Zp 24/96
A
Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
Page 17 / 41
In terms of hardware, the converters are in place, however, I doubt if there is enough processor power and network bandwidth to handle the data throughput.
It may be possible to support a limited number of 24/96 zones as far as network bandwidth is concerned, but we are still stuck with the possibility that the on-board processing power is not there.
From a support standpoint, I'm not sure how SONOS support could face a user who had a perfectly functional larger system, say 10+ zones, but was required to shut down some zones whenever a 24/96 zone is active.
A middle ground might be to introduce a new player with enhanced processor power and require this player to be wired to the music source. This player could render the 24/96 stream locally, re-sample the music file, and pass through a 16 bit stream to the other players. Of course, the requirement of wiring this player to the music source would tarnish the "wirelessly play music everywhere" part of the value proposition.
It may be possible to support a limited number of 24/96 zones as far as network bandwidth is concerned, but we are still stuck with the possibility that the on-board processing power is not there.
From a support standpoint, I'm not sure how SONOS support could face a user who had a perfectly functional larger system, say 10+ zones, but was required to shut down some zones whenever a 24/96 zone is active.
A middle ground might be to introduce a new player with enhanced processor power and require this player to be wired to the music source. This player could render the 24/96 stream locally, re-sample the music file, and pass through a 16 bit stream to the other players. Of course, the requirement of wiring this player to the music source would tarnish the "wirelessly play music everywhere" part of the value proposition.
+8
Keep in mind that Sonos hardware is about 7 years old.. When it was introduced it didn't even support Apple Lossless.. and it still doesn't completely/seemlessly support Aiff.. as much as I crave Sonos supporting HiRes playback I've come to accept that it won't, it's not Sonos's market and I just don't think they really care, HiRes is a very small market. I've made the commitment to PS Audio's PWD/Bridge for playing back HiRes in my main system and using Sonos around the house in less critical applications.
And no question that HiRes material sounds better than similar 16/44 material but the system and room needs to be of sufficient quality to appreciate the difference, no way would one be able to tell the difference on a play 5 or a ZP120 hooked up to moderately prices speakers, stuffed into bookcases or hooked up to a pair of in walls, and lets be real most folks using Sonos are not audiophiles and SQ takes a back seat to convenience almost exclusively..
For what Sonos is and does it's the best.. for what it doesn't do.. it doesn't do 🙂
And no question that HiRes material sounds better than similar 16/44 material but the system and room needs to be of sufficient quality to appreciate the difference, no way would one be able to tell the difference on a play 5 or a ZP120 hooked up to moderately prices speakers, stuffed into bookcases or hooked up to a pair of in walls, and lets be real most folks using Sonos are not audiophiles and SQ takes a back seat to convenience almost exclusively..
For what Sonos is and does it's the best.. for what it doesn't do.. it doesn't do 🙂
Userlevel 1
For what Sonos is and does it's the best.. for what it doesn't do.. it doesn't do :-)
I agree with most and possibly all of that. But the question must be does the fact that Sonos hardware has a certain vintage imply that Sonos products will be forever locked into specific limitations. NB the same goes for features such as supporting more Tag data (eg Star ratings) or data such as recently added tracks etc; where these features require more memory in (each) Sonos device. There will surely come a point where backwards compatibility is more of a burden than a benefit. This happens with all technology...
Greater processor power and more memory would presumably come pretty cheaply these days, so new products could solve this problem at the expense of reduced backwards compatibility.
I would support HiRez support. But it may come about for other unrelated reasons, eg the need to support more demanding online services or full DLNA support or some other new technology...
A middle ground might be to introduce a new player with enhanced processor power and require this player to be wired to the music source. This player could render the 24/96 stream locally, re-sample the music file, and pass through a 16 bit stream to the other players. Of course, the requirement of wiring this player to the music source would tarnish the "wirelessly play music everywhere" part of the value proposition.
That is exactly what I want - a new player that can play (via wired connection) 24/96 files. I'd jump up & down like a kid on Christmas morning if you figured out how to pass through a 16 bit streamed version to the old players.
I only care about 24/192 (or 24/96) quality at ONE source. The rest of my Sonos systems are for casual listening, and 16 bit is fine for those.
Point being - an updated ZP is expected, and wired is OK for hi-res... at least as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think??
I only care about 24/192 (or 24/96) quality at ONE source. The rest of my Sonos systems are for casual listening, and 16 bit is fine for those.
Point being - an updated ZP is expected, and wired is OK for hi-res... at least as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think??
