Pono Music is up and running
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8277
Printed Date: 28 August 2025 at 11:40am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Pono Music is up and running
Posted By: Brian W.
Subject: Pono Music is up and running
Date Posted: 19 January 2015 at 3:46pm
|
Neil Young's Pono Music website is now up and running.
They only sell flac. I've downloaded several things from them. (Some download-exclusive Annette Funicello albums, for example.) Pono works like iTunes, where you have to download their software. But there's a bug where I can't finish checkout through the software, I have to checkout and purchase on the website, then it will open the software and download it when you press "download my music." The files will download to your computer in the "My Music" or "Music" folder in a "Pono" file that is created there. Song downloads are $1.99. I still prefer Qobuz, actually, because you can download as many times as you want -- Pono, you only get the one download. In fact, I had a song download not complete -- I only got the first 14 seconds -- and I have a customer service ticket in process where they told me they had to get a new file from the record company. It's been almost a week and I haven't heard anything back. Also, one older digital single from about 2005 that they had available, I downloaded it and it was not lossless, so I complained and asked for a credit, and they said they'd "ask" about it. That was about two weeks ago, and haven't heard anything back. But... it's all English and no dealing with proxy servers. Go to PonoMusic.com if you want to register. |
Replies:
Posted By: Bwci Bo
Date Posted: 19 January 2015 at 7:43pm
| I went to download the mono version of Tommy James & The Shondells' Crimson And Clover but alas, the store is only open to U.S. residents. Bah! |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 19 January 2015 at 7:46pm
That was one of the first things I downloaded, and I meant to bring it up on the board... it runs a little longer than the US 45, and the version on the 40th Anniversary CD that is mono sounds like it could be a different mix, so I actually do wonder which is correct. It sounds to me like the B-side is a disc dub. |
Bwci Bo wrote:Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 January 2015 at 7:57pm
|
Brian, the version on 40th Anniversary sounds like a disc dub to my
ears. I think it's the right mix, but there are signs of vinyl distortion and noise throughout. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 20 January 2015 at 12:12am
|
Actually, Pono has been open to the general public for a
couple of weeks, and I am impressed by what is there, so far. I'll be glad when they get all the independant labels ingested, like Unidisc. I also wish the labels would get off their booties and start mastering and issuing more of their vaults. The minute I download something from Pono, I immediately back it up to a second hard drive for safe keeping. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 20 January 2015 at 6:20am
Yeah, me too. |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 20 January 2015 at 7:37am
Well that's a deal killer for me. I refuse to install special (potentially buggy or ad/spyware-laden) software just so I can download a song. Dumb name too. |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 20 January 2015 at 11:43pm
Hawaiian. Once you understand that, the name doesn't sound so dumb anymore. Some people don't like it because it sounds too much like "porno". Almost every online vendor requires you to install some kind of software/app. iTunes does it. HD Tracks does it. 7-digital does it. ------------- |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 21 January 2015 at 11:43am
| What is "HD Tracks"? Is that a site like Pono that offers lossless tracks? Up until recently, I thought the only lossless site available was Qobuz, and that only works if you have a French proxy. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 21 January 2015 at 3:40pm
|
Oh, Gordon, you really need to get out more. ;)
Yes, HD Tracks sells 24-bit lossless, but they are album- only for most of their releases. They've been around for about four years. They also have a very small catalogue that is heavily slanted towards classic rock. |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 22 January 2015 at 1:00am
And, that's what makes Pono special. It is the perfect replacement for iTunes because Pono sells lossless, and aims to get the same music as iTunes. Oh, now, people are complaining that Pono only sells FLAC. Well, no one complains that iTunes only sells AAC, or that Amazon and 7-digital only sell mp3. Gordon: Google Pono Music Store and check it out. They are selling pretty much the same stuff Rhino had a few years ago. BTW, Brian, I tried to buy from Quboz, but couldn't get a proxy to work, and i wasn't sure about the rate of exchange. So, i'll just wait until they start up here in the U.S.. I read somewhere that they were all set to go, barring a few legal issues, and that they are going to be up and running here by the second quarter. ------------- |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 22 January 2015 at 1:47pm
|
That'll be great if quboz is up in the US by 2nd quarter. Also, I'm surprised iTunes hasn't gone lossless yet. WAVs have to be supplied to them - it's been that way for a few years now - and then they convert to 320 mp3. So they already have so much in WAV format.
