It looks like the Connect is no longer bit-perfect. Here's my evidence: let's discuss this.
First, I constructed a wav file of pink noise with amplitude ramping up from zero to digital max and back to zero.
I play this through my Connect and record the SPDIF output from the coax output into my PC.
The recording uses a Scarlett 8i6 audio interface set to use the Connect as master clock.
I record into a DAW (Sonar) multiple times - all instances are identical.
However, this recorded signal is not quite the same as the original wav file - it can be up to -21dB different.
See https://www.dropbox.com/s/t8od479xo9hi5el/connect_diff.PNG?dl=1
Note the expanded scale on the difference (third) track.
It looks like the difference gets larger when the signal is larger. To confirm this, I import the
original and difference files into Matlab and plot the raw data (difference vs original). There is clearly audio compression
happening here. See https://www.dropbox.com/s/p1yq6wcqafvnhaj/diff_vs_orig.png?dl=1
The scale is such that digital maximum is 1.
There also appears to be a slight bias when the waveform is negative and the signal is below the
compression threshold. See an expanded version of the previous plot
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9001tl9mkle4wly/diff_vs_orig_zoom.png?dl=1
Happy to answer questions about the method and conclusions.
Cheers, Peter.
p.s. Volume is set to fixed - I haven't tried variable.
In a loopback test (8i6 out from DAW to 8i6 in, no Sonos gear involved), I get bit-perfect cancellation.
Page 11 / 19
7
If you weren't such an opinionated bigot I would bother, but what's the point?
I know for a fact I'm not the only one who thinks this because of the PMs I have had from other members telling me they have just learnt to ignore you or don't post in the threads you post in, although pretty hard with such a post count as you do seem to be in almost every thread.
Find a large following? Is that what you think people want? Is that why you have nearly 13000 posts on here? To get a following.
Oh dear.
The funny thing about this is I've not called you any names, fool or otherwise. Yet you feel the need to accuse me of name calling and attack me personally with an extremely loaded term such as "bigot". I suggest you reread your exchanges with me in this thread and you may begin to understand why you feel the anger you do. When one has to resort to calling another names like "idiot", "old man know it all" or "bigot" without any evidence of them being true, it's more than likely they are losing the factual argument.
If you weren't such an opinionated bigot I would bother, but what's the point?
I know for a fact I'm not the only one who thinks this because of the PMs I have had from other members telling me they have just learnt to ignore you or don't post in the threads you post in, although pretty hard with such a post count as you do seem to be in almost every thread.
Find a large following? Is that what you think people want? Is that why you have nearly 13000 posts on here? To get a following.
Oh dear.
The funny thing about this is I've not called you any names, fool or otherwise. Yet you feel the need to accuse me of name calling and attack me personally with an extremely loaded term such as "bigot". I suggest you reread your exchanges with me in this thread and you may begin to understand why you feel the anger you do. When one has to resort to calling another names like "idiot", "old man know it all" or "bigot" without any evidence of them being true, it's more than likely they are losing the factual argument.
Which word would that be?
I have read through my post a few times and I can't see what is highly offensive and certainly can't see what is 'far from the truth'?
The only word I have used to describe him is 'bigot'.
Is that the word?
bigot
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
I think that sums him up perfectly.
In every thread he comes across as someone whose opinion is fact, and anyone who has a different opinion is wrong. The constant tosh he spouts about 'ABX testing' and 'prove you prefer it' is just.......never mind.
I am saying as someone joining the Sonos forum there are a handful of people on here that make it pretty painful to those who might want to get involved with discussion. You can chose what you want to do with that info, I can pretty much guess what will be done with it.
Enjoy the weekend.
If you weren't such an opinionated bigot I would bother, but what's the point?
I know for a fact I'm not the only one who thinks this because of the PMs I have had from other members telling me they have just learnt to ignore you or don't post in the threads you post in, although pretty hard with such a post count as you do seem to be in almost every thread.
Find a large following? Is that what you think people want? Is that why you have nearly 13000 posts on here? To get a following.
Oh dear.