I think if you want hi-res at only one source, then a stand alone hi-res player is what you you should purchase. There are dozens of them on the market, go nuts. IMHO, creating a stand alone player, that must be wired, and does not sync with other players for use with a multi-room, wireless music system that perfectly syncs is diluting the brand for a very, very small minority of users, and for a "benefit" that is questionable at best. I'd rather they spend their deveopment budget on something else. YMMV.
Couldn't agree more with jgatie. Let's get some of the countless Sound Ideas actioned, especially those that could significantly enhance operability. The Sonos concept as it stands delivers what it set out to do, but its ease of use eg playlist management, and its ancient Desktop Controller GUI could be easily brought up to date IMHO. And please fix the delay issue with external DAC processing! Much more important than pandering to a tiny minority.
The challenge for Sonos will be that without a defined hi-res upgrade path, the product will slide in perception to more of a mid-fi lifestyle product than a serious hi-fi contender (which may well be Sonos' plan). It is not clear that anyone selling cutting edge hi-fi makes any money, so perhaps Sonos is smart in this approach. It will however be harder for the custom install brigade to push Sonos for high $$ applications when the competition can all handle hi-res.
The elephant in the room is of course the Touch, which now Squeeze seem to have addressed the software reliability issues (and with Sonos' recent software stumbles with 3.6) must be seen as serious competition. With full hi-res capability and available for as little as £135 (if you wait for a special), perhaps Sonos' users who want hi-res could buy a Touch for their main listening room to sit alongside their Sonos installation.
I think it is pretty obvious by now which market Sonos is aiming for.
The elephant in the room is of course the Touch, which now Squeeze seem to have addressed the software reliability issues (and with Sonos' recent software stumbles with 3.6) must be seen as serious competition. With full hi-res capability and available for as little as £135 (if you wait for a special), perhaps Sonos' users who want hi-res could buy a Touch for their main listening room to sit alongside their Sonos installation.
Better check the forums for that "elephant in the room." I believe the "Is Logitech going to abandon the Squeezebox line" posts have finally outnumbered the problems with install, maintainance and usage posts. Seriously, a company that is discontinuing products and lowering customer service at the rate Logitech is for the Squeezebox line is not an "elephant in the room."
Userlevel 2
I have, personally, thought about getting Squeezebox for the high resolution possibilities. I have dozens of vinyl rips at 24/96 and would like to play them without compromising the audio quality (whether or not folks believe it is different or not).
But at the end of the day - the functionality and prior investment in Sonos has me waiting.
I keep hoping that one day they will realize that all tech becomes obsolete and upgrade their units.
As it stands now - there are so many concerns that can be addressed by upgrading from track count to sorting capabilities to track information to high resolution audio. And the upgrade should function within any current infrastructure.
I just don't see why Sonos would continue to run nearly a decade old hardware. Is it so that the Sonos-apologists have a built in excuse as to why stuff can't be done? Even Apple upgrades.
But at the end of the day - the functionality and prior investment in Sonos has me waiting.
I keep hoping that one day they will realize that all tech becomes obsolete and upgrade their units.
As it stands now - there are so many concerns that can be addressed by upgrading from track count to sorting capabilities to track information to high resolution audio. And the upgrade should function within any current infrastructure.
I just don't see why Sonos would continue to run nearly a decade old hardware. Is it so that the Sonos-apologists have a built in excuse as to why stuff can't be done? Even Apple upgrades.
I just don't see why Sonos would continue to run nearly a decade old hardware.
Because the system was designed to be a long lasting system, not a disposable one, and that's why people bought it. Most people would be deeply upset, having splashed out potentially thousands of dollars on units around their home, if the system was then obsoleted and new hardware didn't function well (or at all) with the old.
Of course it will have to happen eventually, but I suspect it will have to be done gradually with new hardware forming a bridge between the old systems and the new one, but there has to be some compelling reasons to do this. I see no commercial sense in doing so unless it's for a feature that is wanted by and will benefit a significant portion of the market. The best way for this to happen would be if the new kit has a substantially different role, rather than being a complete across-the-board replacement. Sonos have previously made noises about home theater audio, and that might provide a way to create a parallel but interoperable new range without completely obsoleting the old stuff overnight.
Is it so that the Sonos-apologists have a built in excuse as to why stuff can't be done?
That's such a purile comment I won't bother to address it.
Even Apple upgrades.
Yes but this is an exceptionally bad example. I really don't know why you used the word "even" as it's totally inappropriate: Apple specifically aim to be on the leading edge with disposable consumer devices that people want to upgrade, as this means more Sales.
Obsoleting kit after 18 months in in Apple's DNA. In this respect Apple's strategy is completely the opposite of Sonos's.
