Talk:Pono (digital music service)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

what is it?[edit]

Is it a technology, audio format, market or what? Should we keep a page on something which is so generic and has so little proper information about it, despite marketing talk and objectives? I'd like to have the page deleted OR renamed as "Pono (trademark)" as right now it is no more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"big music studios"?[edit]

The "Big Three" music studios, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment

Well, first of all, they are not music studios, but RECORD LABELS. Big difference. --Ahjteam (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

External Links[edit] is an edited Squarespace template page with the page title "Squarespace - Claim This Domain" Phersh (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it's not an "audio format" but an "music store" with it's own player[edit]

The "audio format" is FLAC, so why is pono considered an audio format? Hype? Clearly not something new since hdtracks, both let you download FLAC, but more labels on board the better.. (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to "Pono (digital music service)" which seems more accurate than just "audio format". It is definitely hype... with a triangular shape...--Micru (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


Pono sounds bad to Russian ears - in Russian "ponos" means diarrhea -- (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources other than marketing materials?[edit]

The more I read about PONO, the more it seems that there is less and less to differentiate this service from other services selling high-resolution digital music downloads. Is there a source for the claim that the "Big Three" labels are remastering music for PONO?

I don't understand what this means: "Pono music is an ecosystem to sell music in FLAC audio file format: 1) production of FLAC files from existing recordings, 2) a dedicated player, and 3) a web store to sell FLAC files." Are they producing FLAC files? Or are they really going to just sell what the labels send them (à la HDTracks)?

In short, everything I read about PONO seems to be a fluff piece, and no one really cares to lay out the facts: the only thing they even claim to be selling that is unique is the "PonoPlayer." Since this article focuses on PONO as a "digital music service," it would be nice to have some real information here. Oh, isn't even available yet! So THAT'S why no one knows for sure!

Why do we have this article? Why not just redirect to the PONO website? It's just as informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Text removed -- should it go back in?[edit]

I took out the numerical decibel info in "a new less dynamically compressed master with high resolution in mind with an average dynamic range of -10.00 dB below 0 dB is necessary for a noticeable increase in sound quality" because the wording near it was garbled and because I thought the minus sign on the decibels was a typo. The references (one before and three after) didn't help, but negative decibel numbers are real; a decibel rating, to my surprise, is always relative to something. So please feel free to put this text back in, especially if you can find a reference. Thanks. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic Range[edit]

The article states that 16 bit audio "allows sound levels ranging from the threshold of audibility to the threshold of pain" which is quite correct. But then it goes on to say, "many proponents of high resolution audio formats have said that listeners will benefit only if a new less dynamically compressed master is used. Such a master would need a higher average dynamic range for a noticeable increase in sound quality."

This confuses me. There's no doubt that a more dynamic master can sound better, but what does this have to do with the hi-res format? If the > 100 dB dynamic range of a well-encoded 16 bit signal can cover the softest sound we can hear all the way to the threshold of pain, then how would we benefit from more dynamic range in the format? Doesn't this really have more to do with the mastering itself? As far as I know, neither PONO nor Young have made any claims that recordings mastered for PONO will have greater dynamic range. (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The facts in the paragraph are verifiable; however, they have little to do with Pono, which is mentioned only in passing. It's either WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN by implication, or both. No one knows what masters are going to be made available, or whether they'll be exclusive to Pono; let's just delete the paragraph.—Aquegg (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an important paragraph because it allows the reader to distinguish the main difference between a 24 bit "Pono" album and a 16 bit CD album without them having to look it up. Not only is relevant to Pono, it's relevant to audio in general and deserves it's place here. The paragraph then goes on to say, "many proponents of high resolution audio formats have said that listeners will benefit only if a new less dynamically compressed master is used. Such a master would need a higher average dynamic range for a noticeable increase in sound quality." This is also important because most music today is heavily compressed in dynamic range making it sound compressed regardless of resolution. The point of the sentence is the statement that instead of releasing the already dynamically compressed masters, mastering engineers can and most likely will use 24 bit as an excuse to make uncompressed masters which will sound better than the originals because of the increased dynamic range. Neil Young talks about dynamic range in this interview here: Regardless about whether or not you agree with 24-bit or Pono, we should be able to agree that the more knowledge that is spread regarding better sounding masters, the better off we all are and the relevancy of mastering with Pono is a big deal, and a huge part of the process regarding if or if not there is a sound quality difference associated with the music coming out of it. Bjordan1 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

