Hi-resolution support required (eg: AIFF 96kHz/24bit)

I agree that 16bit is fine for listening. But I do have ahi-fi setup and have A-B 16 vs 24 and there is a difference. I'm not arguing that Sonos should support the feature to appease audiophiles. My only point would be to support it for convenience. If you're an audiophile you appreciate 24 bit... and 24 bit isn't just about dynamic range... its dynamic accuracy too. 24 bit recording sound smoother and at 24bit 96khz are considered equivalent to DSD recordings.

Here is something else to consider... I DJ and most high end DAC's have dynamic range of 105db and up. 24 Bit files sound great especially on pro sound rigs and where they really help is in the high end. Things like high-hats, strings, vocals sound clearer, smoother and closer to how they sound on good vinyl recordings. I do believe there is a place for 24bit... Higher sampling I could live without, but since its here and most DAC's already support it, Sonos could easily add support for the file formats in a newer generation of products. Again not for the sake of appeasing audiophiles since its a consumer speaker, but for the sake of convenience.

and 24 bit isn't just about dynamic range... its dynamic accuracy too. 24 bit recording sound smoother and at 24bit 96khz are considered equivalent to DSD recordings.

Nonsense. Any differences in quality heard (even the highly subjective, audiophile-speak ones like "smoother"; you might as well say things like "syrupy" or "orange peel" :rolleyes) have been proven to be purely due to mastering differences. And the ability to hear a difference in the dynamic range between 16-bit and 24-bit is equal to the ability to detect a pin drop over a jackhammer in the same room.

Things like high-hats, strings, vocals sound clearer, smoother and closer to how they sound on good vinyl recordings.

So a higher dynamic range makes it sound like a format with a much, much lower dynamic range? Are you sure this is what you want to say?

OK so if 16 is accurate enough why is there a solution for aliasing and the noise it creates... Subjectivity to what one hears aside, there is more to how noise is generated in a digital recording and bit depth plays into that. Your focus is entirely on the metric of loudness and ignores noise in digital recordings. I'm not sure who you think has proven anything. There's more to a DAC than just its specs, the circuit, the room, everything has an influence in what you hear. If I download a re-mastered album in both 16 bit and 24 from the same release... same remaster, play it on my rig and hear a difference... then I hear a difference. The why doesn't matter. You can't take what I hear from me and this whole argument has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make. There are 24bit 96khz files, they exists. For Sonos to not support it because the science says there's no difference might be logical, but they might also lose the hearts and minds of consumers shopping around. Sonos has its competitors and most consumers don't purchase things informed...

For me I enjoy the sound of 24 bit recordings. You don't have to believe me I don't really care. When I play festivals and put on older recordings that have been remastered to HD and are amplified with tens of thousands of watts it sounds amazing. You can believe what you want, I know what I hear. Could it be the mastering, or is it the DAC sounding better because it was designed too, or is it the format. IDK I don't care. The why doesn't concern me anymore, if a 24 bit file sounds better to me I'm going to play it.

I'm also not trying to take the fact away that mastering doesn't play a part. I've listened to digital recordings and vinyl and even though digital is far superior on paper I've heard vinyl releases that have sounded amazing vs their digital counterparts and vice versa. There are many variables as to why... and I've spent countless hours recording these things and listening on various DAC's and analyzing the difference... it is a rabbit hole. I don't suggest becoming an audiophile to anyone.

it is a rabbit hole. I don't suggest becoming an audiophile to anyone.

On this we agree. The rest is subjective, except when you make definitive objective statements on the superiority of hires like "24 bit isn't just about dynamic range... its dynamic accuracy too" or "More accurate than 16 bit and a difference many audiophiles can hear." No, 24-bit is about dynamic range and dynamic range ONLY. There is nothing about 24-bit which increases "dynamic accuracy". And no, 16-bit vs. 24-bit, when made from the very same masters is not "a difference many audiophiles can hear." It's simply not so.