The funny thing about this is I've not called you any names, fool or otherwise. Yet you feel the need to accuse me of name calling and attack me personally with an extremely loaded term such as "bigot". I suggest you reread your exchanges with me in this thread and you may begin to understand why you feel the anger you do. When one has to resort to calling another names like "idiot", "old man know it all" or "bigot" without any evidence of them being true, it's more than likely they are losing the factual argument.
Your constant droning on is very bigoted.
Those that call people who hear differences in different kit "audiofools" are idiots, those that preach that sort of thing as fact do come across as 'know it all old men'.
It is boring, it is rude, so if those doing it don't want to be pulled up on it, don't do it.
That is not aimed just at you, there are so many threads with the same nonsense posted from the same few people that in the end you just think 'sod it' and want people to shut the hell up. We get you don't agree with differences in DACs etc. We get you don't think having a bit perfect player matters, and if it doesn't matter to you fine, but why tell everyone it does matter to that they are wrong?!
As I said before, we shall agree to disagree. You think I talk shite, I think you talk shite. Ho hum, that's life. So what? :D
Have fun, it's the weekend after all, and in 2 minutes I am off for 2 days!
If someone joining the forum starts off calling people "idiots", and then proceeds to call someone who happens to disagree with them an "old man know it all", I believe it is highly hypocritical for them to then complain about other's decorum or how it is "painful" to get involved in the discussion. I've merely disagreed with you and explained why. You've called people names and then claimed the victim.
Physician, heal thyself.
Physician, heal thyself.
Your constant droning on is very bigoted.
Those that call people who hear differences in different kit "audiofools" are idiots, those that preach that sort of thing as fact do come across as 'know it all old men'.
It is boring, it is rude, so if those doing it don't want to be pulled up on it, don't do it.
That is not aimed just at you, there are so many threads with the same nonsense posted from the same few people that in the end you just think 'sod it' and want people to shut the hell up. We get you don't agree with differences in DACs etc. We get you don't think having a bit perfect player matters, and if it doesn't matter to you fine, but why tell everyone it does matter to that they are wrong?!
As I said before, we shall agree to disagree. You think I talk shite, I think you talk shite. Ho hum, that's life. So what? :D
Have fun, it's the weekend after all, and in 2 minutes I am off for 2 days!
Show me where I called you an audiophool, or any other similar term. You won't find it. Unlike you, I don't need to resort to juvenile personal attacks.
As to the other stuff, I happen to think there can be differences between DACs, and my very first post in this thread was to call it a bad move for Sonos to make the Connect no longer bit-perfect. Do you even read my posts? For someone so judgmental, you get a lot of things about me wrong.
Which word would that be?
I have read through my post a few times and I can't see what is highly offensive and certainly can't see what is 'far from the truth'?
The only word I have used to describe him is 'bigot'.
Is that the word?
bigot
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
I think that sums him up perfectly.
In every thread he comes across as someone whose opinion is fact, and anyone who has a different opinion is wrong. The constant tosh he spouts about 'ABX testing' and 'prove you prefer it' is just.......never mind.
I am saying as someone joining the Sonos forum there are a handful of people on here that make it pretty painful to those who might want to get involved with discussion. You can chose what you want to do with that info, I can pretty much guess what will be done with it.
Enjoy the weekend.
Big difference between opinions of the uninformed and those grounded solidly in facts. Yours, I fear, have a basis about as scientific as those of the current administration...
Actually, this mostly reminds me of why I rarely come to community forums ... I seem to remember a long time ago this thread was about a very specific issue; that the Sonos Connect no longer streams the original bits to its optical output, but is transcoding them.
This actually was a pretty good thread until off-topic posts about MQA and "idiots" who dont believe in it started. There does seem to be a pattern of many threads that have nothing to do with Hi-res audio being steered that way by newer posters.
I started my post saying I liked my Sonos gear, but after trying other sources into my DAC realised it was seriously behind in terms if fidelity, I logged into the forum and saw this thread, hence why I posted in here asking if something that was higher end that could also possibly handle MQA etc was on the roadmap.
The first reply was...
A "Hi Rez" Connect might sell in the thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands. The Play:1 sells in the millions. I doubt Sonos will produce something that only self-deluded audiophiles can "hear" a difference with.
So, first reply is being called a 'self-deluded audiophile.
