# Who is going to buy this $1200 audiophile Sony Walkman?



## qubit (Jan 6, 2015)

This looks like a total waste of money designed to milk money from people with more money than sense.

You can't hear proper audiophile sound while out and about with headphones or played through the car anyway.

Ok, so you take it home and play it through an audiophile Hi-Fi. Still a waste, since you are going to use the digital output which is identical to a $10 player. Therefore, the high quality analog stage in this player is going to be redundant whatever you use it for. Perhaps through audiophile quality headphones at home where one wants portability as they walk around the house would be the only possible use for it I can think of and just how many people are going to do that?

Yeah, it's targeted at those who don't have a clue.

http://gizmodo.com/sony-walkman-reborn-again-as-a-1200-hi-res-audio-han-1677643981


----------



## johnspack (Jan 6, 2015)

This whole Hi-Res marketing ploy,  and the adverts on tv make me sick.  Sure,  I want to throw out my $500 akgs to buy this crap....


----------



## AsRock (Jan 6, 2015)

I'll stick with their $30 one they do ( much smaller too ), that thing looks bulky as hell and who wants those sharpish  edges in their pocket anyways. 

I hate phones personally but these who seem to be glued to them ( most people ) they can just use that for what it's worth.


----------



## Tonduluboy (Jan 6, 2015)

*Who is going to buy this $1200 audiophile Sony Walkman?*

A. Someone who own a printing money machine?
B. Someone who want to brag all day long owning this walkman?
C. Sony die hard fan?
D. Someone who does not have any clue what he/she is buying?

There is always a buyer, if not SONY will never create a product with zero demand


----------



## de.das.dude (Jan 6, 2015)

id rather buy a used motorbike lol.

seriously though. if people can buy apple products. many will buy this.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Jan 6, 2015)

well, 
if you going to say "who's going to buy $1200 audiophile sony walkman"
that means you haven't heard things called an audiophile-grade portable music player. 

those includes Astell & Kern AK100-II, AK120-II, and AK240
and the mighty Altmann Tera Player (5000 EUR) looks like a card reader.
lots of people still buy those things, because they can and they understand what they are getting for the money.

some of my friend actually owns the former products of this walkman (ZX1)
i've tried the sound quality, and i personally thinks, from the sound quality alone, it is worth the asking price.

oh, and iPods sound quality are cr*p


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 6, 2015)

de.das.dude said:


> id rather buy a used motorbike lol..


im gonna take Corolla 

1200 its too much,


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jan 6, 2015)

To answer the question, I'm sure some will buy. There is a market for these kinds of things and audiophile territory is damn expensive. Whether you or me need something like this or can afford it, is irrelevant.  What I'm actually curious to see is if Neil Young's Pono will succeed and if it will bring the much needed quality jump at an affordable price.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 6, 2015)

I definitely wont buy it.

I have one of the original Walkmans somewhere.

They were a huge revolution when they first came out.    I can remember the tv adverts with people rollerskating listening to music.

I also have a lot of cassettes . Isnt it funny how they still work after 30 years. They were superceded by the amazing bulletproof CD s which turned out to be pretty shit, easily scratched and became useless.

I think ive got a Sony Discman somewhere as well.  If i can find them i will post some pics.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 6, 2015)

Well I do know a few that will buy high resolution players. Maybe not this one at this price but there is defiantly a market for them. The price will come down.

https://ponomusic.force.com/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...ome-theater-new-high-resolution-audio-player/

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I4Q9S32/?tag=tec06d-20

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/11/hifiman-launches-hm-901-high-resolution-audio-player-we-g/


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2015)

There is clearly a market for stuff like this...even at this price. Which, as Jetster said, will come down in price in time. 

And there are some pretty damn good 'audiophile' cans out there, not to mention some pretty decent systems in some high end cars too...so there is that too...


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 6, 2015)

sometimes products that tagged ultra expensive offer something
it called prestige, if they pretty confidence with what they offer, there must be a market for this one.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 6, 2015)

Isn't this trying to hit the same market as the Pono?


The player that busted most of the kickstarter records.  The music player that can supposedly generate high end audio on the go?


