Neil Young’s Pono kickstarter crushes fundraising goal

If all I did was listen to what the critics were saying, I would have assumed that Neil Young would have difficulty raising money for his new Pono Player. But contrary to expectations, Mr. Young is crushing it, at least financially.

As of this writing, his Kickstarter campaign has raised more than $1.27 million, far in excess of his goal of $800,000.

To me, the Pono (pronounced Poe-No) Player looks funky and old-school, as if someone built it from spare parts taken from older devices. But it’s all about the music, right? Given what the critics are saying, I don’t see the win here against existing standards. But I would wager that all that criticism is paper analysis and does not come from hearing the Pono Player itself.

Watch this video. Some musical giants weighing in with their opinions. This might come across as simply marketing, but there’s a lot of enthusiasm from people who seem genuinely impressed by what they are hearing.

That said, here’s a critical hands-on panning of the Pono. Some real venom there.

I hope this turns out well for the Pono team and the people who have invested their hard-earned money. I’d like to hear this with my own ears so I can judge for myself. I am curious. Is this much ado about nothing?



  • Dan

    I don’t see this as a mass market device. That said, there is enough room in the high-end audio realm for a niche player like this to exist, and I’m very interested to give it a shot (I ordered one). It would’ve been nice if they spent some R&D on affordable headphones to include with the unit though… I think that could’ve pushed it more into the mainstream especially given the success of Beats etc.

    I really feel like folks heralding this as the next iPod are delusional, as are those who are writing it off because it won’t be a 50M+ seller. The market is broad enough to support both.

    • Sigivald

      Affordable headphones?

      Here: $85 Sonys. Replaceable pads, great sound, no BS.

  • Telecinese

    I enjoyed reading Dan Rutter’s take on the whole Pono concept, and the rebuttal to angry feedback from the first article. If nothing else, his engineery hardware-reviewer background and always amusing anti-audiophile quackery curmudgeon attitude make for an amusing read.

    http://www.dansdata.com/gz143.htm http://www.dansdata.com/gz145.htm

  • gjgustav

    I figured it would do well. Audiophiles have a lot of money to spend.

    But I laughed at their Kickstarter page that described 16/44.1 as the “low end” of high resolution recording, which happens to be the high end of human hearing capacity.

    Now the hardware looks to be of high quality, so it might actually sound better than an iPod – but it’ll be due to better electronics, not high-resolution audio. Anything above 16/44.1 is a waste of money if you won’t be editing it.

    • Odi Kosmatos

      You are generalizing. They said the same thing about iPhone’s retina, that 326 DPI on a screen that size is about the limits of what humans can see. Not true. Sure, it looks ultra smooth when anti-aliasing is turned on, but you can (well, I can, but I’m sure you can too) clearly see stair-steps on lines that don’t have anti-aliasing on. This device clearly isn’t for the masses and for casual music listening, but to say that 16/44.1 is indistinguishable from, say, 24/96 is not true. This has been debated ad nauseam in the past when new formats (like 24/96), DVD-Audio, SACD, etc have been introduced. A bunch of people can’t hear the difference and declare that EVERYONE can’t.

      • Václav Slavík

        Actually, it is true. And in fact, it was a bunch of people running double-blind tests, when even “audiophiles” couldn’t detect any quality difference.

        Then there’s a loud crowd of “audiophiles” who are dead certain about their truth, without ever bothering with scientifically-sound study. There are things like placebo effect or bias in play: if you want to believe something sounds better and test it in anything other than (double-)blind setup, you can’t trust your own senses. That’s the way our brains work and the reason why the scientific standard for objective tests is double-blind study.

        BTW, you are deceitfully omitting the key part of the Retina metric: at this screen’s distance from the eye. Eye resolution is an angle thing.

        • Odi Kosmatos

          First of all, I did NOT omit the distance part, it is implicitly baked into the screen size parameter, which I did include. Forgive me if I didn’t explain the whole thing, but it isn’t deceit.

          Second of all, I was an audiophile, spent a lot on high-end equipment when I was younger, and nowadays am QUITE HAPPY with AAC-256, iPhones, Apple TVs as audio sources. The reason is I simply don’t sit down to just listen anymore. I am doing other things, so I don’t care about the perfect noise floor, or other parameters, as much as I used to.

          You DO realize that this isn’t just about 16/44.1 vs. 24/96, right? What also comes into play AT THE SAME TIME is the mastering process, the time to get things right, that the companies producing these high-end versons of music go through. I guarantee you that (yes, I still have it… after all these years) the SACD version of Dark Side Of The Moon is NOTICEABLY better than the CD version released before it. I know, you’ll still attribute it to perception and I was just brainwashed into thinking that, but you’re not looking at all the parameters (like you did with the distance-to-screen one…)

          • gjgustav

            I’m only criticizing the claim that high-res audio sounds better. Mastering of course, matters, but that mastering process goes into new editions of CDs and AAC files too.

          • double-blind tests eliminate any confusion or bias.

      • Lukas

        As soon as you explain to me what the audio equivalent of a Moiré pattern is, I’ll consider your argument. Until then, I’ll stick with the results from double-blind tests, where nobody could tell the difference between this and other players.

        • Odi Kosmatos

          I love science too.

      • gjgustav

        Actually, I’m not. Václav said it better, and here’s the science to back it up: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

  • puppethead

    What’s the Pono’s hook, that it uses FLAC? Apple’s devices support ALAC, Apple’s lossless format which is functionally equivalent to FLAC (and open, like FLAC).