I then asked Chicks if he/she had heard MQA?
I don't deal with "beliefs". That's for the audiophools. I stick to facts. Real facts, not alternative ones.
By that point I should have just stopped discussing it, lesson learnt.
I then said that a DAC is not designed to sound 'pure' to you jgatie, and I don't believe they should, there should be filters to tailor the sonic signature.
Your reply...
What's wrong with that is you can do the exact same thing with a DSP and/or equalizer, in an almost infinite amount of configurations, and not pay thousands of dollars for it. A DAC shouldn't be purposefully coloring the output, if it does, it is not a "pure" DAC, it's nothing but DSP snake oil easily achieved in much less deceptive (and less expensive) ways.
Snake oil is a term used to belittle nonsense in the hifi world, which I agree there is plenty of, nonsense I mean. So how am I meant to take that?
At the end of the day, there are differences of opinion, I was not the one who started with the name calling, but if someone talks crap and spouts nonsense as if it were fact I will call them an idiot.
Reading back through it seems it is mainly Chicks who keeps starting with the crap, and just talks in riddles.
What the hell is the following meant to mean?
Big difference between opinions of the uninformed and those grounded solidly in facts. Yours, I fear, have a basis about as scientific as those of the current administration...
That was in reply to using the word Bigot and people talking about ABX testing of files like MQA that they haven't even heard yet. Not a clue what you're babbling about to be honest. Current administration?
Maybe English is not your first language Chicks? Bigot is not a 'highly offensive' word, I am a bigot about a lot of things, human nature, I am also ignorant to a lot of things, any one who says they are not ignorant about anything, is, well............look up ignorant. Kind of ironic.
I look forward to the grilling lying ahead for me.
The first reply was...
A "Hi Rez" Connect might sell in the thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands. The Play:1 sells in the millions. I doubt Sonos will produce something that only self-deluded audiophiles can "hear" a difference with.
So, first reply is being called a 'self-deluded audiophile.
I then asked Chicks if he/she had heard MQA?
By that point I should have just stopped discussing it, lesson learnt.
I then said that a DAC is not designed to sound 'pure' to you jgatie, and I don't believe they should, there should be filters to tailor the sonic signature.
Your reply...
Snake oil is a term used to belittle nonsense in the hifi world, which I agree there is plenty of, nonsense I mean. So how am I meant to take that?
At the end of the day, there are differences of opinion, I was not the one who started with the name calling, but if someone talks crap and spouts nonsense as if it were fact I will call them an idiot.
Reading back through it seems it is mainly Chicks who keeps starting with the crap, and just talks in riddles.
What the hell is the following meant to mean?
Big difference between opinions of the uninformed and those grounded solidly in facts. Yours, I fear, have a basis about as scientific as those of the current administration...
That was in reply to using the word Bigot and people talking about ABX testing of files like MQA that they haven't even heard yet. Not a clue what you're babbling about to be honest. Current administration?
Maybe English is not your first language Chicks? Bigot is not a 'highly offensive' word, I am a bigot about a lot of things, human nature, I am also ignorant to a lot of things, any one who says they are not ignorant about anything, is, well............look up ignorant. Kind of ironic.
I look forward to the grilling lying ahead for me.
So the way I see it, the guy accusing me of name calling and intolerance for different opinions is the one calling me names and telling me I should shut the hell up and stop posting my opinion. The same guy who says you shouldn't judge people on their beliefs judges me on two beliefs about DACs and whether the Connect should be bit-perfect that I never said, and don't even hold to be true.
As to how you should "take" my comment on DACs? Why should I care how you take it? If I say I think deliberately coloring the sonic signature on a DAC is snake oil, it's an attack on the DAC manufacturer, not you. The fact you take it personally is your problem, not mine. No wonder you escalate to personal attacks when someone disagrees with you, it seems it really is personal to you. Maybe you should take your own advice and just let people disagree with you?
Still waiting for the post where I called you an audiophool or an apology for accusing me without evidence. Got a feeling I'll be waiting quite awhile for either.