My daughter changes the decorative cover on her mobile phone every few weeks, as the covers are cheap and disposable, but it would be crazy to suggest that, based on this, one should contemplate redecorating the house every few weeks!
Cheers,
Keith
Userlevel 2
The lack of 24 bit support is the only thing keeping me from investing in Sonos equipment right now. I'm not some audiofile nut playing with uselessly expensive cables. I just have a decent stereo and can easily hear the difference between redbook and 24 bit material when using just a laptop and a fairly cheap USB DAC. Even my girlfriend can hear the difference.
So I'm frankly amazed at the obstinate denial of the obvious sonic benefits of 24/96 when so many customers are requesting it. How about listening to your customers instead of trying to argue with them? I've talked with several people in "Hifiklubben" - the only retailer of Sonos in Scandinavia and they say that more and more people come in to buy Sonos, only to turn away when told it doesn't support HD material...
So I'm frankly amazed at the obstinate denial of the obvious sonic benefits of 24/96 when so many customers are requesting it. How about listening to your customers instead of trying to argue with them? I've talked with several people in "Hifiklubben" - the only retailer of Sonos in Scandinavia and they say that more and more people come in to buy Sonos, only to turn away when told it doesn't support HD material...
Userlevel 2
The fact that this thread is by far the largest in the request board with 414 replies and >58000 views (the second largest only has 160 replies and 20000 views) hardly agrees with that statement...
:rolleyes:
Hi Draken,
First, don't put your girlfriend down by saying, "Even my girlfriend can hear the difference". There's a good chance she can hear better than you. Statisical data on hearing tests would support this.
Can you provide some details on your set-up when you've done these listening tests? What is your decent stereo and what efforts went into matching levels and what degree of blindness did you have to the sources? What was the redbook and 24 bit material and were they from the same masters?
I'm really interested in these details. Please provide/expound if possible.
First, don't put your girlfriend down by saying, "Even my girlfriend can hear the difference". There's a good chance she can hear better than you. Statisical data on hearing tests would support this.
Can you provide some details on your set-up when you've done these listening tests? What is your decent stereo and what efforts went into matching levels and what degree of blindness did you have to the sources? What was the redbook and 24 bit material and were they from the same masters?
I'm really interested in these details. Please provide/expound if possible.
:rolleyes:
Just because the topic has been debated the most (most replies) don't conclude that hires would be anywhere near the top of the list among all Sonos users for feature upgrades.
I personally would like to see support for it but would not put it at the top. Probably would not make my Top 10 list.
Userlevel 2
First, don't put your girlfriend down by saying, "Even my girlfriend can hear the difference". There's a good chance she can hear better than you. Statisical data on hearing tests would support this.
.
I'm not putting her down. It's generally accepted that girls aren't really interested in hifi or sound quality. Whether they have better hearing or not isn't relevant. They are just interested in other things.
Can you provide some details on your set-up when you've done these listening tests? What is your decent stereo and what efforts went into matching levels and what degree of blindness did you have to the sources? What was the redbook and 24 bit material and were they from the same masters?
.
Like I wrote in my previous message, it isn't up to the customers to argue and "prove" that a feature they request are valuable or not. If a large number of people request a feature, the manufacturer would be wise to listen or else lose their customers.
I'm not going to waste time being baited into a discussion over why I find something valuable. Suffice to say, I and *a lot* of other people like how 24 bit source material sounds and we are requesting it's support.
:rolleyes:
There is a difference between a vocal minority and a majority. The reason this thread has gone on so long is because there is a very loud and active fanbase for hi-rez. Loud and active in no way correlates to actual numbers or market penetration, nor should it.
Sorry, not meaning to draw you out but when someone states it as you have, I'm genuinely interested in how they came to that conclusion. In my eyes, when the test involves blind ABX with levels matched, some level of credibility is reached. Until this is done, well you know, talk is cheap.:)
Userlevel 2
I can confirm this. Do not care much about 24/96 support, but i am an active follower of this subject, because of the interesting arguments of the contributors.
I think of the lack of support of 24/96 the same way i think of the lack of ability to play CD's or vinyl records with Sonos. If I do want to listen to it using my Sonos equipment, I have to convert the source to something Sonos likes.
Agreed.
Personally, I cannot take anyone who claims the sonic benefits of hires are "obvious" seriously. That is simply not the case.
I'm still open minded about whether the differences are audible at all, or not but to claim they are "obvious" is simply incorrect. Even most hardened audiophiles will agree the differences are subtle and that you may require prolonged listening in a familiar environment (such as your own home) with familiar source material to detect the nuances.
If the differences were "obvious", they would have been proven beyond doubt by now in the many blind-listening studies that have been conducted. These studies have all been inconclusive (meaning statistically, no significant audio differences were detected by the study group).
