Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
Page 11 / 41
You can also use a WMP proxy to downsample hi-res files. That's what I do.
Try this for size.
But the point is, it's probably not possible given the fact Squeezebox struggles to do it with a lot more horsepower than a ZP.
It's just a question - I'm not trying to argue - do you know the processor and RAM specs on either of the units? I'm just curious what they are.
In my particular setup I don't have a PC. I have a D-Link DNS-323 and that the source of the audio. That said, it appears with some effort I could it running on the NAS using fun_plug. Thanks!
No I don't know. But I would assume the ZP100 is less powerful than a PC circa 2005, and since Sonos is a multi-room audio system known to function perfectly with legacy components, the ZP100 would be the box on which you have to base the design.
I would suspect that, as far as processing power is concerned, it's probably easier to support these formats natively than to downsample them on the ZP. Most of the development would be in decoding the format and making sure, of course, it retained sync capability.
It's worth noting that, even if Sonos did support some sort of hires, it's highly unlikely they would support every possible format. 24-bit and maybe 96KHz may be possible with the current hardware (by which I mean the chipsets support it so there is a glimmer of a possibility that they could support it in the future).
I very much doubt Sonos will ever support 192kHz sample rate on the current hardware as I don't believe the chips support it, so for obscure formats like this (and the inevitable 32/256k, etc. formats) you would need to downsample anyway.
Cheers,
Keith
So you are saying every ZP will play hires? There won't be a multi thousand dollar super quality hires player, ala the (now discontinued) Transporter? That's really going to upset the cocobolo and crystals set. 😃
Downsampling on-the-fly -- even if it was possible -- would have to be done every time you play the file.
I just keep my hi-rez stuff elsewhere (off-share), and store a downsampled copy in my Sonos share.
Native support would require software *and* hardware mods and legacy support for older hardware.
And without knowing more about how the data is passed around on SonosNet who knows whether downsampling is even possible.
Has Sonos commented on this at all? Sorry to late to this thread but I was eyeballing coax port on my ZP80 and pondering hooking it up to my DAC. Then I thought, hey, why not see what's being said on the Sonos forum about 24/96 etc.
Sort of like how it decodes MP3 files every time they are played 😉 I tested a 4 min 24/96 file with Audacity. It takes a little over 2 mins to export from FLAC to a 16/44.1 WAV file.
Not necessarily. The DACs in the Zoneplayers is capable of 24-bit resolution and higher sampling rates (I think it's up to 96kHz) so, in this respect at least, it may be possible to support 24/96 on all existing ZPs.
What we don't know is what other limitations might get in the way of this. For instance, is there enough CPU/DSP grunt to decode these formats? Is there some fundamental issue with sync which makes supporting hires tricky? Is there enough bandwidth to reliably transmit the additional data over Sonosnet wireless?
Regarding downsampling on the fly (on the ZP), I personally believe this is a complete no-no with the current product range. Downsampling would involve:
1. decoding the hires format
2. post processing the resulting data on the fly to downsample it
3. streaming the decoded/downsampled bits to the DAC chip.
Native support would, comparatively, involve:
1. decoding the hires format
2. streaming the decoded bits to the DAC chip
Downsampling on the ZP would be pointless and counterproductive as it involves more work and you get a worse result.
Has Sonos commented on this at all? Sorry to late to this thread but I was eyeballing coax port on my ZP80 and pondering hooking it up to my DAC. Then I thought, hey, why not see what's being said on the Sonos forum about 24/96 etc.
Nope, and I suspect they are unlikely to. As I've said before, unless and until they are actively developing this capability, then there's not much to say.
Cheers,
Keith
Except the downsampling would be additional work ON TOP OF having to decode the file.
MP3s aren't downsampled. They are just decoded.
Your test seems like a reasonable one. Of course, that's on a PC and a Sonos ZP isn't anywhere near as powerful as a typical PC.
Cheers,
Keith
Since this discussion was moved out of the thread it was in, I will now respond. I felt it was disrespectful to continue derailing the original thread it was in.
I don't have a "vested interest" in anything but science.
I would disagree strongly with that statement based on the voracity of your arguments, not to mention the sheer number of anti-high resolution posts. It seems to transcend pure scientific inquiry to the point of zealotry.
The fact is, if there is an audible difference between 16/44 and 24/96, there are ways to prove it to a scientific certainty.
Depends what you intend to prove.
Science has issues determining what one person can perceive when stimuli changes, especially small changes. Stimuli, regardless of how experienced the tester, will eventually cause fatigue - fatigue will reduce the ability to differentiate.
