Pono Music Store online and out of beta according to report

[firedog]

I tried the site on 2 PCs. On one it opened in beta, on the other not. So I guess it has to do with what's in your browser cache.

 

We sure are critical here. Let's give them a chance. Having another major vendor of Redbook and Hi-res downloads is a good thing.

 

I like having a source for CD quality downloads, as I don't have cheap access to most of the CDs I want. The few albums I looked at in hi-res were $22 for 24/192, which is competitive in today's market.

 

It would be interesting if an insider leaked to us the kind of wholesale prices they pay. My guess is that the labels/distributors are charging them very high prices/royalties, and that is part of the problem with the prices.

[firedog]

Logged in and ordered 2 NY albums. Zuma and On the Beach - my 2 favorites, one in 88k and one in 192. Purchasing experience was okay.

You do need their music store app to download the purchases.

 

Buying requires US address and US credit card, apparently. They only have the US listed as a country for addresses when you check out. I tried using a non-US credit card and it was rejected.

 

The download itself is going well, about as fast as I get anything with my provider.

 

Edit: SQ is good, best versions I"ve heard. I've got the original vinyl and the 2003(?) CD remasters (they're good). This has the usual attributes of a good hi-res remaster: more clarity, better detail. Not orders of magnitude better, but definitely worth it for someone who likes the albums.

[firedog]

Not in all cases. Check the price of Jazz at the Pawnshop in DSD 128fs on Native DSD ($28.76) vs. Pro Studio Masters ($44.99). Hardly the same!

 

Not analogous. The idea here is that there is more or less a floor being set for the prices. Obviously if someone wants to try and charge more, they can.

 

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but NativeDSD is working on a different business model than some of the other sites. They are working directly with the labels to get material. The other sites apparently work with middlemen/distributors in many or most cases. I'm not an expert on how the hi-res business works, but apparently most of the distribution is through third party middlemen, just like the physical media system.

[firedog]

Just looked at https://ponomusic.force.com and found that top artists and albums are mostly recorded in the late 60 to early 80ies. These analog tapes have a frequency and dynamic range which is easily covered with 16/44.1 (maybe some would benefit of 48/24) if the digital mastering is done correctly (which is not happening too frequently). Hi res formats make to me only sense if the recording is high res. So selling Kind of Blue at 192/24 is only good for spending a lot on numbers!

 

Well then, you clearly haven't heard the 24/192 remaster of KOB. It is the best version available. Not even close (except for the DSD remaster, which is almost as good. Both higher res than Redbook.

 

Again, naysayers like you continually make the incorrect assumption that the only thing hi-res brings us is greater frequency response. I'd say that's the least compelling reason for it.

 

Look thru the site and read what some knowledgeable posters like Barry Diament and others have written about why hi-res is superior, even when the source is analog. You might learn something.

[firedog]

Which 16/44 (Red Book) release is the 24/192 remaster, in your opinion, better than? Are you comparing different resolutions of one remaster, or comparing completely separate remasters?

 

I believe I've heard/owned pretty much all of them. Several different American ones, Japanese, European, also different SACD/DSD ones, a few different vinyl ones, etc. Multiple versions and from different countries. The recent 24/192 is the best sounding one of them all, IMO. You are welcome to reject my opinion.

 

I was just reacting to the post that said there was no point to Pono Music selling a 24/192 version of an analogue tape like KOB, and it would sound just as good in Redbook. BTW, I've downsampled one of the 24/192 KOB cuts to Redbook and it doesn't sound the same that way either. If you want to argue the same point as the poster I reacted too, save your energy. I have no intention of getting into another pointless argument like that, and this thread isn't about that.

 

Beyond that, I don't really care if the 24/192 is a different remaster or not. I care that it sounds better than the other versions available to me. I'm listening to it to get the maximum enjoyment out of the music, and not to confirm or disprove some theory/idea I may have about hi-res vs Redbook.

[firedog]

according to this article, hi res versions of the beatles catalog are coming to Pono:

 

Exclusive: Paul McCartney Reboots Beatles Catalog for Neil Young’s Pono Music Player | Showbiz411

 

these may just be the 24/44 files that were previously available on a USB stick, and they may also not be exclusive to Pono. if they're truly prepping new versions, perhaps they'll encode them with MQA as well.

 

I find it hard to believe these are going to be anything other than the files previously sold as the USB stick 24/44.1. I hope I'm wrong and these are new 96 or 192 remasters. I'd love it if they'd release the hi-res digital transcriptions of the original analog masters.

[firedog]

Got EKTIN based on recommendations above. Agree it is a big improvement over previous versions.

[firedog]

The 2009 reissues were remastered to 24/192 from the original master tapes and then downsampled to produce the 16/44 CDs and the 24/48 limited edition USB version. So, one can only hope that Pono will be offering the 24/192 versions of the 2009 reissues.

 

No, it's a lot more complicated than that.