And to those who think the the people on these forums who are sceptical of the benefits of hires are doing so only because we are defending Sonos, let me direct you to the following thread, on the Slimdevices forums, where despite having it as a capability on their platform, many of the regulars (at least one of whom is a professional studio Engineer) consider hires to be of dubious value.
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=88056
Cheers,
Keith
Userlevel 2
As I explained thoroughly in another post in this thread - Blind ABX tests with human senses is simply bad science.
It is a proven fact that the human mind is incapable of comparing subtle differences in any of our senses. We just are not very good at using our senses to compare objects because we have to use our memory.
Blind tests, while good in some instances, are not necessarily a good indicator for subtle differences. The brain introduces bias, even in a blind test, add to it fatigue and nerve memory - and you've got a recipe for bad science.
A good example of this is comparing the heat within two buckets of water. One bucket is 82-degrees while the other is 86-degrees. I ask you to stick your hand in one of the buckets for 30 seconds. Then dry off and put it in the other. Do you think that you could determine which was hotter 100% of the time? More than likely, the answer is no. Our bodies and minds are simply not built for that type of comparison.
Our sight is the only sense that can reliably compare objects and that is through direct visual comparison. This is because it is the only type of testing that removes the element of memory. All other forms of sensory comparison, including non-direct visual comparison (objects with spacing between them), depend on a person's highly unreliable memory for sensory impressions. The more testing performed, the more the characteristics of the stimuli blur within the human mind.
When it comes to audible differences the brain's ability to remember sound is very poor. Probably among the worst of the senses. We can remember the overall sound, but humans tend to translate sound to feeling rather than remember the actual sonic profile.
If you want a truly scientific study rather than psuedo-science that is bound to prove the null hypothesis then I would set up a test that monitors brain activity and overall body reaction (blood pressure, breathing pattern, oxygen levels) of a listener when exposed to extensive listening of compressed vs non-compressed vs high resolution - both from a double blind and a non-blind test. I would be interested to see how the brain/body system reacts. *THAT* is pure science without the statistical variance imbued by the unreliability of human sensory memory.
Userlevel 2
Personally, I cannot take anyone who claims the sonic benefits of hires are "obvious" seriously. That is simply not the case.
I'm still open minded about whether the differences are audible at all, or not but to claim they are "obvious" is simply incorrect. Even most hardened audiophiles will agree the differences are subtle and that you may require prolonged listening in a familiar environment (such as your own home) with familiar source material to detect the nuances.
I agree wholeheartedly. I think anyone saying it is obvious is simply blowing smoke.
At the end of the day, I am not even sure there is a perceptible difference.
I simply have tracks that *are* high resolution and I'd like to play then. Noticeable difference or not.
gtyer,
I agree with you. I don't think blind ABX is the be all/end all/last word in proving whether A is better than B. But what I hope when one states that A is better than B is that they have taken some effort to eliminate personal biases and are giving each of the choices a fair test.
Most of the time, I don't feel this happens with regard to comparing music/audio/electronics. Doesn't have too much to do with science. State the opinion that A is better than B, then tell us what you did to come to that conclusion. If it is stated, "I did such and such to eliminate variables, I did so and so to eliminate biases. I matched gain on both signals so that Fletcher-Munson would be happy...." then I can warm up to these opinions. But when it is stated that "even my deaf grandfather/indifferent significant other could hear the difference, why can't you?" I just have to take issue with that.
You intrigue me with your ideas of testing with brain monitoring. Would still seem to be fraught with error/inconclusiveness and subject to interpretation. If you could recommend some further reading, I am all ears, (unbiased ears I might add);)
I agree with you. I don't think blind ABX is the be all/end all/last word in proving whether A is better than B. But what I hope when one states that A is better than B is that they have taken some effort to eliminate personal biases and are giving each of the choices a fair test.
Most of the time, I don't feel this happens with regard to comparing music/audio/electronics. Doesn't have too much to do with science. State the opinion that A is better than B, then tell us what you did to come to that conclusion. If it is stated, "I did such and such to eliminate variables, I did so and so to eliminate biases. I matched gain on both signals so that Fletcher-Munson would be happy...." then I can warm up to these opinions. But when it is stated that "even my deaf grandfather/indifferent significant other could hear the difference, why can't you?" I just have to take issue with that.
You intrigue me with your ideas of testing with brain monitoring. Would still seem to be fraught with error/inconclusiveness and subject to interpretation. If you could recommend some further reading, I am all ears, (unbiased ears I might add);)
Userlevel 2
To exclude inconclusiveness - one would have to test all subjects at rest. I would assume baselines for all subjects would be different, so one would have to determine average baselines and individual subject baselines. (for all testing parameters)
Once the baselines are established - I would set up listening sessions.
