds the threshold ranges of human hearing? Something that you actually can't hear because of the physical limits of your biological auditory gear? Simply doesn't make sense to me.

Heck, it's your money and enjoy the Pono! To each his own! For me, I'm very satisfied with my portable solution. It is much more portable as to form factor and flexible when it comes to customization. And if I want to do some serious stationary listening, I simply crank the FLAC files on my O2/DAC combo paired with my HD-650's.

 

[jojo69]

some of us here are among the last humans that remember analog waveforms

it is really interesting...what is happening, to our expectations, to everything

 

[magoo]

Follow-up......

My only gripe so far is the Pono Player (ponoworld) software.
It's provided by an outfit caller JRiver.
It simply will not recognize my player, nor will my computer.
It took a lot of trial and error to finally get the player recognized as a drive.
I then simply had to manually load my player.
I could never get it to automatically "sync".

The next day, my NVidia Surround wouldn't work.
I tried to reset it and when I clicked "enable Surround" the computer would crash.

Finally, after a bunch of cursing and head banging, I uninstalled the Pono software and my system worked flawlessly.

 

[B00nie]

it ain't an iPod.
The music selection on the store beta site is pretty big, IMO.

Plus, I can put any of my CD quality mucic I own on the player.

Yeah. I backed it.
I like the player so far.

Now.....get off my lawn.

Nothing stops you from putting your own CD quality music to iPods either. I'm not sure about the format support though, mp3s are quite enough for any portable use for me anyway. The only difference being that iTunes has a huge selection of music available in addition to that.

 

[magoo]

Nothing stops you from putting your own CD quality music to iPods either. I'm not sure about the format support though, mp3s are quite enough for any portable use for me anyway. The only difference being that iTunes has a huge selection of music available in addition to that.

Sure and I agree.

I have compared the sound of the same music from my own stash on my old ipod and my pono.
The pono is better hands down.

iTunes has a larger music catalog currently.

 

[wonderfield]

JRiver

lol

 

[dandragonrage]

One of the keys to all this is the format for the music and even more important the Pono uses all discrete components as opposed to the AMP on a chip most products use and all discrete components in the analog stages, something rare in todays world.

Before I comment, I will point out that I do not own this product, nor have I heard one.

Discrete amps and even DACs can be really, really good. However, IC-based DACs and amps (e.g. op. amps) can sound really good as well and have had MUCH more R&D put into them over the years than just this single product. Most likely relatively high quality ICs would do a better job. If someone I know were to, for whatever reason, bet me $20 that the amp section in the Pono distorts less than something like an AD8599, I would take that bet (I would be in favor of the AD8599 of course). But then again, I'd also take a bet on the side that it wouldn't actually be noticeable to the human ear. Only to high-end measuring gear.

Discrete amps are typically only used for marketing purposes.

I'm sure it sounds just fine and CSN[Y] is an amazing band (one of the best of all time) and I wouldn't mind having their signatures on stuff that I use. However this doesn't look all that pocketable and would be a deal-killer to me.

To OP and anyone else who has one, how do you feel about the buttons on the front? They look really lame to me and are probably why someone else previously said that the build quality looks poor. Do they feel as bad as they look (to me and that other guy at least) or are they fairly nice? How's the tactile feel on them? Hopefully they aren't mushy like a ZX Spectrum...

Southern Cross is a VERY strong contender for my favorite song of all time.

 

[magoo]

Before I comment, I will point out that I do not own this product, nor have I heard one.

Discrete amps and even DACs can be really, really good. However, IC-based DACs and amps (e.g. op. amps) can sound really good as well and have had MUCH more R&D put into them over the years than just this single product. Most likely relatively high quality ICs would do a better job. If someone I know were to, for whatever reason, bet me $20 that the amp section in the Pono distorts less than something like an AD8599, I would take that bet (I would be in favor of the AD8599 of course). But then again, I'd also take a bet on the side that it wouldn't actually be noticeable to the human ear. Only to high-end measuring gear.

Discrete amps are typically only used for marketing purposes.

I'm sure it sounds just fine and CSN[Y] is an amazing band (one of the best of all time) and I wouldn't mind having their signatures on stuff that I use. However this doesn't look all that pocketable and would be a deal-killer to me.

To OP and anyone else who has one, how do you feel about the buttons on the front? They look really lame to me and are probably why someone else previously said that the build quality looks poor. Do they feel as bad as they look (to me and that other guy at least) or are they fairly nice? How's the tactile feel on them? Hopefully they aren't mushy like a ZX Spectrum...

Southern Cross is a VERY strong contender for my favorite song of all time.