As to how you should "take" my comment on DACs? Why should I care how you take it? If I say I think deliberately coloring the sonic signature on a DAC is snake oil, it's an attack on the DAC manufacturer, not you. The fact you take it personally is your problem, not mine. No wonder you escalate to personal attacks when someone disagrees with you, it seems it really is personal to you. Maybe you should take your own advice and just let people disagree with you?
Still waiting for the post where I called you an audiophool or an apology for accusing me without evidence. Got a feeling I'll be waiting quite awhile for either.
If you weren't such an opinionated bigot
Your constant droning on is very bigoted.
It is boring, it is rude,
there are so many threads with the same nonsense
I think you talk shite
but why tell everyone it does matter to that they are wrong?!
In any of my posts since 2011, and they are a few more than your 55, I don't recall using phrases as objectionable as the ones quoted above; if I have and someone shows them to me, I will apologise. The last one quoted isn't rude of course, that has been quoted for this response:
This is not a private conversation between people on two sides of a divide. Others that either have or are considering Sonos are also the audience and it does matter to them if you are wrong.
And here is the aspect of the problem that you are probably ignorant about - this story has been playing out for ten years now and no one claiming the kind of things you have has ever been able to back up their subjective claims with anything of more substance. So when someone new comes along here singing the same song, being short - as opposed to rude - with them is natural; all the more because none take the trouble to read the earlier conversations. Some even admit to not having read the full thread.
By the way, you will not find any of the regulars being short with people that ask the same troubleshooting help over and over.
And then there is this - consider the two statements below:
1. Sonos kit is capable of being as good as the best audiophile system
2. Sonos kit delivers better sound quality than any audiophile system out there
There are people here that don't even fully understand ABX, that will demand an ABX proof for statement 1.
And there are those that will not accept that statement 2 requires such proof, even where " Sonos" and "Audiophile system" are replaced by "Hi Res" and "CD quality". By the way, no one accusing me as they often do of being a Sonos fanboy will have seen Statement 2 as written above in any form, from me - or from any of the regulars.
Then there is the "in my opinion" thing going around. People that know better, understand where and when it is to be inferred. Would it help if I just added " IMHO, YMMV " to my signature?! Doing more than that is tiresome, silly and inefficient, and I do not intend doing that just to please those that have run out of counter arguments that have a leg to stand on.
Who are these people that are able to judge that claiming someone is a liar is inferred opinion, but that claiming MQA sounds better is a statement of fact? And how do they tell the difference?
I am not sure I understand you; to the extent I can, my inference is that both the statements you have made are opinions.
I never called anyone a liar. I stated the quote that was printed was a lie, i.e. the opposite of the truth. Big difference, especially when the person later claimed he was misquoted.
As to the other, I've repeatedly stated that MQA probably does sound better. So fact or opinion, I've got no problem with either. Hi-resolution audio often sounds much better than CD.
As to the other, I've repeatedly stated that MQA probably does sound better. So fact or opinion, I've got no problem with either. Hi-resolution audio often sounds much better than CD.
Because of the conversation around this post (before and after). It seems people who claim hi-res sounds better cop a beating on this forum for not providing suitable evidence of what is taken to be a statement of fact, whereas a claim that someone is a liar is to be inferred as opinion and therefore need not be backed up with evidence. How do your "people that know better" tell the difference between these two scenarios?
Sorry, I still don't get you. In my view, both statements obviously are opinions, I don't need the "in my opinion" caveat to be attached to each to infer them to be so. And if challenged, both need to be backed up. I see that jgatie is doing just that with respect to the second, so I will not add anything there except to say that he is making a fine point of distinction that needs to be discerned.
This post. It's the shill statement, not the lying one, that I should have used as an example. I challenged jgatie to provide evidence of his statement that "This study was a carefully crafted shill for the Hi-res audio industry". He claimed that everyone else would have already inferred that his statement was an opinion, and therefore he provided no evidence to back it up. As jgatie also said, " It's once someone starts making definitive claims that they need to start giving proof." How very convenient that he considers that his statement should be inferred to be an opinion, perhaps by your "people that know better". Do you start to understand now the double standard being applied here?
. Do you start to understand now the double standard being applied here?
I see what you mean, and I am doing something that isn't usually wise - jumping into a conversation between two people - but this may just as likely be cross talk and not double standards.