Blind tests, while good in some instances, are not necessarily a good indicator for minor differences. The brain introduces bias, even in a blind test, add to it fatigue and nerve memory - it is a concoction for bad science.
Take for instance the idea of two buckets of water - one is 82-degrees the other is 86. 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?
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.
With that said, I would argue, and perhaps I'm wrong, that the results of a blind test comparing 192kbs vs CD might show that there is no audible difference between the formats. Yet, we invariably know that there is. We can review the sonic waveform and we can critically listen for the artifacts. I'd honestly be surprised if you could find anyone that could tell which was which 100% of the time.
All of that is not to say that I think there is or isn't a difference in hi-res audio. I am the first one to line up and say it may be complete bunk. I can't test - as my Sonos won't stream it. 🙂.
What can be proven is that high resolution audio has more complete waveforms and most of the sonics are within the human hearing spectrum. Whether or not that translates is really a matter of opinion.
I don't consider myself an audiophile by any stretch. I like having the best recording I can have so that I can archive and recode to better lossless formats should they arise.
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.
Agreed.
Exactly, although I do wonder if many of them would find some other reason not to buy.
Some would. Of course. Some would say they can hear the difference when streamed, I'm sure.
I can't agree or disagree as I can't really test it out. :(
Surely there's a significant and easily addressable market for standard res downloads, and the content is already there?
Definitely. I would actually use iTunes downloading service if I could get standard, lossless recordings.
I do tend to agree with your sentiment on these ridiculously high bitrate audio recordings being a marketing gimmick used to drop CDs in favor of the "next best thing".
My point is doing something that is arguably pointless doesn't make it "viable", and many people do think hires is pointless.
Ah. My point is that when Sonos first came out (heck, when MP3s first came out), storage was expensive. Bandwidth was slower. In today's world, space is cheap and bandwidth is cheaper. People are moving to higher quality (if not lossless) encodes. The next step is something "better".
Whether or not it is better is subjective and can be argued.
But, the ability to actually obtain, store and use these larger files is much more real.
Obviously I agree here. I think that offering a high resolution solution is a good marketing strategy.
I would disagree strongly with that statement based on the voracity of your arguments, not to mention the sheer number of anti-high resolution posts. It seems to transcend pure scientific inquiry to the point of zealotry.
Depends what you intend to prove.
Science has issues determining what one person can perceive when stimuli changes, especially small changes. Stimuli, regardless of how experienced the tester, will eventually cause fatigue - fatigue will reduce the ability to differentiate.
Blind tests, while good in some instances, are not necessarily a good indicator for minor differences. The brain introduces bias, even in a blind test, add to it fatigue and nerve memory - it is a concoction for bad science.
Take for instance the idea of two buckets of water - one is 82-degrees the other is 86. 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?
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.
With that said, I would argue, and perhaps I'm wrong, that the results of a blind test comparing 192kbs vs CD might show that there is no audible difference between the formats. Yet, we invariably know that there is. We can review the sonic waveform and we can critically listen for the artifacts. I'd honestly be surprised if you could find anyone that could tell which was which 100% of the time.
All of that is not to say that I think there is or isn't a difference in hi-res audio. I am the first one to line up and say it may be complete bunk. I can't test - as my Sonos won't stream it. 🙂.
What can be proven is that high resolution audio has more complete waveforms and most of the sonics are within the human hearing spectrum. Whether or not that translates is really a matter of opinion.
I don't consider myself an audiophile by any stretch. I like having the best recording I can have so that I can archive and recode to better lossless formats should they arise.
Agreed.
Some would. Of course. Some would say they can hear the difference when streamed, I'm sure.
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.
I can't agree or disagree as I can't really test it out. :(
Definitely. I would actually use iTunes downloading service if I could get standard, lossless recordings.
I do tend to agree with your sentiment on these ridiculously high bitrate audio recordings being a marketing gimmick used to drop CDs in favor of the "next best thing".
Ah. My point is that when Sonos first came out (heck, when MP3s first came out), storage was expensive. Bandwidth was slower. In today's world, space is cheap and bandwidth is cheaper. People are moving to higher quality (if not lossless) encodes. The next step is something "better".
Whether or not it is better is subjective and can be argued.
But, the ability to actually obtain, store and use these larger files is much more real.
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.
Obviously I agree here. I think that offering a high resolution solution is a good marketing strategy.
And this is where I think the biggest problems lay.
I, personally, see no reason to go above 24/96. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that this could be detrimental such as 3:2 pulldown on video.
But, there's the rub - the audiophile crowd may then say 24/96 isn't enough. We need 24/192. Once you give that- then it's uber-high res. Where does it stop?