The buttons feel fine to me.
One push, one click....and you have to gently push them in to get them to work.
They merely adjust the volume (+,-) or turn the player on/off (o).
Everything else is done by the touchscreen.

 

[|Tch0rT|]

It's provided by an outfit caller JRiver.

JRiver makes pretty good software, though usually overly complex. Join their Interact forum (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=41.0) and make a post about your problems. Usually some one is willing to help and sometimes you'll get the people who make the programs reply. I use their Media Center software as a front end for my HTPC and it replaced Winamp on my desktop and laptop.

lol

That's helpful.

 

[mikeblas]

I have compared the sound of the same music from my own stash on my old ipod and my pono.
The pono is better hands down.

Because the iPod is ... dishonest?

 

[magoo]

JRiver makes pretty good software, though usually overly complex. Join their Interact forum (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=41.0) and make a post about your problems. Usually some one is willing to help and sometimes you'll get the people who make the programs reply. I use their Media Center software as a front end for my HTPC and it replaced Winamp on my desktop and laptop.



That's helpful.

Thanks for the information.

 

[magoo]

Because the iPod is ... dishonest?

Maybe I should have just said the iPod sounds like shit compared to the Pono?

 

[B00nie]

Maybe I should have just said the iPod sounds like shit compared to the Pono?

That's highly unlikely. Although I haven't heard actual iPods if iPhone and MBP sound quality is used as a reference the Pono would have to create mystical levels of resolution unheard to man for an iPod to sound like shit compared to it lol.

Add to that the extreme bulkyness of a Pono and I can't help but wonder whats the point.

 

[mikeblas]

Maybe I should have just said the iPod sounds like shit compared to the Pono?

It wouldn't have been any more specific. It's clear you prefer one over the other, but it's not clear why.

 

[magoo]

It's pretty difficult to put into words because music and listening is very subjective and will often depend on the quality of equipment one has.

I think I have a pretty large music collection.....hundreds of CDs, nearly that much vinyl, and some digital.

I use a Yamaha receiver over Klipsch speakers most of the time, and when my wife lets me, I listen in the living room over my one prize, a pair of B&Ws that cost me an arm and a leg

I have a pair of AudioTechnique phones and a pair of Sennheiser phones.

I've got an iPod.

The Pono reproduces music as close to what I hear over my stereo. It plays the full spectrum with quite a good replication of the depth and fidelity the CD or vinyl means to produce.

The iPod can't and doesn't do that. The music feels like it's held back or strangled somehow. You just don't hear everything....but that's OK. An iPod is for portability and the library is vast.
I can take my iPod anywhere and abuse the shit out of it....the Pono not so much. But to me they have different uses.

What I like about the Pono is I can take it to my office and at the end of the day, when I'm finishing up and everyone else has gone home, I can listen to some great music, nearly as good as if I was sitting at home.

 

[B00nie]

It's pretty difficult to put into words because music and listening is very subjective and will often depend on the quality of equipment one has.

I think I have a pretty large music collection.....hundreds of CDs, nearly that much vinyl, and some digital.

I use a Yamaha receiver over Klipsch speakers most of the time, and when my wife lets me, I listen in the living room over my one prize, a pair of B&Ws that cost me an arm and a leg

I have a pair of AudioTechnique phones and a pair of Sennheiser phones.

I've got an iPod.

The Pono reproduces music as close to what I hear over my stereo. It plays the full spectrum with quite a good replication of the depth and fidelity the CD or vinyl means to produce.

The iPod can't and doesn't do that. The music feels like it's held back or strangled somehow. You just don't hear everything....but that's OK. An iPod is for portability and the library is vast.
I can take my iPod anywhere and abuse the shit out of it....the Pono not so much. But to me they have different uses.

What I like about the Pono is I can take it to my office and at the end of the day, when I'm finishing up and everyone else has gone home, I can listen to some great music, nearly as good as if I was sitting at home.

Sounds like your iPod is either broken or your headphones do not match it. Is it an older model? I noticed sound quality improvement when stepping up in iPhone models so maybe the older models are not that good.

 

[BillR]

Sounds like your iPod is either broken or your headphones do not match it. Is it an older model? I noticed sound quality improvement when stepping up in iPhone models so maybe the older models are not that good.

Nope, his iPod isn't broken or mis-matched to some odd headphone.

It's pretty difficult to put into words because music and listening is very subjective and will often depend on the quality of equipment one has.

I think I have a pretty large music collection.....hundreds of CDs, nearly that much vinyl, and some digital.

I use a Yamaha receiver over Klipsch speakers most of the time, and when my wife lets me, I listen in the living room over my one prize, a pair of B&Ws that cost me an arm and a leg

I have a pair of AudioTechnique phones and a pair of Sennheiser phones.