    I don’t think the player is the problem Neil Young wants to solve, it’s the distribution of audio files. The problem with both ALAC and FLAC is that no one can buy songs in those formats on iTunes or Amazon. The Pono music store selling FLAC format is nice, but if they sold ALAC format they’d cover all the existing Apple products as well.

  • Gerard J

    Double blind, using the same headphones and switching between audio sources, randomly, I’d bet 95% of listeners would not be able to tell the difference between Pono and iPod/iPhone when listening to lossless tracks. There may be a market in that last 5% but that market seems it would be for the the format, not the player itself. Again blind testing is needed for proper analysis. If Pono starts getting rights to sell FLAC at reasonable prices ( < $2.00/track ) then I suspect that Amazon and iTunes would manage to get those rights as well. Compression became the new DRM and it may be the next battleground in music sales. If people think Apple is a religion or cult, wait to you start reading stuff from audiophiles who deny that double-blind testing yields the incorrect results as the process is biased. Wait till you read audiophiles claiming that the oscilloscope and audio analyzers can’t accurately measure and show what the human hear is sensing. They deny the science because they are certain in their belief that their ears are better than ours.

    • Odi Kosmatos

      “There may be a market in that last 5% but that market seems it would be for the the format, not the player itself. Again blind testing is needed for proper analysis.”

      That.

    • Lukas

      If you exchange that “95%” with “100%, but 5% don’t believe the results”, I’ll agree with you.

      • Odi Kosmatos

        Because a double-blind test testing one hypothesis under a certain set of conditions of course applies to all kind-of-similar situations. Thumbs up!

        • Gerard J

          Double-blind eliminates as many variables as possible, including bias introduced by the testing personnel to get to the true effect or quality of the testing subject. Double-blind technique can be used in any situation you desire, from an anechoic chamber with a true 0db noise floor to a crowded subway. When double-blind subjective tests and machine objective tests agree that there is no difference: there is no difference. Any opinion other than that is belief.

    • Vera Comment

      i don’t consider myself an audiophile in any sense of the word, but I so use an iPod (ALAC), with a DAC and a pair of Westone4’s for my commute.

      you can EASILY tell the difference between the ipod’s built in DAC, and the external DAC (connected to ipod via the dock connector, not the mini jack) I will not listen to music w/o the external DAC anymore.. without it, it’s like listening to music through a loaf of bread.

      the DAC i use is a cheap (~$100) Fiio.

      • Gerard J

        Again… I’d like to see you make that comparison in a blind test where I play you segments of the same song randomly through different DAC/amp setups. You MAY be able to reliably tell the difference and would be that slim market. Every objective (spectrum analyzer, scope, etc.) test I read says iOS devices have near zero distortion with flat frequency response. I find it odd that you consider the iPod’s amp/DAC a loaf of bread when it is demonstrable that frequency response is near flat, THD is near zero, dynamic range is immense and it is in every other objective test and excellent audio player. In fact the iPod’s frequency response is flatter and THD lower than the Fiio you love and in overall testing the only standout difference is that the Fiio is louder than the iPod’s amp.

    • Sigivald

      I can think of two caveats:

      1) Audiophiles already can’t tell the difference between lossless and good modern lossy codecs at sensible bitrates, in blinded ABX tests.

      Not 5%. 0%, at least in every large test I’ve ever heard of, and I’ve been following the issue for years.

      Why would Apple even want to sell ALAC files? More bandwidth costs, less effective device capacity, zero benefit to listeners.

      2) The Pono could legitimately beat the iPhone/iPod in the ADC/amp stage if it had superior output stage hardware, in principle.

      That Young’s PR doesn’t seem [in my investigation of the site and the press] to even mention the output stage is not encouraging for that hypothesis, but it is a plausible and possible way to increase fidelity.

  • Lukas

    This is one area where you should trust the data, not your ears, particularly if you’re doing a non-blinded test. Audiophiles spend millions on what amounts to placebos. Don’t be one of them.

    • gjgustav

      I’ve seen $1000+ “audiophile-grade” USB and ethernet cables, overpriced markers to block out the edge of CDs, little tiny stands to keep your speaker cables (excuse me, “interconnects”) off the floor, and even CD demagnetizers.

      Apparently audiophile placebos is a big business.

  • mycroftxxx

    There’s a very good reason for using 24/96 or 24/192 in the production of music: it more-or-less eliminates roundoff error in the digital toolchain. But for the finished product? 16/44.1, properly done (which isn’t trivial but isn’t brain surgery either) is indistinguishable from 24/96 or 24/192 in properly done double-blind testing (including level matching; a level difference of 0.2 dB is sufficient to throw off a double-blind test). And if your system can handle 24 bits through the DAC, then you can even use a digital volume control without loss of resolution. Pono is audiophile snake-oilery, nothing more.

  • miguel

    What you quote as a “hands-on” review isn’t. It’s just a garden variety hatchet job on an unreleased and unseen product.

  • Sigivald

    Pathetic UI and industrial design.

    The musical claims are snake oil. (The only plausible improvement over an iPhone I might believe is a better output stage/DAC/amps, and that’s one thing Young’s press hasn’t mentioned in my investigation.)

    It might still do vaguely well ripping off gullible audiophiles who hate themselves and want a triangular player with terrible UX.

    • yes… the same one’s who buy monster cabels 😉

  • Nikolozi

    I just don’t buy those reactions. Placebo effect at best.