With the new BEAM talking all about "sound", don't you think it's time Sonos, to add .wav and hi-res file playback capability to your products? If all you're concerned about is streaming, and there's no regard for people with higher quality files, then let's dispense with the Sound Quality invested in BEAM per the email solicit I just received which is shown below. Hey, I think Sonos is a decent product (despite the two plus years of constant drop-out problems, not totally figured out yet), but come on, let's get real. If you can't get Wave and Hi-Res files as part of the system, then really all you care about is streaming and Alexis and that's where your product is, and will continue to go. Giving up support for the dock (which can play wave through a classic iPod if it's docked), is inexcusable - especially if you don't support it in the last iPods sold (which you can still get in 120GB model from Apple as of July 2018) in not being able to play wave. Just one man's opinion who cares deeply about music quality as your solicit email below talks about. How about it Sonos members? Is it just me??
To be honest…
Before you first heard your favorite album or watched your favorite movie, a team of artists worked together to produce something that accurately conveyed a singular artistic vision. With every product we make, we endeavor to make sure you experience that vision in all its integrity. Simply put, we don’t put our “stamp” on what you hear from your Sonos speakers.
“The sound of music or a great movie should be transmitted into your home as pure and honest as it can be.”
—Giles Martin, Sonos’ Sound Experience Leader
During the process of creating Beam, our new soundbar, we consulted with sound creators like Oscar-winning film remixing engineer Chris Jenkins (Mad Max: Fury Road), and top tier music producers like Manny Marroquin (Rihanna, John Mayer), to help us fine-tune the home listening experience.
New BEAM/Sound quality?
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.
Pretty much... FLAC is lossless (i.e. my ripper creates a .wav file and then compresses it to .flac), so a smaller file of identical quality. Plus, .flac files support much better tagging, something that .wav files are very poor at.
Yes, FLAC would be included as part of the hi-res files I'm talking about. Sonos does not support the playing of 24bit FLAC files. As of four months ago, this was posted by Sonos Staff member (Jeff S) in response to another Sonos question about it: Thanks for joining the community. At this time we don't have any plans to support 24 bit audio. I'll send along a feature request to our development team though.
Sonos is never going to support Hi-Res files. They know there is no benefit to higher sampling rates, that it is all audiophile hogwash. As was stated here by Sonos co-founder Tom Cullen:
http://www.whathifi.com/features/sonos-plans-brighter-and-brighter-wireless-music-future
And BTW, Sonos streams WAV files just fine. But WAV files are terrible for tagging and give absolutely no advantages over the far superior FLAC/ALAC codecs.
http://www.whathifi.com/features/sonos-plans-brighter-and-brighter-wireless-music-future
“We’ve looked really hard at it”, says Tom. “Of course we want to make sure we’re not missing anything and we feel pretty good that we’re not. There are arguments you could make about deeper bit depth, but we are unable to make a meaningful argument on sample rate. We tried, we can’t – the math just isn’t there.”
And BTW, Sonos streams WAV files just fine. But WAV files are terrible for tagging and give absolutely no advantages over the far superior FLAC/ALAC codecs.
Not officially, but 24/48 FLAC files do play. I'd laugh if they were declared to be "night and day" better than their 16/48 equivalents, because they're evidently truncated from 24 to 16 bits.
Mind you, since a not insignificant amount of "24-bit" content sold was actually found to be zero-padded up from 16-bit to 24-bit it might not make a whole lot of difference either way...
Try putting wave files on an iPod Touch (the 120gb models that are still being sold by apple). Sonos won't play it though they play just fine on the Touch - they just don't play within Sonos. Now, on my iPod classic and a Dock, Sonos will play the .wav. But they stopped supporting the dock - even though tons of people purchased and still use. I'm just saying that streaming fidelity is not always the best. I suppose the argument can be made that Sonos platform isn't where a true audiophile should be living, but I was just put off a bit by the solicit for BEAM in how it portrayed sound as being so important. I get what you're saying about not much 24-bit content sold, though sites such as HDTracks.com sell a lot of that. Also disappointing that DVD-A and SACD failed because of a slow release and lack of content, though I personally love the surround sound. Hearing Beatles in DTS 5.1 surround such as on the blu ray release of "1" is terrific. Pink Floyd "Dark Side" is another example. So let's suffice to say that Sonos provides a nice platform but I'd hardly say that with BEAM Sonos, "endeavors to make sure you experience that artist vision in all its integrity, and is "as pure and honest as possible." Just a little less hype please.
Anything above Red Book resolution is a niche. One could argue that it's a niche of a niche (lossless) compared with where the mass market lies.
5.1 remixes of rock classics can be an interesting experience, but you do realise that DTS 5.1 is lossy (and DD 5.1 more so)?
5.1 remixes of rock classics can be an interesting experience, but you do realise that DTS 5.1 is lossy (and DD 5.1 more so)?