The market exists.  Should it; I have no clue.  People can rarely tell the difference between VBR audio and FLAC over headphones, so go figure.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 6, 2015)

I hope it blends.


----------



## qubit (Jan 6, 2015)

RCoon said:


> I hope it blends.


That's a great idea. We should all chip in with a Kickstarter campaign to have TPU "review" it in the blender.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 6, 2015)

People still buy dedicated audio players?!?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 6, 2015)

Digital music is not audiophile. If you are a true audiophile you only listen to analog music on analog equipment. And those recordings have to all be prior to 1995 before the loudness wars started.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 6, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Digital music is not audiophile. If you are a true audiophile you only listen to analog music on analog equipment. And those recordings have to all be prior to 1995 before the loudness wars started.



If Neil Young is endorsing the concept then that says something. He was anti digital from the beginning. Although he is a share holder in Pono I believe

I remember when digital photography started and people said it will never compare to film


----------



## qubit (Jan 6, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Digital music is not audiophile. If you are a true audiophile you only listen to analog music on analog equipment. *And those recordings have to all be prior to 1995 before the loudness wars started.*


Don't get me started on the loudness wars!

I remember hearing a song on the radio a few years ago that I liked - a mellow track with a good bassline; can't remember the name of it now. However, it sounded really compressed, unpleasantly so. Radio stations routinely compress all their audio output so I thought it was just them. However, when I bought it on CD, it sounded just as compressed and was so annoying that I only ever listened to it a few times.

Way to go to wreck a good song. 

All the audiophile equipment in the world won't save a recording like this.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jan 6, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> People still buy dedicated audio players?!?


Google Play on my S5 ftw?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 6, 2015)

Jetster said:


> I remember when digital photography started and people said it will never compare to film



That is a different argument though. Digital photography is working towards fully uncompressed hi res images. Currently digital music is working towards compressing audio as much as possible and make it as loud as possible! 



qubit said:


> All the audiophile equipment in the world won't save a recording like this.



That is my main argument against spending more than a reasonable amount of money on audio equipment. Currently the law of diminishing returns starts very early in the process because all of the recording are shot to shit thanks to loudness. Now if the trend changes and we go back to more dynamic recordings I can see the justification of spending $$$$ on audio equipment.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 6, 2015)

qubit said:


> Don't get me started on the loudness wars!
> 
> I remember hearing a song on the radio a few years ago that I liked - a mellow track with a good bassline; can't remember the name of it now. However, it sounded really compressed, unpleasantly so. Radio stations routinely compress all their audio output so I thought it was just them. However, when I bought it on CD, it sounded just as compressed and was so annoying that I only ever listened to it a few times.
> 
> ...



Radio stations started to sound worse when they went digital.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jan 6, 2015)

AsRock said:


> Radio stations started to sound worse when they went digital.



Unless its for weather, traffic or news updates - who actually listens to radio anymore? I know a load of people who just stick 500 songs on a usb stick and plug it in when they go for a drive and music only stops when it comes to the regular hourly traffic update.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 6, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> That is a different argument though. Digital photography is working towards fully uncompressed hi res images. Currently digital music is working towards compressing audio as much as possible and make it as loud as possible!



See that's where HD Audio comes in. At 24 Bit 192 KHz or higher its not at the level of MP3. There is even loss-less formats. Of course you have to get the audio so your current library will not be at that level of quality.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 6, 2015)

Jetster said:


> See that's where HD Audio comes in. At 24 Bit 192 KHz or higher its not at the level of MP3. There is even loss-less formats. Of course you have to get the audio so your current library will not be at that level of quality.



Well yea, but a lossless copy of a crappy mastered track just means you have a really great version of a crappy mastered track!