My guess is if/when they start losing revenue to Pono, all of a sudden they'll offer lossless, whether it's WAV or FLAC. BTW, the first FLAC I ever bought was a Roberta Flack FLAC. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 22 January 2015 at 7:31pm
True! And by "get out more", you really mean stay in more ... and check out all these lossless sites I was unaware of! :) |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 23 January 2015 at 11:54pm
That's probably the size of it. Apple is stubborn, too.
The first FLAC I bought was Paul McCartney's "Band On The Run" hi-rez when it was first available several years ago. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 04 February 2015 at 4:29am
|
By the way, 7Digital is selling more and more FLAC. By
major artists, too... The Prince "Love or Money" digital 45 is available there in FLAC. The new Mark Ronson album, some Michael Jackson, some Madonna. Spotty FLAC selection, though, and nothing I can't get anywhere else so far, but it is a good sign that more websites are starting to offer higher rez files. |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 05 February 2015 at 12:50pm
|
I'll bet iTunes will be the lone holdout. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 22 February 2015 at 4:04am
| Deleted comment... never mind. :D |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 24 February 2015 at 12:52pm
|
Speaking of all this, I recently had a conversation with a friend, in which I said I didn't like the sound of mp3s as much as CDs (or WAVs) and that I prefer buying CDs over mp3s because of the diminished sound of mp3s. He said that no one in the world can hear the difference, and that he didn't think I could either. So - I just posed a question about this up on my facebook page, asking people whether they can hear a difference or not.
If you have any opinions on this, and wouldn't mind looking me up on facebook and commenting there, I'd really like to know your thoughts. I'm writing this here because it seems like there are a lot of us here that seek out CDs and avoid mp3s at all costs and get upset when a song is only available as an mp3. And also because ... with PonoMusic spending millions to get their lossless website up, I wonder why they would do this if no one in the world can hear the difference. You can find me on facebook if you search for "Gordon Pogoda", although many of you are already my fb friends. And of course, feel free to post (copy/paste) your thoughts both on fb and here. I'm also reaching out to the people here because you are very knowledgeable about this subject, even putting up frequency graphs here to show the limitations of mp3s (though that doesn't necessarily mean anyone can hear a difference.) But with the vast knowledge of people here, I thought it would helpful if people can explain (either in technical terms or layman's terms) what the difference between the two is (assuming you hear any) ... on the facebook survey. I also welcome any answers of "No, I can't hear any difference." I'm not trying to skew the facebook responses to my side since I say I hear a difference and seek out CDs. I'd really like to get a rough concensus of how many do or don't hear a difference. Since I've posted on facebook, where I have a lot of non-music business friends, I imagine most people will respond "There's no difference" or "I've heard they're supposedly less quality and but I can't hear the difference myself." |
Posted By: bitman
Date Posted: 24 February 2015 at 1:05pm
| Of course, not all mp3's are created equal. Also, with advancing years the hearing starts to go a bit. In Neil Young's case (as with any musician) their ears are going to be more attuned to this sort of thing. I can hear the difference in lo-res mp3's. But, once you get up to the 256-320 bit rate range, I can't really tell them apart from .wav. However, I'm sticking with .wav just because I'm old school and I know I can trust it to be the best sound quality available to the average consumer. |
Posted By: MMathews
Date Posted: 24 February 2015 at 4:01pm
|
So true about not all mp3's being equal. The software used to create an mp3 and the settings used in that software will have a great impact on the result. A slow-encoded mp3 at 320k is almost indistinguishable from a wav when examined in spectral view.
And then of course, everyone's hearing is different which makes Gordon's survey an interesting one. I think most of us who purchase music want to get the best quality we possibly can for our money, even if it's higher quality than we are capable of hearing. |
Posted By: Fetta
Date Posted: 25 February 2015 at 8:54am
|
When DJing at at club on a large sound system, I can hear a difference between MP3's vs. CD. To my ears MP3s never sounded quite the same in a really large club setting. However, on a home system or in the car, or on an ipod, I can't tell the difference at all.
Curious if any other club or mobile DJs feel the same. |
Posted By: crapfromthepast
Date Posted: 25 February 2015 at 12:00pm
|
You can easily tell the difference between mp3 and wav for bitrates of 192 kbps and lower. The midrange and high frequencies will have an upleasant "whooshing" characteristic from the encoding - most noticeable on the cymbals.
