Zp 24/96

Compareing with the old Dolby-digital I really can here and feel the difference.
I suspect the majority -- if not all -- of the audible differences between DD5.1 and the new systems can be attributed to the fact that TrueHD and DTS-Master use lossless codecs.

Although DD and DTS-HD codecs do have a larger dynamic range than the non-HD counterparts, the same as 24-bit lossless music audio does over 16-bit lossless.

Quote and reference the "scientific studies" please, or I can't comment. I will believe that a lot of people can't hear the difference as it would in large part depend on the quality of the systems they are playing their music through. I would simply ask that people try this themselves. If you play music through cheap PC speakers or $5 headphones, then don't bother, hires won't sound any better.

Read the thread, at least one study has been listed and quoted. Although your statement would seem to reinforce Keith's point that this is a small, but vocal minority (i.e. Those that can afford the necessary gear, or own the "golden ears") who wishes for this this capability.

Oh and by the way, the people who are skeptical against this coming to fruition aren't worried about 24 bit chips, they are worried about seamless integration with all other Sonos zones. If you had really read the thread with a mind open to other ideas, you'd know that.

Enjoy your Squeezebox and WHS based music. Though I must say, if I were so pleased with the results of my new solution, you wouldn't find me within 30 links of the forum for the old, inadequate one. Sour grapes . . . or maybe envy? 😉

Just to contend some of Keith's points:

"Firstly a key fact:
Developing this capability will take time and cost money and will take development resources away from other feature developments."

Fact? You seriously expect me to believe that Sonos develops and produces sound chips and DACs from scratch, bespoke? I find that very unlikely and uneconomical if they do. Surely they just buy them off the shelf like all the other manufacturers of streamers do? In which case, the development is simply a matter of: "Yes, I'll take that one, the one with the hires capability please."

Of course they do. The chipsets in the Sonos equipment are, and always have been, standard components, and they are 24-bit capable.

The lines of code required to make the OS recognise and handle hires files would not be a massive undertaking.

This is where you are wrong. The work here is not trivial. In fact the majority of the work here is in decoding the 24-bit formats and turning this into a format suitable for being sent to the DAC. This may involve native code and DSP logic. Even if this is, nominally, only a man week or two of coding by the time you factor in basic testing, debugging and documentation it becomes at least a man-month of effort across multiple departments, and probably more. That's consuming resource that would otherwise be used for other developments.

The reality is, it's all about priority. Every change to the system consumes development and testing resources. Development teams will prioritise their efforts based on factors like how long they think it will take, how complex the development is and, most importantly, by what the company thinks gives the best reward for the least effort.

Even if it only took 1 day... if it's more beneficial for Sonos to use that day of development resource on something more important, then it's not going to happen!

"The small, but vocal, group of hires true believers think that there is no other feature more beneficial, popular, or obvious than hires and that it should be developed as a priority."

I said the exact opposite to that: I stated that I embraced the variety of user requests, even those I have no interest in, and supported them; just as I hoped others would support our request for hires file support.

Then you aren't one of the people I'm talking about. There are those that fit my description above, those who almost consider lack of hires support as a serious "bug" than as a missing feature.

Quote and reference the "scientific studies" please, or I can't comment. I will believe that a lot of people can't hear the difference as it would in large part depend on the quality of the systems they are playing their music through. I would simply ask that people try this themselves. If you play music through cheap PC speakers or $5 headphones, then don't bother, hires won't sound any better.

Others have quoted studies. I would also turn it around and say "how me a scientific study which supports the assertion that hires is audible". As far as I know there aren't any, even though, if it were true, it should be an easy thing to prove. An interesting point is that there has been debate about the audibility of hires on the Squeezebox forums, with the general concensus being that it isn't audible.

As far as listening on low quality kit, I agree, but that's part of my point: if the differences in hires are audible, they are only audible on very high-end setups (not just equipment but environment) under critical listening conditions. This sort of setup is the domain of the hardcore audiophile which is probably less than 0.1% of the population.

