avatar

silvertone

Aqua Marine

Posts: 2,774 Member Since:26/01/2011

#1 [url]

May 3 17 5:24 AM

Well that didn't take long.

MAQ is next... as it should be.

Silvertone Mastering, celebrating 28 years in business.

www.silvertonemastering.com

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,390 Member Since:04/02/2011

#3 [url]

May 3 17 6:39 AM

bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Judging from 7" vinyl and compact cassettes, I'm not sure the majority of the old generation gave a rat's ass about sound quality either! 

PONO was kind of doomed to fail, IMO. They sold it wrong. It was a quality device with well-executed analog stages. They should've marketed it on THOSE strengths, rather than "hi-res digital." The first concept is easy and empirically verifiable and hard to debate. "Hi-res digital" is too controversial. And most consumers now are too highly suggestible to the whims of whatever click-bait happens to be going around at the moment.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. The same human impulse that allowed PONO's crowdfunding campaign to catch fire and sweep the internet is the exact same human impulse that will make another "article" which "debunks" high sample rates catch fire and sweep the internet. If you build your entire brand around a concept so easily contested, you're doomed.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

bigbone

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,249 Member Since:27/01/2011

#4 [url]

May 3 17 7:36 AM

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Judging from 7" vinyl and compact cassettes, I'm not sure the majority of the old generation gave a rat's ass about sound quality either! 

 

At lest they were buying it and payed for it !!!

JN

Quote    Reply   
avatar

dougrogers

Silverado

Posts: 144 Member Since:21/02/2011

#5 [url]

May 3 17 8:11 AM

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Judging from 7" vinyl and compact cassettes, I'm not sure the majority of the old generation gave a rat's ass about sound quality either! 

PONO was kind of doomed to fail, IMO. They sold it wrong. It was a quality device with well-executed analog stages. They should've marketed it on THOSE strengths, rather than "hi-res digital." The first concept is easy and empirically verifiable and hard to debate. "Hi-res digital" is too controversial. And most consumers now are too highly suggestible to the whims of whatever click-bait happens to be going around at the moment.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. The same human impulse that allowed PONO's crowdfunding campaign to catch fire and sweep the internet is the exact same human impulse that will make another "article" which "debunks" high sample rates catch fire and sweep the internet. If you build your entire brand around a concept so easily contested, you're doomed.

 

Coupled with the fact it was a triangle, a disastrous and fatal design decision IMO.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,390 Member Since:04/02/2011

#6 [url]

May 3 17 8:28 AM

bigbone wrote:

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Judging from 7" vinyl and compact cassettes, I'm not sure the majority of the old generation gave a rat's ass about sound quality either! 

 

At lest they were buying it and payed for it !!!

JN

People pay for music NOW. They're just paying the wrong people.

They pay for expensive smart phones on which to listen to music. They pay for a broadband connection at home so they can stream music. They pay for an unlimited data plan on their mobile device so they can stream music. 

The average music listener probably pays MORE for music now than they did in the "old generation." They just pay for it indirectly, and nearly-none of the revenue goes to the people who make the music possible.

This is why I don't blame the naive individual music lover for listening to music on Spotify. They're just doing what music lovers have always done-- look for the most accessible, easiest, cheapest way to get music. Those are not the people who leveraged the novelty of high-speed digital telecommunications to perform a hostile takeover, capturing and re-purposing a century's worth of equity that had been built up in the music industry. 

 

brad allen williams

Last Edited By: soapfoot May 3 17 8:35 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

zmix

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,159 Member Since:20/01/2011

#8 [url]

May 3 17 8:40 AM

bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Not exactly.  Consumers are being manipulated to believe that the current formats sound bad, and they really don't, which causes two problems: It devalues the consumers current library and it breeds resentment among  consumers, who retaliate by participating in illegal downloading of music.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

bigbone

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,249 Member Since:27/01/2011

#9 [url]

May 3 17 8:43 AM

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Judging from 7" vinyl and compact cassettes, I'm not sure the majority of the old generation gave a rat's ass about sound quality either! 

 

At lest they were buying it and payed for it !!!

JN

People pay for music NOW. They're just paying the wrong people.

They pay for expensive smart phones on which to listen to music. They pay for a broadband connection at home so they can stream music. They pay for an unlimited data plan on their mobile device so they can stream music. 

The average music listener probably pays MORE for music now than they did in the "old generation." They just pay for it indirectly, and nearly-none of the revenue goes to the people who make the music possible.


You playing with words,they don't  used there phone for music only, they don't get internet for music only.
They don't paid direct for there music .....that's it.

JN

Quote    Reply   
avatar

zmix

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,159 Member Since:20/01/2011

#10 [url]

May 3 17 8:44 AM

soapfoot wrote:
bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Judging from 7" vinyl and compact cassettes, I'm not sure the majority of the old generation gave a rat's ass about sound quality either! 