We are not on a mission to spread knowledge about file formats or mastering (not in this article, at least). Here, our mission is to summarise what RSSs say about Pono. Some of them do mention mastering and that is referenced in the Reception section. Giving it proportionally more discussion that the sources do is wp:undue. wp:v is not enough by itself.--Aquegg (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
"In a typical listening environment, this allows sound levels ranging from the threshold of audibility to the threshold of pain.[1]" . False, threshold of pain and hearing is 120 dBSPL. All you can do with a 16 bit master is imitate a Dynamic Range of 120dB with dithering within 96dB of data. Dithering is used to reduce errors caused by compression. It is a form of lossy compression, but is better than compression alone. Check out wikipedia itself.
Joey192 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The point is now moot since the para has been deleted as undue (essay-like).—Aquegg (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


Find a way to format it better, but don't delete my paragraph, it is HEAVILY related to the subject and should be noted at all cost.

" The decision by Pono (and others) to distribute music encoded as 96 kHz/24 bit or 192 kHz/24 bit PCM[26] has attracted criticism from various people, including audio engineers, citing scientific studies that found no audible difference between 16-bit 44.1kHz and 24-bit 192kHz formats.[27][28][29] While it is true that most people cannot hear frequencies above 20~22kHz (a 44,1kHz master is limited to frequencies below 22kHz), there are other studies who takes a look at the effects of consciously inaudible high-frequency sounds (sound above 22kHz) from a physiological point of view and concludes that, consciously inaudible high-frequency sounds affects our brain and our perception of sound quality.[30][31] " Joey192 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Joey192, this is an article about Pono: it summarizes reliable, secondary sources about Pono. If there are such sources that treat Oohashi's work as relevant in this context then they can also be summarised with due weight; citing out of context of the article subject is WP:UNDUE.—Aquegg (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Aquegg, so we have to put in here that the reception of Pono is bad but not that these people who critic it doesn't know what they are talking about, or for a fact, care ? HOW ARE THESE SOURCES NOT related to the subject of Pono ? They directly counter the scientific studies that these "engineers" have been bitching about for so long. These articles you are referencing, citing old studies, are NOT reliable but CORRUPTED secondary sources. The truth is that most of those audio engineers and journalists should all be fired for being so lazy and inconsiderate. Please read the articles I referenced at least, it's self-explanatory. Also, .
* [30]
* [31]
Joey192 (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This section simply documents how the the mainstream press, mainstream tech. press, etc. have responded to Pono press releases and events. AFAIK (and you have not supplied references that suggest otherwise), these sources do not reference Oohashi's work, and Oohashi himself has not commented on Pono, so it is not appropriate (WP:UNDUE) to include it here, no matter how much you personally think it relates to the subject. Collating disparate facts—building up a picture—is writing an essay, but we're here to write an encyclopedia—summarizing/condensing larger works.—Aquegg (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you as well here Aquegg. It is related to the subject at hand and I also thought it to be particularly interesting. Taking an article and also showing an opposite opinion is good, and lends both sides weight by allowing the reader to decide on their own what to believe, using the available sources. Just because you don't necessarily agree with it, or want people to see it, doesn't mean you should be able to delete it. Bjordan1 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:Tendentious editing: at no point have I expressed an opinion on Oohashi's work or whether people should be allowed to see it (Oohashi's work has it's own article on WP). Editors opinions are in any case irrelevant; what is relevant is the opinions of those reliable sources writing about the article subject: Pono.—Aquegg (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, I in no way mean to offend you and I apologize if I did. The reason why personally I believe it is relevant to "Pono" is simple. What is the thing unique thing about "Pono" compared to many other portable music players right now? 24 bit high definition music. "Why should I care about high definition music?" "Why should I not care about high resolution music?" the reader may ask themselves while reading the wikipedia page. Well there we have provided the answers, with sources. I ask this with sincere honesty, why do you not find it relevant? Maybe we should have a new section called Format. Bjordan1 (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of WP's policies are very strict; e.g. WP:NPOV states This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it and goes on to say Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (bolding, mine). Broadly speaking, writing a WP article is a relatively mundane task, since one is not actually writing an article, one is summarising articles/books/etc. that others—"reliable, secondary sources"—have already written. That's not to say that the current Pono article is perfect/finished as is—some of the sources (CNET etc.) do give a bit more detail than we currently have, but we have to keep things in proportion: if we expand one aspect, we're duty bound to expand other aspects, as presented in the mainstream reviews. Better, might be to expand other articles, such as High resolution audio (which is linked from this article). AFAIK, no published article on Pono discusses Oohashi, so it is not appropriate to mention it here.—Aquegg (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Aquegg, can I reference Oohashi's work now ? Jimbohertz (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Whenever the mainstream or mainstream-tech press write about Pono & Oohashi, we can summarize it here. There's a bar of 'reliability' and 'neutrality'; blog posts generally fall below that bar.—Aquegg (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit ? It is definitely WP:RELIABLE, a lot more than whatever you posted previously. " Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). ", " Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test. " Audio Stream is part of Source Interlink & is very close to Stereophile, Stereophile is a recognized magazine in the domain of audio technology, if not the most.