"The people who believe that also believe that the money, time, and other resources required to develop it would be better spent on other more beneficial and/or mainstream capabilities. This is a perfectly valid and rational argument."

Yes it is, as is my viewpoint. As I said previously, and again above, I don't argue against others wishes for "more beneficial" capabilities. Sonos should be perfectly capable of developing solutions for all users.

Yes, but only within reason. That argument, taken too literally, leads to the view that there is no reason why Sonos shouldn't develop every possible feature, all at the same time. Clearly that's nonsense. As I indicated above, developments cost money and use resources and even companies like Microsoft don't have these in infinite supply. The reality is developments have to be prioritised and scheduled.

Cheers,

Keith

With regards the 'research' cited above then I might point those interested in the direction of Robert Harley's criticism here;
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1

Or, the discussions in these papers;
http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf
and
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue52/ultrasonic.htm

Surprisingly little evidence-based research exists in this area, but that is not a major problem. All that matters, is whether you can perceive a difference in hires and standard (or, compressed) audio, or not, and which you prefer. It is very easy to download the same music in both formats to listen and compare yourself. Which I would encourage all to do.

Of course, there is a world of difference between streaming music to a portable unit with an in-built speaker (or worse), and routing it through a quality hi-fi and possibly even a third-party DAC (that goes for Squeezebox too). But, I wouldn't discount a reasonable proportion of Sonos owners using a hi-fi in some part of their set-up. After all, Sonos users are already paying a premium compared to many streaming solutions. This would suggest these buyers are discerning of the quality of music playback and invest accordingly, not only for useability functions.

Why can't implementation costs be incorporated in a premium unit for additional cost? Those interested in hires, myself included, will probably pay extra for the facility, because we value sound quality.

Simon

What the heck, I'll throw this out there. Although Sonos is clearly more concerned about hardware innovation than software improvements it still amazes me that, for a system that touts the ability to have 32 zones, the software tools for zone management are so anemic. When they decide to give me some real tools for zone management I will expand further, until then I will simply stick with what I have.

I guess lowering the hardware entry price to gain new customers is more profitable than enticing existing owners to expand.

Keith,

I don't have a $10k set up, nor do I think you need one.

I would argue you do. Consider that the differences between 16-bit and 24-bit can be more subtle than the difference you would get by moving your head by several inches. In most homes they are so far down in the natural background noise that you are unlikely to resolve them. Most homes need serious soundproofing and other acoustic treatment to get to the point where the subtle differences should be resolvable by the human ear/brain. My $10k budget includes $4-5k of acoustic treatment before you even buy any electronics or cables.

Besides, it shouldn't matter. As storage space costs shrink - the viability of high resolution increases.

I don't see why.The viability is not about how much it costs to store but whether there is significant benefit in doing so.

Using your argument I could argue that the viability of converting and storing songs in 128k MP3 format to lossless WAV format has increased. It would be a stupid thing to do and even the most hardened audiophile would agree there is absolutely no benefit to doing so.

So I contend that just because it is possible to do something, that doesn't make it "viable".

This is something I believe Sonos should offer.

Actually I do too, but primarily because of the marketing aspect, secondarily because of the convenience for people who have music in these formats.

In any case, my point here is that, in the real world, hires is a minority interest, which is one explanation as to why Sonos haven't developed it yet. When it suddenly gets a spike in votes which doesn't correlate with longer term activity, I get suspicious, especially as previous polls on hires have been "gamed" by what appears to have been an organised campaign to bring in "ringers" to artificially boost the support.

I'm picking on hires here specifically, but this could apply to any of the more "popular" items.

Cheers,

Keith

jeremyandalison,

Great post!

Cheers,

Keith

I would argue you do. Consider that the differences between 16-bit and 24-bit can be more subtle than the difference you would get by moving your head by several inches. In most homes they are so far down in the natural background noise that you are unlikely to resolve them. Most homes need serious soundproofing and other acoustic treatment to get to the point where the subtle differences should be resolvable by the human ear/brain. My $10k budget includes $4-5k of acoustic treatment before you even buy any electronics or cables.