----------



## de.das.dude (Jan 6, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> People still buy dedicated audio players?!?


Moto g with noise cancellation plus sennheizer earbuds ftw.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 6, 2015)

You are all not audiophiles though so of course its not worth it and you won't get lossless files playing on a thirty quid one so their is likely a very small market hid somewhere for this just not us.
My uncle pays loony tunes money for stereo gear to play proper records on and in general thinks My decent setup sounds ok but shit in comparison to his and ya know what he's right cos if all you ever hear is compressed, frequency cut tunes, through class d amps and whatever grade speakers how you goingto know.
Price defo bad but learnup some stuff, some of yall sounding teanybopperish to me.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jan 6, 2015)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> You are all not audiophiles though so of course its not worth it and you won't get lossless files playing on a thirty quid one so their is likely a very small market hid somewhere for this just not us.
> My uncle pays loony tunes money for stereo gear to play proper records on and in general thinks My decent setup sounds ok but shit in comparison to his and ya know what he's right cos if all you ever hear is compressed, frequency cut tunes, through class d amps and whatever grade speakers how you goingto know.
> Price defo bad but learnup some stuff, some of yall sounding teanybopperish to me.


good. but i think the point others are trying to make is how good portable audio amps that are built in can really be.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2015)

Look at the price of this thing not marketed towards me or what I think its marketed towards...

I hate forums sometimes...


----------



## AsRock (Jan 6, 2015)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> You are all not audiophiles though so of course its not worth it and you won't get lossless files playing on a thirty quid one so their is likely a very small market hid somewhere for this just not us.
> My uncle pays loony tunes money for stereo gear to play proper records on and in general thinks My decent setup sounds ok but shit in comparison to his and ya know what he's right cos if all you ever hear is compressed, frequency cut tunes, through class d amps and whatever grade speakers how you goingto know.
> Price defo bad but learnup some stuff, some of yall sounding teanybopperish to me.



Yes sure hifi gear any day of the week if i could afford it but this o hell no.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 6, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> People still buy dedicated audio players?!?


 
Absolutely!  I refuse to have my phone memory clogged up with music files and have my battery life sharply curtailed.  I appreciate the 24 hours I get out of my battery now.


----------



## Chetkigaming (Jan 6, 2015)

I am. But, Sony Xperia z4 would be with S-Master HX, so i`ll need to think. 1200$ still a high price for this thing, curious how it sound compared to a z4.


----------



## AhokZYashA (Jan 7, 2015)

Chetkigaming said:


> I am. But, Sony Xperia z4 would be with S-Master HX, so i`ll need to think. 1200$ still a high price for this thing, curious how it sound compared to a z4.



the sony ZX1, which is around 800USD, is one of the best DAP currently on the market today, 
the sound quality trumps any phone, or any dedicated audio player under 1000USD

i know this, because i have tried pretty much all audiophile grade players out there.
and im using the same track to test, which is from stockfisch recording.


----------



## Chetkigaming (Jan 7, 2015)

Spoiler






AhokZYashA said:


> the sony ZX1, which is around 800USD, is one of the best DAP currently on the market today,
> the sound quality trumps any phone, or any dedicated audio player under 1000USD
> 
> i know this, because i have tried pretty much all audiophile grade players out there.
> and im using the same track to test, which is from stockfisch recording.





Yes ofc, but from now on z4 with s-master HX can be equal to zx dap.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jan 7, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> That is a different argument though. Digital photography is working towards fully uncompressed hi res images. Currently digital music is working towards compressing audio as much as possible and make it as loud as possible!


The misuse of a technology should not be confused with an inherent flaw in said technology.  Your argument is equivalent to saying that we should still be using film cameras because people are taking crappy digital images with crappy smartphone cameras.  There is nothing wrong with digital recording; you're just conflating the advent of digital recording with the "loudness wars" since they both occurred around the same time.  You can have excellent digital recordings of music, as long as they are mastered with sufficient dynamic range.  I wouldn't condemn high resolution audio just because music production isn't tailored to the medium.


Easy Rhino said:


> Well yea, but a lossless copy of a crappy mastered track just means you have a really great version of a crappy mastered track!


That's not quite true.  I have dozens of 24/96 albums, and in most of them there is different (better) mastering compared to the CD/iTunes version.  You can downsample them to 16/44.1 and there is still a clear difference between them and the CD/iTunes version.  The music industry seems to realize that people who want 24/96 audio also want better mastering as well, while the general consumer who buys CDs and uses iTunes just prefers loud music.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 7, 2015)

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Placebo effect for 99% of it, the 1% applies in music like Pink Floyd Speak to me Breathe where the dynamic range might get slightly compromised.