" The Xiph.Org Foundation is a non-profit corporation dedicated to protecting the foundations of Internet multimedia from control by private interests. "

I want to kill myself, fucking hypocrisy, this is too much. Jimbohertz (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, there is a bar, and WP policy/guidelines state that blogs fall below that bar, and that sources should be 'mainstream'. The Xiph.Org comments have been widely reported in Pono articles in the mainstream and mainstream-tech press (more refs should probably be added to the article). If the mainstream publishes Lavorgna's views then we can add them here.—Aquegg (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is fucking bullshit. Jimbohertz (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Also you're an idiot. "that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.: reliable information." Mainstream Media IS ANYTHING BUT RELIABLE Jimbohertz (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
WP uses the term 'reliable source' in reference to facts. For example, if we write 'Pono has 43% market share', it is being presented as a fact, and requires a 'reliable' source. A 'Reception' section of an article (be it about Pono, or a movie release, or a record release, etc.) is not presenting facts about the subject, it's presenting opinions about the subject. Just as for movies etc., there are selected from journals, organisations, etc. that are considered 'mainstream'.
So why couldn’t I add references to an expert website while there is references on this page like the one in the article I posted by an UNRELIABLE dumb ass writing for a mainstream journal that obviously isn't trusted by any real expert that isn't corrupted from the source ? It is not an audio tech journal, and definitely not recognized for technology unless you think I am really stupid. Jimbohertz (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Per above, the Reception section is not presenting facts from experts, it is stating opinions from mainstream sources (some of which may have consulted with expert sources in order to form their opinion). WP is not endorsing the mainstream opinion, only recording it. Michael Lavorgna is free to submit his piece to a mainstream journal; if they publish it, then we can mention it here. As it stands, Lavorgna's article is non-mainstream (and though it is critical of Charles Arthur, Arthur makes mostly the same points as all the other mainstream/mainstream-tech articles), so per WP:DUE, WP:BALASPS, etc., Lavorgna's article holds little weight.—Aquegg (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
You take WP:DUE WAY too seriously, I understand how Wikipedia and its rules work. I hate you because you're a tyrant. You obviously have an hidden agenda here, it's clear. Why? Because to me it is like you don't even know what this conversation is about and what I am trying to achieve, it is VERY OBVIOUS that you only read what you want to read. Again, you're a tyrant. I AM THE ONE TRYING TO GET A NPOV ON THIS PAGE, NOT YOU. If you still think I want to show my opinion as the only one, you're dead wrong, I did not remove the paragraph before mine, therefore IT RESULTS IN A NEUTRAL POV, WHICH IS A RULE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AWARE OF UNTIL YOU CAME AROUND, and if you don't think it does, I partially agree that it needs a sentence or two to be phrased differently, but you didn’t even try when I asked you to change it the first time this happened (yeah I'm Joey192, no need to be confused, I lost access to my previous account, no need to report this as WP:Sock puppetry as you probably will because you are such a tyrant). But that isn't the problem here. The problem is that "you only read what you want to read". WE NEED A WP:NPOV, but you are destroying any of the possibility to get one. Whats worst is that you never tried to fix it by yourself. It's like [talking to a wall]. Jimbohertz (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
TBH, given that Pono doesn't even exist yet, everything at this stage is speculation and of limited encyclopedic value. I'd be happy to remove the third paragraph and condense the 2nd & 4th paragraphs, still sticking with mainstream sources though. In any case, the whole section will likely need to be updated/replaced with reaction to the release, once that actually happens.—Aquegg (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please. Seems to me like it's the right thing to do.Jimbohertz (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow, the first reference on this article is actually ABOUT CHARLES ARTHUR's ARTICLE? Is this a joke? Jimbohertz (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps ask the question at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN?—Aquegg (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Model and Features[edit]