I've got an iPod.

The Pono reproduces music as close to what I hear over my stereo. It plays the full spectrum with quite a good replication of the depth and fidelity the CD or vinyl means to produce.

The iPod can't and doesn't do that. The music feels like it's held back or strangled somehow. You just don't hear everything....but that's OK. An iPod is for portability and the library is vast.
I can take my iPod anywhere and abuse the shit out of it....the Pono not so much. But to me they have different uses.

What I like about the Pono is I can take it to my office and at the end of the day, when I'm finishing up and everyone else has gone home, I can listen to some great music, nearly as good as if I was sitting at home.

The US as usual is behind on High-resolution audio. The Pono is a good attempt to catch up and works well.

For some reason people still think the limits of the human ear justify compressed music but they forget all about a little thing called "Harmonics". The cool thing about records was their frequency response went out to 65 to 85k and as such they could capture the harmonics of music and the rooms and halls where the music was recorded. Now, while these harmonics went well beyond the range of our ears they have the cool ability to bounce around and return back to the audible range thus adding that little extra that you can hear on really good CD's and even more so on good vinyl recordings. Compression kills all that extra good stuff.

MP3 and AAC are quick cheap and easy formats and very portable no question, but very limited. F.L.A.C and A.L.L.C.(for you Apple fans) can capture everything on a CD and thus sound better and now it's become portable and smaller than a .WAV file. Now we have AIFF and DSD (DSD is Sony's codec for SACD) and DSD that can be made portable and these cool little machines can be used with headphones or as a main source. This explains your term "Honest sound"

There are quite a few cool products on the market now that can take advantage of this extended frequency response and actually enhance the dynamic range.

In some cases people will need a new DAC especially with DSD with it's one word bit process (Sony's SACD)

For portable like the Sony NWZ-ZX1 and the Astell&Kern AK100 and your PONO.

For home use the Pioneer N-50 is a good value...

For streaming the Cambridge Audio Stream Magic 6 is pretty good as is the Naim NAC-N 172 XS to name a few...

Some will always settle for various reasons for *just ok* reproduction. Some of us want just a bit more, like; all the music as it was played only we want it at home

 

[mikeblas]

The US as usual is behind on High-resolution audio. The Pono is a good attempt to catch up and works well.

The whole country? What do you mean? Behind which other countries? How are you measuring this? As is usual for what?

 

[wonderfield]

For some reason people still think the limits of the human ear justify compressed music but they forget all about a little thing called "Harmonics". The cool thing about records was their frequency response went out to 65 to 85k and as such they could capture the harmonics of music and the rooms and halls where the music was recorded. Now, while these harmonics went well beyond the range of our ears they have the cool ability to bounce around and return back to the audible range thus adding that little extra that you can hear on really good CD's

Considering the CDDA Nyquist limit is 22 KHz, I find it unlikely any 85 KHz acoustic distortions are finding their way into your room when you play a CD. Particularly considering no (traditional) mic will actually record anything of substance at that frequency, or even half that frequency.

Mic and amp self-noise, buss noise and dither, though: those things make it into high-resolution recordings. If you really want that stuff bouncing around your room at entirely sub-audible levels, by all means, listen to high-resolution recordings. Otherwise, high-quality compressed formats are just fine.

 

[dandragonrage]

LOL you aren't going to get 85kHz from a record. That's absolutely ridiculous. It's theoretically possible to reproduce higher frequencies in analog than CD since CD is pretty limited in range (and distortion gets fairly high as you approach 20kHz - only 2 sampling points at the maximum 22.05kHz is somewhat unacceptable - 2 sampling points could very well describe a sine wave, a square wave, a sawtooth wave, or just about anything else - it's just not good enough), but manufacturing tolerances will still not allow records to go anywhere NEAR 85kHz. And if they did, those bumps would be so small that they would wear down very quickly (maybe one of those laser-based turntables could manage the same job without the wear and tear the needle causes though). I'm all for an upper range of >20kHz because many humans including myself CAN hear up to at least 25kHz, but 85kHz from a record is just crazy. I do support the pretty-much-dead SACD over CD, though. (Well, it's actually been about 12 years since I tested myself to be able to hear at least 25kHz, so I might not be able to now, but I've still got a much higher range than many people - I'm still pretty young and don't look forward to someday losing this...)

As soon as I learned some electronics (back in vocational school), I realized how crappy a standard CD is. Good thing that we can't hear distortion at 20kHz anywhere near as much as we can at lower frequencies that matter more (so it's not a HUGE deal). But SACD (and DVD-A and other high-res formats) are just better.