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Jan 7, 2015)

It's like 4K for the ears....LOL


----------



## revin (Jan 8, 2015)

As The Von stated:
Untill the industry starts to follow long with Mark Waldrep, it's just a crap shoot.
Scott Wilkerson and Mark have done lot of work trying to get more in the industry involved and some are starting to come around.
But with so many "limited" good analog masters around it hurts.
When the "CD" boom hit they[recordist} thought OMG 16/44 is the shit.
Untill lately since Mark has been able to show them  blindly that 24/96 minimum brings back missing dynamic range, an tonal quality.
16/44 up scaled to 24/96  just don't cut it, it MUST start at the Master and follow thru entirely, and even then it's for the "better" end not just High End, component's to bring that to the audience.

The new JBL M2 System Bi-amped with Crown amps @1Kw/channel for Pro,  and a Mark Levinson set for home.{ I remember in the 80's S.R. took a M.L. amp and WELDED with it !!!]
When the engineers and producers heard the difference's they knew it's time to get back to the roots of Hi-Fi.


----------



## HossHuge (Jan 8, 2015)

I'm surprised this thread has gotten this far without a comment from BumbleBee........


----------



## xorbe (Jan 8, 2015)

Holding out for quad-HD curved audio.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 8, 2015)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Unless its for weather, traffic or news updates - who actually listens to radio anymore? I know a load of people who just stick 500 songs on a usb stick and plug it in when they go for a drive and music only stops when it comes to the regular hourly traffic update.




Not even using the radio for traffic since I got apps like Inrix for that


----------



## AhokZYashA (Jan 8, 2015)

BumbleBee is mainly using her desktop setup, 
im pretty sure she isn't as interested as that.

the newly announced Audez'e EL8 might though.


----------



## rooivalk (Jan 8, 2015)

I'm not audiophile, so what about the actual sound quality? is it good or is it crap?

I mean, there's $2000 amplifier or $4000 headphone or $20k speakers, $1200 (if it's good) seems normal price among audiophile-grade stuff to me.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 8, 2015)

AhokZYashA said:


> BumbleBee is mainly using her desktop setup,
> im pretty sure she isn't as interested as that.
> 
> the newly announced Audez'e EL8 might though.



I think she would disagree with this statement but maybe not


----------



## Drone (Jan 8, 2015)

Mr. Kojima would love that


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jan 8, 2015)

First, all digital stores should offer only CD quality losseless format downloads. This is where it should all begin. It might be that 44.1/16 is all we need but let's have it in digital download formats at the same price as a retail CD. 

I mean when I buy a game from Steam I get the same textures and settings in a game as if I buy a boxed DVD of the same game. It's not a stripped down version because "anyway you don't have an UHD monitor so you won't see those textures". 

It makes me sick to think of all the people who actually paid money to get a crappy digital 128kbps version of their favorite albums. The worse thing is not that Jobs and his guys made a lot of money from this scam but they launched a trend in how you listen to music. It took years and years to somehow claim back the quality we had with CDs and vinyl records. 

You see, before this digital mess, bitrates and Khz and bits, a vinyl record had the same quality regardless if you played it on a cheap record player or a state of the art stereo system. Everything the artists wanted to be on the record was there and sounded like they wanted it to sound.


----------



## claylomax (Jan 8, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Digital music is not audiophile. If you are a true audiophile you only listen to analog music on analog equipment. And those recordings have to all be prior to 1995 before the loudness wars started.



THIS.
No matter the player, sound card or equipment you use, the music comes messed up from the studio. Most of the cd's and files from online shops are remastered (aka "as loud as it gets").

Try and listen Metallica's Death Magnetic on that walkman thing and let me know; you would think that there's something wrong with the player and/or heaphones.

Here's a link for those who avoid remastered albums:

http://dr.loudness-war.info


----------



## qubit (Jan 8, 2015)

A 24/96 recording mastered properly aka the best quality equipment and no stupid artificial loudness or other crap added would definitely sound better than any analog recording. It simply has to since the resolution is so much higher along with the incredibly low noise floor.