I can hear the difference between 256 kbps mp3 and wav, but only on fairly high-end equipment, like my mobile DJ gear. The artifacts at 256 kbps are small, but they're still there. At 320 kbps, I can't really tell the difference between mp3 and wav. I did some informal tests, with the same song encoded as a lossless flac file, and as a 320 kbps mp3. I couldn't tell the difference in an A/B comparison. Maybe I could have differentiated the two on a really high-end system, but I don't have a really high-end system. A few years ago, when I moved my mobile DJ and radio work onto the laptop/USB-sound-card, I initially encoded everything as flac. My DJ software could search and play the flac files just fine, but it didn't display the ID3 tags very well. And then I ran out of space on the laptop's hard drive. (Crap From The Past has a much larger library than any normal person/show should need.) So I re-encoded everything to 320 kpbs mp3 and replaced all the flac files on the laptop. I fit more songs fit on the hard drive, with better compatibility with my DJ software, and no real noticeable change in sound quality. My radio station streams at 256 kbps (which is great for a radio station), so you wouldn't hear a difference between a flac and a 320 kbps mp3 song anyway. My advice, if you haven't heard it already from everyone else: Rip your CDs to flac. Make sure your tags are complete, consistent and correct. Make multiple copies of your library on separate hard drives. If possible, trade hard drives with people, so you can recover your stuff in the event that something bad happens. ------------- There's a lot of crap on the radio, but there's only one http://www.crapfromthepast.com" rel="nofollow - Crap From The Past . |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 28 February 2015 at 1:38am
|
I do not have a "high-end" system, but can hear the
difference between a 320kbps mp3 files and the original non-data compressed file. No, I don't have super hearing, I just know what to listen for. ------------- |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 28 February 2015 at 4:16pm
|
I notice Pono and 7Digital offering albums currently
available on CD (16 bit / 44.1 Khz). For example, you could buy Bruce Springsteen's Greatest Hits, and you could buy Bruce Springsteen's "Tunnel of Love" album. Typically in these situations I would go for the original album because the collections tend to be more heavily compressed and / or clipped. Has anybody checked to see if the albums on these sites are as compressed / clipped as the CD versions, or if in remastering them for the websites, they left off the clipping? Also, if you have a digital master at 16 bit / 44.1 Khz, how can you then release a file of it at 24 bit / 96 Khz? I haven't found a specific example yet, but I could imagine it happening. Janet Jackson's "Control" album was DDD, wasn't it? There's no way to create a higher rez master, I assume... ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: The Hits Man
Date Posted: 03 March 2015 at 3:36pm
In this case, you can rest easy. The new Bruce Springsteen remasters up to "Born In The U.S.A. are not compressed at all.
Nope. It's an analog recording (AAD) all the way. her producers Jimmy Jam/Terry Lewis were analog guys. ------------- |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 04 March 2015 at 7:39pm
What a bizarre mis-remembering on my part, but I see in Discogs on the CD label, "AAD." Let's take a different example then: Billy Joel's "Nylon Curtain" or George Michael's "Faith." All you've got is all you're going to get with those... no? (I couldn't figure out why they "remastered" Faith recently, other than maybe to make it a louder disc. The bonuses looked nice, though.) ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 04 March 2015 at 7:55pm
|
I bought the Faith remaster, because I didn't actually own the full album on CD (surprisingly). The bonus tracks are definitely nice. I haven't analyzed it in an editor to see if the tracks are brickwalled, but I would imagine they are.
To address your question about DDD, it would depend on the resolution used during the recording process. I'm not sure about the technology at that time, but I wouldn't automatically assume that all digital recordings were at 44.1 kHz, 16 bit. Quite possibly they used digital recorders with higher bit depths and sampling rates than a standard audio CD. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 04 March 2015 at 8:42pm
I just ripped it to my hard drive, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see that the dynamic range is quite nice. There doesn't appear to be any brickwalled audio on this release. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 05 March 2015 at 2:37am
Or lower... Madonna's "Like a Virgin" album is DDD, but the liner notes state that it was recorded at 44.1 kHZ, 12 bit. That's right, 12 bit. Unless it's a typo. |