I will say that records can sound really good on the right setup when manufactured well. But it's hard to manufacture a record very well, and I wouldn't trust that any can actually go to 85kHz. Not saying that records are downright crap, but they are also not "all that."

 

[B00nie]

Even if the recording would have 85khz 99,9% of speakers could not reproduce it and probably over 99% of headphones also. Also many amps have built in filters to suppress high frequency ringing which can create a nasty inaudible feedback if the amp is unstable.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for this pono to sound good I just find it hard to believe they would bring anything revolutionary enough to warrant the purchase. Most people in their 40s also have hearing loss at over 16khz so....

I've found compressed materials (not speaking about the ancient crappy mp3s which you could really hear to be problematic) to be completely adequate for any mobile use. Even though my Bose qc-20 does a remarkable job in suppressing background noise its still way too loud in typical mobile use situations to start to worry about final tweaks to the sound.

 

[BillR]

The whole country? What do you mean? Behind which other countries? How are you measuring this? As is usual for what?

How about Japan, GB, Korea etc.? High Res Audio has been on sale there for quite some time. In fact the Sony Mini disk, while not true High Res kills(d) MP-3 and always did.

We have/had a member here "mosin" who makes a $45k turntable with no tone arm has little market here but demand beyond his production in the overseas market. The recommended tone arm is the Schroder at 10k a pop and that doesn't include the cartridge. This arm is now being built by another company, he couldn't keep up with the demand.

Considering the CDDA Nyquist limit is 22 KHz, I find it unlikely any 85 KHz acoustic distortions are finding their way into your room when you play a CD. Particularly considering no (traditional) mic will actually record anything of substance at that frequency, or even half that frequency.

Mic and amp self-noise, buss noise and dither, though: those things make it into high-resolution recordings. If you really want that stuff bouncing around your room at entirely sub-audible levels, by all means, listen to high-resolution recordings. Otherwise, high-quality compressed formats are just fine.

Distortions? Where did I mention distortions? HARMONICS...quite a different thing.

LOL you aren't going to get 85kHz from a record. That's absolutely ridiculous. It's theoretically possible to reproduce higher frequencies in analog than CD since CD is pretty limited in range (and distortion gets fairly high as you approach 20kHz - only 2 sampling points at the maximum 22.05kHz is somewhat unacceptable - 2 sampling points could very well describe a sine wave, a square wave, a sawtooth wave, or just about anything else - it's just not good enough), but manufacturing tolerances will still not allow records to go anywhere NEAR 85kHz. And if they did, those bumps would be so small that they would wear down very quickly (maybe one of those laser-based turntables could manage the same job without the wear and tear the needle causes though). I'm all for an upper range of >20kHz because many humans including myself CAN hear up to at least 25kHz, but 85kHz from a record is just crazy. I do support the pretty-much-dead SACD over CD, though.

As soon as I learned some electronics (back in vocational school), I realized how crappy a standard CD is. Good thing that we can't hear distortion at 20kHz anywhere near as much as we can at lower frequencies that matter more (so it's not a HUGE deal). But SACD (and DVD-A and other high-res formats) are just better.

I will say that records can sound really good on the right setup when manufactured well. But it's hard to manufacture a record very well, and I wouldn't trust that any can actually go to 85kHz. Not saying that records are downright crap, but they are also not "all that."

Go back the 60s and 70s...I've been doing this since the late 50s btw. Columbia had "Quad" recordings on records. To get the second two channels they needed 85k on the upper end.

Syd Harmon and others (before politics and his selling out) demanded his Citation gear be flat from 5 to 100k to capture the harmonics. The Telefunken U-47 from way back as well as the Sheffield Lab Recordings and their proprietary tube mics were more then capable.

Sheffield Lab Recordings were never "Fixed" in a studio...The masters were cut only once during a live performance and records were pressed from those until they reached a point where Sheffield considered them below spec. and scrapped them. Go try to find a sealed Sheffield album. Hell, go try to find a Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs master that's sealed.

You are correct about early CD's...When they hit the market in 1982 they sucked so badly the machines were impossible to sell due to the "brick wall" filter at 20k. Those CD's had lost their HARMONICS and it wasn't until years later they improved that but the machines and good recordings were ungodly expensive and didn't happen until years later.

All I had to do in my store was compare a good vinyl records to it's CD counterpart. The turntable with a decent cartridge always sold over the CD.

You need to do some real research

 

[wonderfield]

Distortions? Where did I mention distortions? HARMONICS...quite a different thing.