Additionally, this article reckons anything more than 16/44.1 or 16/48 won't sound better, is a waste of resources and can actually degrade performance due to the presence of very high frequency ultrasonics. It goes into a lot of technical detail, the maths to prove the theory and gives evidence of blind listening tests to make its case, but I'm not convinced this is right without comparing for myself.

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


----------



## revin (Jan 8, 2015)

qubit said:


> A 24/96 recording mastered properly aka the best quality equipment and no stupid artificial loudness or other crap added would definitely sound better than any analog recording. It simply has to since the resolution is so much higher along with the incredibly low noise floor.
> 
> Additionally, this article reckons anything more than 16/44.1 or 16/48 won't sound better, is a waste of resources and can actually degrade performance due to the presence of very high frequency ultrasonics. It goes into a lot of technical detail, the maths to prove the theory and gives evidence of blind listening tests to make its case, but I'm not convinced this is right without comparing for myself.
> 
> http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html



Neil and Pono are pushing the new player but are trying to say "Hey we have Hi Res files", that are just ripped CD's
As I mentioned here , Mark and Scott are showing that there IS indeed a benefit to the 24/96, it's just that the 'Loudness wars" are still going on.
I know the first time I heard Rush Exit Stage Left on cd, I wanted to cry 
To me hearing that was like using a "regular" phono needle, and using  Shibata tip......
Same for the  beloved Wish You were Here, so much dynamic range, the cd just don't feel it...............
Very interesting interview,
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-a...3938-avs-aix-high-res-experiment-results.html


----------



## WhiteNoise (Jan 9, 2015)

Hey I still listen to the radio daily! I also love AM talk radio.

Anywho...this player is nice looking and though many here can't justify it; many others will. I for one am not much for loading up music and playing it portable style. When I want good music I sit down at home.


Oh and that Pono player...I watched this on kickstarter. Watched Neil's video where he had all of these rocks stars claiming it was like going back to the studio...analogue style.

Then the thing released and the couple of solid reviews I read do not mimic what those rockers and neil seem to say. Not to mention the quality of the unit is subpar, (build quality that is)


----------



## revin (Jan 10, 2015)

I'd like to hear Stranglehold, entire Leftoverture, Boston, and WYWH thru that player
Just wanted to add a 2014 updated page that had some great details for Pink Floyd releases, interesting how some technics are used thru the years.
  I am a Wish You Were Here fanatic, but about 20 releases sheesh............
Starts with  Piper at the Gates of Dawn........................ Enjoy


----------



## claylomax (Jan 10, 2015)

revin said:


> I'd like to hear Stranglehold, entire Leftoverture, Boston, and WYWH thru that player
> Just wanted to add a 2014 updated page that had some great details for Pink Floyd releases, interesting how some technics are used thru the years.
> I am a Wish You Were Here fanatic, but about 20 releases sheesh............
> Starts with  Piper at the Gates of Dawn........................ Enjoy



That is a great link you posted there. Thanks.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 2, 2015)

revin said:


> I'd like to hear Stranglehold, entire Leftoverture, Boston, and WYWH thru that player
> Just wanted to add a 2014 updated page that had some great details for Pink Floyd releases, interesting how some technics are used thru the years.
> I am a Wish You Were Here fanatic, but about 20 releases sheesh............
> Starts with  Piper at the Gates of Dawn........................ Enjoy


Best post in this thread... Love me some Floyd!


----------



## revin (Feb 4, 2015)

Thank you @EarthDog  ! that means a lot !
You know just where I'm going with that about "close you eye's music"... presence, seperation, depth and so on........
I'm sure there's a few members with "high end" home speakers, but to hear Wish You Were Here with  VSX39THX amp[1 of the last "true" analouge class amps till the newest digital]
hearing that with the Infinity RSe's about 15-30 foot apart is mind blowing ! or even a great set of earphones
You can stand in plane on the far side of 1 of them and STILL hear true stereo seperation from the other speaker......................I cant describe it.
EMIT's are just fantastic, but you have to set a system up correctly.
And Animals, well if you've caught a sence of the stereo mix from Pigs on the Wing, well there you go.
BTW, Pink Floyd was 1 of the rare band's that would "all' play together when laying down tracks most of the time.


----------

