DrMatt wrote:I still play CDs on a CD player, LPs on an LP turntable, and cassettes on a cassette deck. And I have an auxiliary cord to plug a mobile device into the amp.
So what, are you going to sue me?
No, but there are not enough "yous" out there to make the margins worth the work. Neil doesn't care about profit because he's rich. You don't care about profit because ... you're weird. The rest of the industry ...
I also possess a few good books. So there!
I can scan and convert those for you if you like. I have skills there.
On an additional note, let's look at Pono.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_%28d ... service%29
The Pono "ecosystem" will reportedly comprise the following components:
A portable music player, "PonoPlayer", costing $399 with 64 GB of internal storage. The player comes with an additional removable 64 GB MicroSD card and larger MicroSD cards can be used. Currently 128GB MicroSD cards are available and can be used. Thus, the total capacity can be 64GB, with no MicroSD card inserted, or more depending on the size and the MicroSD card. The cards can be swapped to allow for a larger selection of data. The press release notes that the PonoPlayer, developed in collaboration with Ayre Acoustics, can store "100 to 500 high-resolution digital-music albums".
The PonoMusic online music store, which will also sell earbud and headphone products suitable for use with the PonoPlayer device.
"PonoMusic App", accompanying desktop-based "media-management" software, which will allow customers to download and sync music to the player.
Not saying there's not a market, but $399? I suppose they did their research. Can they not make this work on an Android device?
"high-resolution" 24-bit 192kHz
Lossless (within the constraints of the bit-rate resolution and sample rate) one assumes. Big files. From above we can calculate size as
~40min per album
~10,000 minutes per 64gb
~6.5mb per minute
~25mb per song.
did i miss a decimal?
That's 10x the size of a mp3 and half the size of a wav.
And more ...
The mostly dweebs on slashdot are having a fun time with it. There are more funny comments than valid ones. This one is a combo worth quoting ...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si ... d=50120909
A 256Kbps AAC is objectively equal to CD sound quality, as confirmed by double-blind test after test. Furthermore, a huge portion of listeners will be hearing your angel's choir over cheap-ass ear buds or crap laptop speakers. Maybe you have a golden ear and can tell the difference between a CD and a FLAC file (are those good enough for you, or do they lack the sharp ones and smooth zeros of the digital masters?). Maybe you're not actually a delusional once-great who has lousy hearing and permanent tinnitus after years of playing rock concerts, and, well, being almost 70. Maybe your home hi-fi (do you still call it that?) was hand-wired by a wizened master of recording engineering fame. Maybe you have your own private anechoic chamber so you're not exposed to anything but the pure and sweet sounds of your own singing. But the rest of us listen to normal-person music with a dynamic range that's been shot to hell in the loudness wars, via normal-person audio formats, through normal-person digital-to-analog converters, into normal-person speakers, in a normal-person environment with kids playing and horns honking and dogs barking and coworkers chattering.
Your music, pristine to the heavens though it may be, sounds no better than Miley Cyrus when piping out of my MacBook. You've become a crotchety old curmudgeon trying to remain relevant to those kids who won't stay off your lawn, and maybe it's time to sit down with a hot cup of keep your yap shut and enjoy a nice book.
Good day, sir.