'fraid not. Harmonics are distortion. It's just a particular kind of distortion — of which there are many — that may or may not be euphonically endearing. I have to assume that you agree with everything else I said, having taken issue only with a single word.

I don't care what people listen to or how they listen to it, but I don't think people should try to sell others on something with dubious reasoning. Particularly when that line of reasoning isn't applicable in the current context.

 

[HammerSandwich]

...only 2 sampling points at the maximum 22.05kHz is somewhat unacceptable - 2 sampling points could very well describe a sine wave, a square wave, a sawtooth wave, or just about anything else - it's just not good enough...

The non-sine features you see on a scope are higher-frequency content, so that's not so. This is the entire point of band-limiting the input so that you record only up to 22KHz.

 

[dandragonrage]

The non-sine features you see on a scope are higher-frequency content, so that's not so. This is the entire point of band-limiting the input so that you record only up to 22KHz.

The input isn't necessarily filtered to 22.05kHz.. You literally need a minimum of two sampling points per cycle to get a signal that you can actually listen to (otherwise you would have a DC signal!). And I was not incorrect; you can interpolate the data between sampling points in any number of ways because you simply don't have the data of what happened between those points in time. You could just assume it was a normal function that can be calculated, but that is often not the case.

The only redeeming qualities here are: A) very little content is actually at those frequencies and B) it is harder to hear the distortion at those frequencies. These are the reasons that many people wouldn't be able to tell a 44.1kHz sampling rate from an 88.2kHz or 96kHz or whatever other sampling rate. Also the exact amount of distortion introduced by this problem will vary with content.

Content IS often (not always) bandpassed, though, and oftentimes the upper limit is lower than 22.05kHz (say 18kHz) to avoid much of the distortion. Even still, it's often not with a "brick wall" or infinite slope filter these days (BillR said early CDs did use a brick wall filter - not sure - EDIT: he was actually talking about the inherent bandwidth of the 44.1kHz sampling rate rather than a separate filter). If it's not a brick wall filter then this content will remain, just at a lower volume, making the distortion problem still existent but less significant.

Overall it is not a super major problem and CDs still can sound good... but this distortion can in some cases be audible to some degree. You'd generally have to do side-by-side comparison to hear the differences, but personally I believe that if something is to be done, it should be done right. And 44.1kHz sample rates are NOT doing it right. It was not right even when it was brand new, and as far as I'm concerned, the people who standardized on it are assholes.

 

[BillR]

'fraid not. Harmonics are distortion. It's just a particular kind of distortion — of which there are many — that may or may not be euphonically endearing. I have to assume that you agree with everything else I said, having taken issue only with a single word.

I don't care what people listen to or how they listen to it, but I don't think people should try to sell others on something with dubious reasoning. Particularly when that line of reasoning isn't applicable in the current context.

Yes, there are various types of distortions. THD happens to be the "good one". Your typical Steinway Grand Piano can play with an average of 9 to 12% total harmonic distortion but harmonic distortions are even order and linear and pleasing to the ear.

Odd order distortions or intermodulation distortions are non linear and add grunge to the music. Compression by it's very nature adds TID in droves. You can also have dynamic distortion where the recording media is pushed beyond it's limits and is most common in the digital domain and crap chip amps and processors.

Les Paul was among the first to take advantage of THD and modified his pickups and used various strings etc. to accomplish his own unique sound but it was far from an offending to the ear sound.

In gear used for reproduction TID is big offender and people like Mark Levinson, John Curl, Syd Harmon, Henry Kloss, David Hafler (the list is endless) did their best to eliminate TID. They had little or no problem with THD, in fact Krell and other super amps had no problem with over 1% or more THD simply because done right the sound was indeed "euphonically endearing".

As mentioned all these various distortions do in fact go way beyond the range of anybody's hearing BUT they bounce around and return to the range of humans at some lower order thus returning to the range of hearing, again, harmonics.

Go listen to music everyone is familiar "Dark side of the Moon" or one of the best proofs of what I'm saying Meatloaf's "Bat or of Hell". Listen to the CD, then listen to the SACD and prepare to be shocked. You will hear things you never new existed on those albums. The masters of those I mentioned were fantastic and still very popular today. This is why we have a whole new (relativity) industry of High Res music and they all sound better then the best of the best compressed music.

As far as most music recorded today few if any artists care as long as their stuff sells and this is the result of the new customer being happy to have the music on their phone as opposed to listening to it on real audio gear.

All that aside, there is a new market (again), a market for the customer who wants to hear the music as close to the original performance as possible. And that goal was what started the HiFI business to start with

In fact, here is an article from "What is HiFi" with some good explanations and at the end you will find comments from people who simply don't get it. Worth the read.