 

They made digital transcriptions of the analog master tapes at 24/192. This "digital master" then had some basic edits and corrections made to it to take out obvious errors/mistakes. It wasn't EQ'd or remastered, etc. After the corrections it became the "archive digital master" (These are my terms, just to try and make the process clear). The idea was that this version was very close to the analog master tapes, and would be the basis of future releases, so they wouldn't need to keep working from the old original tapes.

 

The 24/192 "archive digital master" was then downsampled to 24/44.1. This 24/44.1 version became the "working digital master for release". It had all the EQ, compression, further editing, and remastering done to it. When it was done it became the "release digital master". The 24/44.1 "release digital master" was turned into 16/44.1 to make the CDs. The actual 24/44.1 "release digital master" is what was used for the limited edition USB stick. It is identical to the CDs other than the 24 to 16 bit change.

 

There was no 24/48 version. Until now no one has heard of another remaster being done from the 24/192 archive master. So for 24/192 or 24/96 versions to be released, they would either have to do extensive work on new digital release versions from the 24/192 "archive digital master" or just release the hi-res "archive digital master" as is. Essentially it is a flat transfer of the analog master tapes, other than some minor edits and corrections. Previously it wasn't considered suitable for digital release.

 

That's why I doubt what we are going to get from Pono is anything other than the previously released (on USB) 24/44.1.

I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt that Paul/Apple have gone to the effort to remaster the whole catalog.

 

Another complication is that at Apple, Paul, Ringo, Yoko (representing John), and Olivia (representing George) have to approve EVERY SONG remaster individually and unanimously in order for it to be approved for release. There were attempts at remasterings of some of the Beatles' albums (Sgt Pepper and the White Album) before 2009 that were completed, but not released because each of the principals approved/disapproved of different songs. When the stereo LPs of the catalog were re-released 2 years ago, they were mastered from the existing and already approved 24/44.1 "release digital master", precisely because the staff at Apple didn't think there was any chance the 4 principals could agree unanimously on the release of all new remasters for vinyl. The audiophile public and critics had a negative reaction to the digitally based LPs, so last years mono LP releases were made directly from the original analog masters (no new approval needed).

 

Again, I hope I'm wrong here and they are releasing true 24/96 or 192. Even if they announce the release of 24/96/192, I'd be a bit skeptical before buying and ask about the source, just to make sure it isn't coming from the 24/44.1.

[firedog]

Release them at 24/96 so you still have some left in the tank to re-sell 5 years from now.

 

That sounds like something Apple would do. You have to leave something to make money from in the future...

 

And so far, I don't think anything Beatles related has been released in anything above 24/96. Certainly EMI is on record saying they think 24/96 is all that's needed for the best sound.

 

But like you Ted, I'd be happy hearing the not remastered 24/96 or 24/192, even though I don't think flat transfers from analog of pop/rock tend to sound that great.

[firedog]

This sparked my curiosity. I have the circa 2003 DVD-A rip of On The Beach and it says it is 176.4/24. I thought the Pono store only sold the highest quality version available. My next thought was the DVD-A was an upsample OR the current 88.2 Pono version is not the highest resolution available. Here are some pics of the DVD-A rip:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]16453[/ATTACH]

 

FWIW, My Pono Player sounds amazing. And the Beatles remasters in 44.1/24 FLAC from the USB sound great on the player. So does NY Harvest and Time Fades Away.

 

So maybe I should write Pono and ask them about it.

[firedog]

Thanks for this! I was waiting for this to be offered in 176.4 and apparently that's already the case.

By the way, same thing is true with American Stars'n Bars where thumbnail shows 88.2 but when you click on it you can see all songs are 176.4.

Well I bought both of them last week and they were 24/88. A little ticked off, as Pono said they would offer the "highest resolution available" and then after a week come out with 24/176.

[firedog]

For Kickstarter backers. For others, caveat emptor.

 

Yeah, I know that, but I wrote them and complained anyway.

[firedog]

I agree. I think that would be a good practice for all these companies. Apple basically did this with "iTunes Plus". Seems to me HDtracks, Pono, and others could easily allow paid upgrades.

 

Maybe, but I'm guessing iTunes has preferential arrangements with labels that the small hi-res sites don't get.

 

Obviously the record companies would make more money this way, so they will be sure not to agree. Just think of the horror if some poor schmuck gets 2 hires version of an album for a little over the price of one:)

[firedog]

Well I bought both of them last week and they were 24/88. A little ticked off, as Pono said they would offer the "highest resolution available" and then after a week come out with 24/176.

 

This is the reply I got from Pono. Not very encouraging for all sorts of reasons:

 

Hello,

 

Thank you for contacting Pono Support!

 

We do apologize for this issue. However, we are still in Bata form. Our store is gowning daily. We are adding songs and albums to the store. We are also going to be offering Hi Res songs for these albums as well. This updated on a regular base to different songs.

 

Mahalo,

Laura

 

Note: I didn't change any wording or spelling in the quote.