There have been plenty of blind auditory tests that show differences, even subtle ones, between two sources of audio, thus proving the veracity of the method. In addition, if the brain is so easily fooled and so quick to forget, then what's the use? The same critique you use against blind tests can be used against every audio "tweak" and upgrade there is. Like an "if a tree falls in the woods" scenario, if you forget the difference immediately after you hear it, is there really a difference? Does an electronically measurable difference matter when your biological detection "instruments" are not precise enough to detect it, are so easily corrupted by fatigue or repeated exposure, and are wiped clean of historical measurements within seconds? The water temp analogy is perfect, because you aren't looking to detect the exact temperature by hand, you are only seeing if your hand can tell the difference. Same with your ears, with a similar granularity.
PS - You can test it out. Any PC is capable of 24/96. Use good headphones, and there is A/B/X testing available in foobar and Amarok that will do the blind testing for you. If you want, I can post links.
PS - You can test it out. Any PC is capable of 24/96. Use good headphones, and there is A/B/X testing available in foobar and Amarok that will do the blind testing for you. If you want, I can post links.
I did not know that.
I think it makes sense for them to maintain the wait and see attitude. Most of the high end audiophile guys seem to just be waking up to using data to drive their high end hardware.
I don't believe that is true unless you have something built into your head that connects you directly to the USB port.
24/96 out of the headphone jack of your PC?
24/96 out of the headphone jack of your PC?
Analog out, digital out, digital out into a DAC, headphones, electrostatic speakers, tin can and a string, I really don't care. It's your experiment, setup whatever you wish. Your complaint that the only way you could test 24/96 being thwarted because Sonos doesn't offer it is a convenient and clever use of words in this thread, but it is also a copout.
You and others have always said that the only way to truly hear the difference is to listen with your own ears. foobar, Amarok and others have given you the tools to do just that, with no bias (your's or other's) so now you find excuses not to? Why do I not find that surprising?
PS - You conveniently skipped the rest of my post. I don't find that surprising either.
PPS - If by miracle of miracles you do decide to do this test, do not download the test files from Naim. It has been proved that Naim cooked the higher frequencies on their 24/96 "demo" files available from their site. I wonder why that is?
I do not know of any - but unlike you I don't have that "vested" interest in the concept one way or the other.
I simply have media I cannot play on Sonos and would like to be able to.
In addition, if the brain is so easily fooled and so quick to forget, then what's the use?
I would assume listening fatigue and heart. While the brain is probably incapable of pulling out distinct differences - it probably can register a different feeling over prolonged listening (as that is typically how the brain interprets and stores sound memory) - this is how it is usually described to me by people that get into music deeper than I do.
Additionally, I think the more regular and full the waveforms are probably less troublesome for your ears. I use this because I do find listening to MP3s to be quite painful over extended periods. But I can listen to the same CD without the issue.
The same critique you use against blind tests can be used against every audio "tweak" and upgrade there is. Like an "if a tree falls in the woods" scenario, if you forget the difference immediately after you hear it, is there really a difference? Does an electronically measurable difference matter when your biological detection "instruments" are not precise enough to detect it, are so easily corrupted by fatigue or repeated exposure, and are wiped clean of historical measurements within seconds?
You argue this from the perspective of trying to convince me of something. That I believe that there is an innate superiority in cables, audio resolution, etc. I am simply saying I don't know and I think the methodology for testing is flawed.
I guess the answer to your question is - depends on the listener.
Again, I'm not saying that all the nonsense does or does not make a difference. I'm arguing that high resolution is becoming more pronounced (even if slowly and begrudgingly) and I really don't see the music industry stopping it. I am arguing that Sonos should find a way to support the users that have this media.
The water temp analogy is perfect, because you aren't looking to detect the exact temperature by hand, you are only seeing if your hand can tell the difference. Same with your ears, with a similar granularity.
And I would argue that you could not tell a difference. It is very difficult for the human body to differentiate between two like objects.
You can test it out. Any PC is capable of 24/96. Use good headphones, and there is A/B/X testing available in foobar and Amarok that will do the blind testing for you. If you want, I can post links.
I really have no desire to "test" it.
Actually, it was kidding about the fact that I can't play the high resolution files. Not a cop-out, as I have very little interest in testing.
Not because I'm afraid of the results (like I'm sure you'll try to turn this into), but because I don't care. I don't want to do an A/B/X test versus 320kbs vs CD. I have no vested stake in the fight other than the fact that I have some high definition material my "wireless HIFI system" can't play.