Fair enough. I do have a soundproofed room, but I thought you were referring to speaker equipment and the like. I think there becomes a serious diminishing marginal increase in sound quality when you start expanding your budget. Probably to the level that it becomes a chasing the dragon scenario.

I have a moderately hi-end system, but I am quite happy with it. Nothing ridiculous - I don't buy crazy cable or anything ... just a nice amp, some good speakers and a very solid DAC.

I don't argue that the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit might be marginal, but the fact is there are hardcore audiophiles that hold off on buying Sonos simply due to this. What i have experienced is that high resolution mixes are significantly heartier and smoother than their "lower" resolution cousins... probably more due to the quality and attention to mixing (much as a Steve Hoffman mastered CD sounds better than most others). But, the difference is there and as such, I have some.

Using your argument I could argue that the viability of converting and storing songs in 128k MP3 format to lossless WAV format has increased.

Sure, you could make that argument. I understand where you are going with the thought, but that's truly torturing any sort of logic and losing the actual point in the process. That really isn't an argument you could make with any merit and you know it.

Lossless, in general, has become more accepted with FLAC and ALAC and cheaper/larger storage capacities. Using even basic logic, this extends to higher resolution files. Using movies as an example, when storage was pricey and small - ripping a DVD was a big deal... now people have hundreds of Bluray rips on drives. Storage has gotten to the point that it is no longer restrictive.

Actually I do too, but primarily because of the marketing aspect, secondarily because of the convenience for people who have music in these formats.

That's my point. I don't want to get into an argument of theoretical benefits of high resolution audio. Snake oil or not, it is growing slightly in popularity (albeit it'll never be the standard). As such, I think Sonos should make itself open to playing these files as well.

In any case, my point here is that, in the real world, hires is a minority interest, which is one explanation as to why Sonos haven't developed it yet.

And I completely agree. But, music enthusiasts are a segment of the market that shouldn't be ignored.

So you admit it may be a placebo, but you still wish to spend more on purchasing and storing files, not to mention the equipment it requires to play them? Wow, the advertisers in Audiophile must love you.

Obviously you have some vested interest in not approving of high resolution audio. So, let me preface this with - I do not have an overly strong opinion on it. I do know I have copies of The Rolling Stones in high resolution and I would love to drop my standard copies. I just want to have one copy.

Anyhow, I won't argue, it may also be placebo. It may also be a placebo that I think I can hear the difference between 320kbs and a straight rip. From where I sit in my living room, I may or may not see the difference in 720p and 1080p.

So, if I only want to purchase the item in one format - why would I buy the inferior version when there is a better option for basically the same price? As technology increases and lowers in cost - I want to have the top-quality format to listen to.

The fact is, if hires were "viable," the hires companies would be bending over backwards to publish peer reviewed scientific tests to show exactly how much better their format is. Have you seen one?

Yawn. Again, you have a vested interest in debasing hires. Your thing, not mine. I won't engage in a debate that I have no interest in having especially when your mind is more than made up.

I think there becomes a serious diminishing marginal increase in sound quality when you start expanding your budget. Probably to the level that it becomes a chasing the dragon scenario.

And I think the same applies to resolution: the difference between 128k and 256k MP3 is relatively substantial and easy to hear on even relatively low end equipment. The difference between lossless redbook and hires is very small, perhaps negligible.

I will slightly qualify this because there seem to be some "hidden" benefits in the higher sampling rate which (due to the practical difficulties of constructing sharp anti-aliasing filters for 44.1kHz sample rates) probably brings audible benefits, but this isn't really due to extra information in the file. There are techniques which arguably solve this problem for redbook audio.

but the fact is there are hardcore audiophiles that hold off on buying Sonos simply due to this.