The reason I added Model and Features is not only is it easier for the reader to scan over the specs of the device as a whole but also because some of the information in the chart is missing from the Wikipedia page. If someone wants to take it upon themselves to add technical specifications like the DAC, amplification and battery life then feel free but please don't delete the table without adding those parts to the Wikipedia page first. Bjordan1 (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If reliable, secondary sources discuss the components used in pono (not just reiterate the marketing blurb) then by all means summarise with due weight. The ecosystem section seems the best place, Ayer is already mentioned there.--Aquegg (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Aquegg, the DAC, amplification and battery life are not part of the ecosystem, they are part of the Model and Features, or Technical Specifications, if a new section is to be created. However, I am sure that you will just go ahead and delete it, as you get a kick out of it. As editors we are trying to add as much information as possible, with sources from both sides of the coin, and you seem destined to not allow one side to see the light of day. Why don't you add the model and features, or technical specifications instead of just deleting. I have a feeling I know why, you may be letting your own opinions get the best of you. Bjordan1 (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The ecosystem section does indeed include a description of the player, including components such as the removable storage; it mentions Ayre. The technical specs should be given as much WP:DUE weight as they are given in secondary sources.—Aquegg (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


I updated the lede to note that PonoPlayers have been in production since October and are shipping to backers. Unfortunately, the only source I have for this, other than the PonoPlayer sitting on my desk, is a backers-only Kickstarter update. Any suggestions on the correct way to cite this? DES (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead. (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate Description of Yahoo Tech Article Tests?[edit]

The article (in the Reception section) describes the tests administered by David Pogue in this article as "double-blind", and links double-blind to the wiki page for ABX Testing.

I can't find anywhere in the article that describes the tests specifically as "double-blind" rather than just "blind", and from the video it seems like when he's administering the tests, he does know which signal is which, even when the listeners don't, which would be single-blind tests rather than double-blind tests.

Furthermore, the wiki article for ABX testing describes the procedure as:

  1. Play sample A (which the listener knows is sample A)
  2. Play sample B (which the listener knows is sample B)
  3. Play sample X (which is either A or B, but the listener does not know which)
  4. The listener must choose whether X is A or X is B

This is different from the procedure described in the article, where the subjects were able to switch between A and B at will, picking which they preferred.

I suggest that the text "double-blind" be changed to "blind", and the link to the wiki page for ABX testing be changed to a link to the wiki for blind testing.

PriapicPrimate (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree; double-blind is not stated—go with ‘blind’ as you suggest.—Aquegg (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)