The primary bias I'd be worried that could be introduced is "personal" bias. Basically, how the individual is feeling on that day. I'm sure music affects each person based on their mood. Since this test would be to determine the effects to the body while listening to music - it might be difficult to separate.
At the end of the day, ABX tests for changes to sensory input is invalid science. Like I've said - it's hard for the human memory to process change in senses. In some of these cases, the changes would be miniscule - AT BEST. So, in order for an even half-way valid ABX test, the subject has to be intimately familiar with the subject (in this case, it would be song). The subject would have to be intimately familiar with the environment (in this case the room/speaker set up). Then test. But that's near impossible.
Anyone that says hi-res music is ridiculously audibly different is, in my opinion, full of it. In that case an ABX test would have a high success rate. But it's a minor difference, if any at all.
Science aside, I'd simply like Sonos to be able to handle my music library. And since a lot of my library is vinyl recorded by a friend on his over-the-top setup at 24/96 ... I'd enjoy being able to feed that through. So, my desire is purely based on wanting my playlist available and nothing to do with quality.
I've been a party to lots of A/B showdowns and the results were mostly "my dog is better than your dog, period". No one wins and everyone goes home mad. Every once in a while there is wide agreement among panelists that one unit sounds better. I wish that I could put some science on that, but I can't. While we could agree which unit sounded better, we could not always agree on why it sounded better and that is troublesome.
I'm not so keen on the ABX box because many arrogantly accept that it is the only "neutral" box in existence. Why is that? If we can fabricate an ABX box that does not affect the sound quality, why can't we fabricate equipment that has this quality too? I my experience the ABX box obscures the differences between units. I've worked with units that obviously (sigh) sounded different and a particular unit sounded better to many panelists. After we connected the units through an A/B switcher, the difference between the units was not so obvious. I could put some science on this because one can measure and detect the existence of the ABX box, but we then would fall into a shouting match about how significant my measurement is to the overall outcome.
I think that the issue here is that the science is low precision, too many science types do not appreciate this, other science types will openly acknowledge this lack of precision, and the emotional types capitalize on this to discredit science and make wild claims about their infallible auditory abilities. Yet, these wild auditory ability claims can be embarrassed with very simple experiments.
It's a mess, but in the end my dog really is really better than your dog -- get over it.
I'm not so keen on the ABX box because many arrogantly accept that it is the only "neutral" box in existence. Why is that? If we can fabricate an ABX box that does not affect the sound quality, why can't we fabricate equipment that has this quality too? I my experience the ABX box obscures the differences between units. I've worked with units that obviously (sigh) sounded different and a particular unit sounded better to many panelists. After we connected the units through an A/B switcher, the difference between the units was not so obvious. I could put some science on this because one can measure and detect the existence of the ABX box, but we then would fall into a shouting match about how significant my measurement is to the overall outcome.
I think that the issue here is that the science is low precision, too many science types do not appreciate this, other science types will openly acknowledge this lack of precision, and the emotional types capitalize on this to discredit science and make wild claims about their infallible auditory abilities. Yet, these wild auditory ability claims can be embarrassed with very simple experiments.
It's a mess, but in the end my dog really is really better than your dog -- get over it.
Userlevel 2
I would agree with this - and it's usually the case that the "experimenters" (if you can call them that) don't understand what they are really testing nor the scientific method.
Even outside of the testing issues encountered in sensory comparison tests and absent the distortion introduced by the equipment you mention, if the "experimenters" were actually using science, they could only make a hypothesis and develop proof for it, but never completely discount the null hypothesis.
Basically, in layman's terms - a positive result establishes, to a certain level of confidence, the reality of different perceptible acoustic differences, a null result, or a failure to reliably detect a difference, does not indicate the nonexistence of that difference.
The simple fact is that sensory comparisons based on memory are 100% fallible and, as such, are not good science. This isn't to say that all the hi-res acoustics and fancy mumbo-jumbo are actually audibly better -- it's to say that testing it is virtually impossible.
Leaning on these tests and relying on them - as many objectors seem to - is truly as much a laughable concept as people that stamp their feet about how much of an audible difference there is between them.
There is a reason eye-witness testimony is viewed incredulously in trials. Any prosecutor, worth his weight in salt, knows that even the most honest and sincere eyewitness testimony is not always credible. Observing an event is not the same as actually remembering the event accurately. Human memory is not a Tivo with the ability to replay with accuracy.
Page 17 / 41
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.