PONO was kind of doomed to fail, IMO. They sold it wrong. It was a quality device with well-executed analog stages. They should've marketed it on THOSE strengths, rather than "hi-res digital." The first concept is easy and empirically verifiable and hard to debate. "Hi-res digital" is too controversial. And most consumers now are too highly suggestible to the whims of whatever click-bait happens to be going around at the moment.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. The same human impulse that allowed PONO's crowdfunding campaign to catch fire and sweep the internet is the exact same human impulse that will make another "article" which "debunks" high sample rates catch fire and sweep the internet. If you build your entire brand around a concept so easily contested, you're doomed.

Yes.  I've been on several committees in a large organization peopled by non-technical people and they have manufactured a consensus among themselves that "Hi-Res" is going to "save the recording industry".


I said it there and I'll say it here:


"Hi-Res™" is the "Coal Jobs™" of the recording industry.



...

Quote    Reply   
avatar

maarvold

Aqua Marine

Posts: 3,139 Member Since:23/01/2011

#11 [url]

May 3 17 8:48 AM

soapfoot wrote:
...People pay for music NOW. They're just paying the wrong people.

They pay for expensive smart phones on which to listen to music....

I'm pretty sure I'm right about this: this reminds me of one, imo, badly-chosen parameter on the iPhone.  It seems to me the volume control is in 3 dB steps.  Is this seriously the best Apple can do?  By comparison, the construction parameters of their new campus building specify FAR higher resolution than this.  

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gtoledo3

Aqua Marine

Posts: 4,169 Member Since:23/10/2013

#12 [url]

May 3 17 9:17 AM

I think it may be possible to get finer volume steps, it's just sort of stupid.

Swipe "up" on the phone, to reveal the panel that has plane mode, wi-fi, bluetooth, flashlight, etc. Then swipe from right to left. There will be a panel that has a fine volume level adjustment. I don't know if that only works in the Music app, or what.

http://www.wikihow.com/Adjust-the-Volume-on-iOS-10

I think any app could probably have it's own fine adjustment volume slider built in.

They should just build in the amount of dB you want the volume buttons to jump, as a controllable parameter in Settings.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

soapfoot

Ruby Baby

Posts: 7,390 Member Since:04/02/2011

#13 [url]

May 3 17 9:24 AM

bigbone wrote:

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Judging from 7" vinyl and compact cassettes, I'm not sure the majority of the old generation gave a rat's ass about sound quality either! 

 

At lest they were buying it and payed for it !!!

JN

People pay for music NOW. They're just paying the wrong people.

They pay for expensive smart phones on which to listen to music. They pay for a broadband connection at home so they can stream music. They pay for an unlimited data plan on their mobile device so they can stream music. 

The average music listener probably pays MORE for music now than they did in the "old generation." They just pay for it indirectly, and nearly-none of the revenue goes to the people who make the music possible.


You playing with words,they don't  used there phone for music only, they don't get internet for music only.
They don't paid direct for there music .....that's it.

JN

I don't know, Jean.

You don't think that all of this "free" music is a BIG motivator for people to buy a phone with larger storage ($$$) over one with less storage? Or to pay for a higher-speed data connection at home for streaming ($$$)? Or to choose the "unlimited" data plan as part of their cellular service, so they can stream more ($$$) etc?

Yes, I agree that it's difficult to "unbundle" the exact percentage of money spent on music from all of the other things one uses data services and devices for... but that's precisely the point. This has been obscured to a degree that it's all "content" now, and this is part of what allows the tech companies to monetize our work to a great degree and pay us very little... it's so hard to quantify exactly what each person "spends" on music.

But they DO spend. The music is at least partly instrumental in determining how most people choose to allocate their dollars for their digital devices, mobile devices, network access, etc. It's NOT free. The music is NOT free. People pay to access it. 

It's just that the tech industry took the money people spend on music, put it in a giant pot with all the money people spend on other digital "content" (from Wikipedia to Netflix to their own email to cat memes on Facebook), and stirred it all up so that it's hard to differentiate the monetary worth of any one component part. So it's all "worthless." Except to the people who sell you ACCESS to it.

brad allen williams

Quote    Reply   
avatar

bigbone

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,249 Member Since:27/01/2011

#14 [url]

May 3 17 10:12 AM

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:

soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Judging from 7" vinyl and compact cassettes, I'm not sure the majority of the old generation gave a rat's ass about sound quality either! 

 

At lest they were buying it and payed for it !!!

JN

People pay for music NOW. They're just paying the wrong people.

They pay for expensive smart phones on which to listen to music. They pay for a broadband connection at home so they can stream music. They pay for an unlimited data plan on their mobile device so they can stream music. 

The average music listener probably pays MORE for music now than they did in the "old generation." They just pay for it indirectly, and nearly-none of the revenue goes to the people who make the music possible.


You playing with words,they don't  used there phone for music only, they don't get internet for music only.
They don't paid direct for there music .....that's it.

JN

I don't know, Jean.

You don't think that all of this "free" music is a BIG motivator for people to buy a phone with larger storage ($$$) over one with less storage? Or to pay for a higher-speed data connection at home for streaming ($$$)? Or to choose the "unlimited" data plan as part of their cellular service, so they can stream more ($$$) etc?