Exactly, although I do wonder if many of them would find some other reason not to buy.

probably more due to the quality and attention to mixing (much as a Steve Hoffman mastered CD sounds better than most others). But, the difference is there and as such, I have some.

Almost certainly due to the mix. When people have taken a hires mix and properly downsampled it, they almost always report they cannot tell the difference. This is from forums of devices like Squeezebox which do have hires format support.

However, as you say, people do have this stuff and it's a pain to have to downconvert. I think it's a real shame that there seems to be this niche market for high-end beautifully mixed and mastered content, typically available only in hires formats, and the rest is all 256k or below MP3. Surely there's a significant and easily addressable market for standard res downloads, and the content is already there?

Sure, you could make that argument. I understand where you are going with the thought, but that's truly torturing any sort of logic and losing the actual point in the process.

My point is doing something that is arguably pointless doesn't make it "viable", and many people do think hires is pointless.

Looking at it the other way, the sort of people who care enough about their music to spend $10k on a dedicated listening room probably aren't going to care about the relatively small additional cost of storage required for their relatively modest hires collection.

And I don't see the industry moving towards higher res (or, unfortunately, even standard res) as a download format beyond niche stores. The cost of storage for them has been negligible for probably 5 years. I suspect their reasons for limiting file size are nothing to do with storage. After all, even a large online music catalogue (say 8 million tracks, which is typical) could be stored in something like 200TBs even in lossless format. For a cloud-based solution, 200TB has been affordable for several years already.

My point is I don't see how the cost of storage impacts this in any practical way.

That's my point. I don't want to get into an argument of theoretical benefits of high resolution audio. Snake oil or not, it is growing slightly in popularity (albeit it'll never be the standard). As such, I think Sonos should make itself open to playing these files as well.

And I think that ultimately we agree more than we disagree. The problem is Sonos are a commercial company who needs to continue to make money to survive. That largely means their development is driven by commercial priorities. None of us know what those are, but the fact that they haven't rushed to produce a hires offering makes me suspect they cannot justify the cost of developing this against what they consider to be the commercial benefit.

And, to be brutally honest, Sonos don't owe us customers anything beyond what they promise in the product sheets. and they deleiver that and more. It's unfortunate when customers occasionally buy a product based on an assumption and get bitten by it, but really that's not Sonos's fault. Ultimately customers pay their money and take their choice. If hires was a significant enough issue they would be losing a significant number of their target market to other platforms. I see the occasional idle threat on these forums (and perhaps some actually carry them out) but I don't see much real evidence of this.

In fact I see the opposite: Sonos seems to have expanded its sales and its markets. That's pretty impressive when you could consider Sonos to be a non-essential premium "lifestyle" product, and given the present economic conditions.

And I completely agree. But, music enthusiasts are a segment of the market that shouldn't be ignored.

I think we are all "music enthusiasts" here.

If you are referring to the high-end equipment enthusiasts or "audiophiles" or (probably more accurately) "AV geeks", if they are a niche, and a potentially difficult one to sell to, and if it's going to require significant cost to develop something that will appeal to them, why not ignore them? Clearly they aren't your target market.

Cheers,

Keith

Again, you are repeating things which have already been in the thread. That link was discussed previously, along with the Swedish codec "study," and the criticism put forth is quite frankly, pure unadulterated bunk. His entire premise says because double blind tests do not show differences that he himself hears, then they are useless. That is not only illogical, it is antithetical to the scientific method. If he submitted this "criticism" to an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal (like the authors of the original study did, which right there debunks his bias claims), he'd be laughed off the pages. But of course he didn't submit his critique to peer-review, because he's not interested in truth, he's interested in furthering the snake oil sales.

Wouldn't a good first step be to downsample 24-bit, 96/192 files so that they can at least be played instead of detecting the format and giving the user an error message?

Downsampling on the fly takes horsepower, and there is a question as to whether the ZP units are capable of it.

True, but if it's possible, it's still a decent short term solution to allow people to play hi-res files from a server or NAS while Sonos decides whether or not hardware support is warranted.