Here is what would probably have yielded better results:
Statement: "This study was a carefully crafted shill for the Hi-res audio industry"
Response: "Why do you think so?" or another form of the same question, asking for a justification of the statement. And it doesn't matter if the statement is an opinion or a fact - or whether it was prefaced with the " In my opinion". In any of these case, the response is legitimate.
Somehow I doubt that the response to the response above would then have been on these lines:
" I just think so, it is my subjective opinion and I don't have to say why I hold it".
Just for the heck of it, let me give what would my response have been if asked!
I'd have said that the author of a study that found and reported some perceived differences at times between Hi Res and CD based on a meta analysis of reports, some of admittedly dubious quality that his study relied upon, allowed himself to be directly quoted as saying things in favour of Hi res found by his study, that his own study did not admit to have found. And this was cleverly done, with the admittedly wrong quote only accepted to be so where and when challenged.
How's that, Ump?!
I'd have said that the author of a study that found and reported some perceived differences at times between Hi Res and CD based on a meta analysis of reports, some of admittedly dubious quality that his study relied upon, allowed himself to be directly quoted as saying things in favour of Hi res found by his study, that his own study did not admit to have found. And this was cleverly done, with the admittedly wrong quote only accepted to be so where and when challenged.
How's that, Ump?!
I'm not even sure he "allowed himself to be directly quoted". I have seen so many examples of journalists misquoting scientists. Mostly we try and approve the final copy, but this is not always possible. There is no evidence that the inaccuracy was found and allowed through. When you say "cleverly done", this implies a deliberate act, and there is no evidence of this. Also, the wrong quote can only be admitted when it is observed. Finally, the primary source is the paper. No such statement appears in the paper. So I would say, on appeal, Not Out!
Oh come now Peter, aren't you stretching things a tad?
The author of the report said this himself on the other thread on this site:
"Press releases are put forward by organisations with the aim of trying to get the press to cover their story, and as such are a combination of spin, marketing, opinion and fact. In this case, it was written by a press officer at my university, and then AES issued another similar one." I have cut/pasted, no spin!
This isn't just a random release on the net that the author can be excused for being ignorant about, but is from the author's organisation! You really think that the author, if he did not make these fully fleshed out and attributed in quotes to him statements, also remained ignorant of what his own organisation is saying what he said, and that too in italicised quotes? In this day and age? And then also continued to remain ignorant of the AES doing the same thing? Knowing as he says he does that press releases are used for spin? Is it then that his organisation is the one doing the clever shill and our author is just the naive scientist labouring honestly in the lab, not knowing what his evil superiors are doing to spin his report?! Give me a break!
I am not saying this isn't possible, just making my assessment of the probabilities. And why can I not say that if he really did not know how his organisation is spinning his report, that is in itself an indictment of sorts?
None of those imply stating something that is incorrect. My organization also puts out press releases with the same four qualities. This is done by science journalists after talking to the authors of the work. The copy is not always checked by the authors before release due to press deadlines. But I strongly believe that where at all possible a press release should always be checked by the author of the work, and this is one lesson to be learned here. Even after checking, I know of cases where the sub-editor of a newspaper chose headlines or picture captions that were just plain wrong. This occurred after any chance of checking.
On the flip side, there is also an obligation on the part of a reader of internet information to check the primary source before getting too carried away by what they have read. In this case it is the published paper itself. The press release contained a link to the paper, which is freely available. Anyone who is mislead by the press release has not done their due diligence and checked the primary source.
So, to summarize, both sides of the argument need to get their checking act together 🙂
If all that bought into the benefits of Hi res audio and then proclaimed its benefits in audiophile circles and internet forums had the bent of mind to do the kind of diligence you refer to, and to exert efforts to read and understand primary papers, would they exist even in the small numbers they do today?!:D
At the end of the day, people will believe what they want to believe. Fortunately in this case, not enough believe in Hi Res to the extent that Sonos see them as a market of interest. Long may that market dynamic not change!
And not once did I say Mr. Reiss is a liar. Only that his statement (if in fact, it was his statement) with regards to the PR release for his study was a lie.
I stand by that assessment.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.