That's part of my point I guess. Whether it's a niche is not my point. My point is my point and I'm not going to argue the viability of whether Sonos should provide content capability to niche audiences. My point is that BEAM might be very good, but it certainly isn't as "pure and honest as possible." While you say 5.1 is an "interesting" experience, I personally love it. Having DVD-A Harman Kardon in my Mercedes is a great pleasure to listen to the audio discs (Elton John, Police, Queen, McCartney, etc.) I'd say it's a lot more than interesting, it's fantastic - as it is on my home B&W theater music system. Sonos is fine but it is hardly audiophile quality, nor does it support some high-end formats as we've exchanged. The point you're missing is their solicit suggesting it's as "pure and honest as possible" simply isn't true. Perhaps as pure and honest as their technology can deliver would be a more accurate statement.
And I happened upon a 5.1 comment added in a different exchange who said:
"I have begged SONOS to tell me if they are developing a surround sound product with HDMI and more choice of listening eg DTS, Dolby X etc but they point blank refuse to discuss future products stating they are catering for the “modern listener”."
"I have begged SONOS to tell me if they are developing a surround sound product with HDMI and more choice of listening eg DTS, Dolby X etc but they point blank refuse to discuss future products stating they are catering for the “modern listener”."
Anyone getting upset at copy from a marketing blurb needs to accept it as just that . . . copy from a marketing blurb. Lest you deem it necessary to storm Kellogg's headquarters because Frosted Flakes are really sugar coated diabetes bombs, not part of a "Grrrrreat Breakfast".
Beam is great for what it is, especially considering its size. I personally wouldn't use it to appreciate music, a Play:5 pair plus Sub being far more satisfying, or even just a Play:1 pair plus Sub.
"Audiophile"? I'd hope not, since that has unwelcome connotations of subjectivity, snake oil, and appalling value for money. I'd say that "accurate" might be a better description for a Play:5 setup, Trueplay-tuned to correct for room effects.
As for my comment about 5.1 remixes, they're interesting as an immersive music experience but bear no relation to what the artist or producer originally intended. I don't recall Dolby Digital being around in the sixties when the Beatles were at their height.
"Audiophile"? I'd hope not, since that has unwelcome connotations of subjectivity, snake oil, and appalling value for money. I'd say that "accurate" might be a better description for a Play:5 setup, Trueplay-tuned to correct for room effects.
As for my comment about 5.1 remixes, they're interesting as an immersive music experience but bear no relation to what the artist or producer originally intended. I don't recall Dolby Digital being around in the sixties when the Beatles were at their height.
Agreed, but then they produced for "mono" straight through most of their career right through the White Album. Only Abbey Road, Yellow Submarine and Let It Be were "stereo" so that doesn't mean people don't enjoy their stereo versions - and in fact, it's what's played on any streaming service. Mono should really be the only true format to listen to most of the Beatles but stereo rules the day. While 5.1 might not be the original intent, there have been numerous albums done in 5.1 for the specific purpose of the format. Even the Grammy Awards started a category in 2005 for best surround sound. In my personal Abbey Road tour back in 2012, we listened to several 5.1 Beatles songs in the control room that were in 5.1, and they said they're already done and ready for release as soon as they decide to do so. As with everything "Beatles", it's a slow roll. I don't think I'll win the conversation here as you object to every point I'm making. My first and only comment was about the solicit and the fabrication of the representation of sound quality. That I should just dispense with the marketing solicit and accept it for what it is, is missing the point. Sure, I wouldn't storm Kelloggs headquarters about the amount of sugar in their product, but then they aren't sending me solicits saying "we have the best sugar out there" or some relevant rhetoric.
So I'll leave it at this as I think I've quite made my point. I don't see defending Sonos for the marketing piece to be fair to someone who loves music and the questionable "honest" representation of what their product is. Whatever...
So I'll leave it at this as I think I've quite made my point. I don't see defending Sonos for the marketing piece to be fair to someone who loves music and the questionable "honest" representation of what their product is. Whatever...
I tried frosted flakes once...they're not that great.
Seriously though, I doubt that the small percentage of people who even know the difference between 24 bit and 16 bit are going to buy Sonos based on the marketing slogans and then be surprised that it doesn't support 24 bit. I also don't feel like a company has any marketing obligation to announce what the product doesn't do. Answer questions honestly, yet, but not volunteer the information. Bluetooth is good example. I don't think Sonos needs to market products as lacking Bluetooth, but state that it doesn't whenever asked. Likewise, Kellogs doesn't need to declare "We cause diabetes!" but they should be willing to inform the known risks from a high sugar diet.
All that said, I do think marketing can go over the top and be misleading at time. I personally thought the initial teaser marketing for the Beam was a bit much. "You're better than this" with the implication that you would no longer need multiple remotes with the Beam gave an inaccurate impression, IMO. CEC, to me, is rather limited. The other features of controlling volume by voice, and controlling fire tv, are general features of Alexa that can be replicated on a playbar +echo dot. But again, it's marketing. Never buy a product based on marketing slogans alone.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.