As to the noise and aliasing, nobody here is saying there is no use for 24-bit/96KHz in the mastering and recording process. Matter of fact, everyone with any knowledge knows the only use for higher frequency sampling was in the early days of the digital mastering process because it allowed extra padding above the audible spectrum for the anti-aliasing filters to do a more efficient job . This has less than zero to do with playback, and only confused** audiophiles who equate benefits for recording and mastering to be equally beneficial to playback would ever say differently.

**Actually, confusion is being polite. In my experience, most "audiophiles", even after being repeatedly corrected on things like "it's good for recording and mastering so it must be good for playback" or "the higher frequency samples fill in the jaggies in the sine wave" BS continue to repeat it long after they know better. This is not a mistake, it is a willful dismissal of facts. Sony got sued and lost for the same willful dismissal of facts when they used a "fills in the jaggies" diagram in an advertisement. If only there was a way to sue "audiophiles" for the same.

[quote=jgatie]

Things like high-hats, strings, vocals sound clearer, smoother and closer to how they sound on good vinyl recordings.

So a higher dynamic range makes it sound like a format with a much, much lower dynamic range? Are you sure this is what you want to say?

Yes it is because of the noise that was introduced in the digital format. You can't compare things on spec alone. Even though vinyl has less dynamic range, when compared to a particular DAC I was sampling didn't suffer from the noise that the DAC or circuit introduced and sounded clearer than the digital recording...

Yes it is because of the noise that was introduced in the digital format. You can't compare things on spec alone. Even though vinyl has less dynamic range, when compared to a particular DAC I was sampling had less noise and sounded clearer than the digital recording...

Nonsense. This is audiophile drivel. The "noise that was introduced in the digital format" hasn't been a problem since the early days of the format, when analog engineers were trying to transition to digital and used their old techniques which didn't translate well. You are about 30 years too late with your statements, which is typical of "audiophiles" who keep cutting and pasting the same things for years with absolutely no knowledge about the actual science, or any advances which may have occurred with it.

To quote Monty:

This means we can use low rate 44.1kHz or 48kHz audio with all the fidelity benefits of 192kHz or higher sampling (smooth frequency response, low aliasing) and none of the drawbacks (ultrasonics that cause intermodulation distortion, wasted space). Nearly all of today's analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) and digital-to-analog converters (DACs) oversample at very high rates. Few people realize this is happening because it's completely automatic and hidden.

ADCs and DACs didn't always transparently oversample. Thirty years ago, some recording consoles recorded at high sampling rates using only analog filters, and production and mastering simply used that high rate signal. The digital anti-aliasing and decimation steps (resampling to a lower rate for CDs or DAT) happened in the final stages of mastering. This may well be one of the early reasons 96kHz and 192kHz became associated with professional music production

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

Yes I completely agree. But this is all theory. In practice you can get wildly different results. I have a modern new DAC, I've listen to vinyl, then recorded the vinyl and in theory it should have sounded the same. It didn't. Nor do a lot of recordings. So this is perfected (I think not)... and the more consumer grade you get the more variation. I can listen to one DAC and it sounds tinny and distorted... and I can hear another one in a studio and it sounds great. If all these problems were solved in the DAC 30 years ago why are there still differences... Is it just the DAC, no it could be the circuit or it could be a lot of other things.

Don't hold my descriptions on what I hear to some high and holy white paper on the theory of how things should be.

Have you heard the turn of phrase "in theory this should work" when referring to the science of something. Also implying that the practice of the science can be incomplete or incorrect. You are wack and I'm out.

Have you heard the turn of phrase "in theory this should work" when referring to the science of something. Also implying that the practice of the science can be incomplete or incorrect. You are wack and I'm out.

Theories are accepted explanations of a phenomena that are proven by rigorous observation, experimentation, and duplication, The question "In theory, it should work" opens up said observations (i.e, the theory is not working) to further rigorous observation, experimentation, and duplication. So far, the theory that 24/96 hi-resolution audio can be distinguished as superior to 12/44.1 has not held up to these rigorous observations, experimentations, and reproductions. Until someone does a rigorous experiment that is reproducible which proves differently, then the current theory stands, regardless of your own less that rigorously attained "theories" to the contrary.

I'm fully aware of bias and placebo effect. That doesn't mean there are real differences out there.

Freudian slip? 😃