You and others have always said that the only way to truly hear the difference is to listen with your own ears. foobar, Amarok and others have given you the tools to do just that, with no bias (your's or other's) so now you find excuses not to? Why do I not find that surprising?
PS - You conveniently skipped the rest of my post. I don't find that surprising either.
PPS - If by miracle of miracles you do decide to do this test, do not download the test files from Naim. It has been proved that Naim cooked the higher frequencies on their 24/96 "demo" files available from their site. I wonder why that is?
And pretty much all of that -- lumped together says you have a vested interest in this. You honestly feel so strongly that you have to resort to redundant questions and lengthy posts and everything close to ridicule to prove whatever point it is you feel you have to make.
While you would enjoy playing that all you care about is "science" but the simple fact is that you have a horse in this race and that horse is that high resolution audio is a scam.
The real question would be - if someone did the test and scored 100% ... would you then call them a liar? Tell them they rigged the test? Admit that you are incorrect? Demand a 2 out of 3? Ask more redundant questions?
If someone did the test and scored 100%, I would be the first in line to humbly say I was completely and utterly wrong. I would also rejoice in the fact that the scientific method worked exactly as it is supposed to. The crow sandwich would be stacked high, and I would consume it all. Unlike others, who insist on making excuses for their claims, or try to denigrate the scientific method, I put my money where my mouth is.
As I said, my only "vested interest" is in science. So far, science points to there being no difference. When it points to something else, I'll follow the science.
By the way, here is a list of codec comparisons that showed actual differences in double blind audio tests:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Listening_Tests
As I said, my only "vested interest" is in science. So far, science points to there being no difference. When it points to something else, I'll follow the science.
By the way, here is a list of codec comparisons that showed actual differences in double blind audio tests:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Listening_Tests
I apologize, I thought I was replying to gtyper. My comments in that post were directed at him and not you. My mistake.
For the record, I come from a science research background - and my opinion is that a blind test in this regard (regardless of the results) is not necessarily good science.
The first variable that becomes an issue is the human mind. Once it is being "tested" it naturally becomes stressed, which would impact any test. Stress leads to overthinking. Overthinking leads to erroneous data.
I have always railed against double blind tests that compare like items. Double blind taste tests, audio tests, etc. The human mind is not equipped to do it very effectively.
Heck, most people struggle with visual location memory - do you really think we can remember slight audio changes to any measurable level?
As I said, my only "vested interest" is in science. So far, science points to there being no difference. When it points to something else, I'll follow the science.
You'll follow whatever motivates you. You currently lean on the science fencepost, but that's because it currently provides what you wish it to.
I did a little digging and found a report wherein the difference between 44.1khz and 96khz was statistically significant. People could, based on the results, find a difference. But, even though I might agree with the assertion, I disagree with the testing methodology and thus believe it not capable of being able to prove anything. I find the test incorrect and I'm sure if you looked at the results - the actual conclusion would be inconclusive. I would argue, that the correlation between the data would not be grouped in a method that would lead one to the original assertion.
It's the nature of using the wrong test methodology. Unfortunately, we don't have a different methodology for comparison other that actually looking at the raw physics and making assumptions on whether or not people can hear the difference.
By the way, here is a list of codec comparisons that showed actual differences in double blind audio tests:
As I have stated, I am truly not all that interested in the subject - so I admit I skimmed the wiki. From what I could tell, the test may have been blind but it was blind versus another compression. So, for what I was seeing, the results were seemingly ranked based on knowledge that it was lossy and then ranking it.
They were not asked to tell the difference between lossy compression algorithms (which I would argue they could not do) or determining the difference between high bit-rate lossy and lossless.
You want to prove a point that it is inaudible to someone who doesn't care either way. It's a losing battle, I'm simply saying your "science is all I care about" malarkey is simply an excuse to espouse your opinion louder than anyone else.
Are you sure you meant to reply to me? I have not said anything or commented about doing any sort of listening tests.
Interesting, because I've never said this:
You and others have always said that the only way to truly hear the difference is to listen with your own ears.
Nor did I do this - I simply left out the redundancy and replied to the core:
You conveniently skipped the rest of my post. I don't find that surprising either.
I think maybe you were so earnest in your desire to prove science you simply crossed arguments all over the place.
Peer reviewed scientific journals accept double blind audio tests, that is a fact. I have never seen any of the popular criticisms of double blind audio tests, including the ones listed above, subjected to peer review in accredited publications. If you can point me towards an article of this type, I will gladly cede the point that double blind audio tests are flawed. Until then, I will stick to my first instinct: The critique of the tests are a convenient way to discount the results in order to further the audiophile agenda.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.