Yes, I agree that it's difficult to "unbundle" the exact percentage of money spent on music from all of the other things one uses data services and devices for... but that's precisely the point. This has been obscured to a degree that it's all "content" now, and this is part of what allows the tech companies to monetize our work to a great degree and pay us very little... it's so hard to quantify exactly what each person "spends" on music.

But they DO spend. The music is at least partly instrumental in determining how most people choose to allocate their dollars for their digital devices, mobile devices, network access, etc. It's NOT free. The music is NOT free. People pay to access it. 

It's just that the tech industry took the money people spend on music, put it in a giant pot with all the money people spend on other digital "content" (from Wikipedia to Netflix to their own email to cat memes on Facebook), and stirred it all up so that it's hard to differentiate the monetary worth of any one component part. So it's all "worthless." Except to the people who sell you ACCESS to it.


Brad

We are saying the same thing. the money IS spending but didn't go to the musical creator .......

JN

Quote    Reply   
avatar

weedywet

Ruby Baby

Posts: 5,949 Member Since:20/01/2011

#15 [url]

May 3 17 11:07 AM

I want the records I make to be heard in the best sounding way possible.
I work hard to make them sound good; so I don't really LIKE it when it ends up on a cassette or an MP3 or a compressed crappy sounding stream.

so PONO was a step forward in that regard.
it sounds GOOD.

so it's difficult for me to look at its loss as a 'win' for some sort of abstract "rightness" about resolution or whether it's going to 'save the music business'.

I'd still rather everyone had a PONO instead of Spotify on a phone

Quote    Reply   
avatar

dcollins

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 2,365 Member Since:27/01/2011

#16 [url]

May 3 17 11:51 AM

dougrogers wrote:
soapfoot wrote:

bigbone wrote:
The new generaion don't give a rat ass about sound quality as long as it's free.!!!


JN

Judging from 7" vinyl and compact cassettes, I'm not sure the majority of the old generation gave a rat's ass about sound quality either! 

PONO was kind of doomed to fail, IMO. They sold it wrong. It was a quality device with well-executed analog stages. They should've marketed it on THOSE strengths, rather than "hi-res digital." The first concept is easy and empirically verifiable and hard to debate. "Hi-res digital" is too controversial. And most consumers now are too highly suggestible to the whims of whatever click-bait happens to be going around at the moment.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. The same human impulse that allowed PONO's crowdfunding campaign to catch fire and sweep the internet is the exact same human impulse that will make another "article" which "debunks" high sample rates catch fire and sweep the internet. If you build your entire brand around a concept so easily contested, you're doomed.

 

Coupled with the fact it was a triangle, a disastrous and fatal design decision IMO.
And strangely, a completely avoidable one.  The reason it ended up Toblerone-shaped was the designers desire to use two large through-hole capacitor.  Everything else was tiny surface-mount....
 The couple times I heard it I thought it sounded good, but when you can't even really get it in your pocket..........




 davecollinsmastering.com


Quote    Reply   
avatar

jesse decarlo

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,533 Member Since:24/03/2013

#17 [url]

May 3 17 12:20 PM

I think the output from an iPhone is actually quite good; I'm fairly certain I commonly heard CD players with audibly worse DA conversion in the 80s and 90s. It's not difficult to play CD-spec WAV or FLAC files from an iPhone... most people just aren't motivated.

Sooner or later Spotify will probably offer lossless streaming for an additional fee. Why wouldn't they? 

(Lossless data compression, I mean. If they could make it "lossless" in the sense that we wouldn't be losing money by producing albums that end up on streaming services, that would be a much more impressive achievement.)

Last Edited By: jesse decarlo May 3 17 12:24 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

waltzmastering

Platinum Blonde

Posts: 1,659 Member Since:02/02/2011

#18 [url]

May 3 17 12:29 PM

silvertone wrote:
Well that didn't take long.

MAQ is next...


 

Wonder if Apple will buy it, shelf it, and use it for a tax write off as they seem to have done with Pono's
music distributor.

Last Edited By: waltzmastering May 3 17 6:17 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

weedywet

Ruby Baby

Posts: 5,949 Member Since:20/01/2011

#19 [url]

May 3 17 12:38 PM

jesse decarlo wrote:
I think the output from an iPhone is actually quite good; I'm fairly certain I commonly heard CD players with audibly worse DA conversion in the 80s and 90s. I...

 
Yes, true.

but the PONO sounded BETTER... and I'm in favour of better.

I don't get the "isn't great how RIGHT I am" glee at its failure to capture an audience.

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

silvertone

Aqua Marine

Posts: 2,774 Member Since:26/01/2011

#20 [url]

May 3 17 1:03 PM

Where or who has this glee?

I'm all for the listener hearing hi res, we just don't need another proprietary format.

PCM digital can deliver the goods now. The bandwidth is there, only greed stops it.

Silvertone Mastering, celebrating 28 years in business.

www.silvertonemastering.com

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help