Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
Page 16 / 41
He pretty clear that it paves the way to adoption of 24-bit music by the masses.
For a start, he's from Linn who have a vested interest in promoting and hyping hires formats.
Secondly, there's a huge and illogical leap between "hires available on iTunes" and "adoption by the masses".
For a start, the majority of iTunes users don't really care about sound quality. Remember, iTunes is primarily for people who listen on cheap consumer gear. For most iTunes users the change from 128k to 256k MP3 probably wasn't that significant. Its a struggle to get most people to be interested in lossless formats, yet alone hires.
Secondly, most iTunes users simply don't have the equipment to resolve hires files properly. Consider what equipment works with iTunes: iPods, Airports, and a handful of mid-range speaker docks. People who genuinely care about this will already be using WAV or FLAC with something other than iTunes on a high end system. They might now start using iTunes as well, but this isn't going to significantly increase the market demand for hires. Most people won't care and won't want to pay a premium for something they can't take advantage of.
Finally, there isn't any material about in hires formats. The majority of music (99.999%) is produced and mastered for CD. A CD master is 16-bit. Yes it's possible to go back to the original pre-master tapes/files (many of which are in 24 bit or higher) and remaster it for hires, but to do this properly takes a lot of time and money. It's one of the things Linn do and get paid for doing, which is why they are keen to hype it.
And for older pre-digital music where only the masters are available (and not the original unmixed tracks), these are fully resolvable in 16-bit standard res. formats, and there's nothing you can do to increase the resolution of these recordings.
I'm all for better quality music, but most modern music is mastered in such a way that it doesn't take full advantage of even the standard res formats we have in common use today, and I don't see any big outcry from the public about that.
Is this what will finally prod Sonos in to taking hi-res seriously at last?
No. Genuine mass market demand for hires might drive them, but can't this is going to happen for a long time. I can't see hires music market share increasing above 0.01% in the foreseeable future.
Cheers,
Keith
He pretty clear that it paves the way to adoption of 24-bit music by the masses.
"Adoption of 24-bit music by the masses" seems to me to be the epitome of an oxymoronic statement. 😉
The "Masses" have spoken, and they are pumping 128kbs mp3s into their ears at eardrum-shattering volumes via low-cost MusicPlayers & earbuds, and are quite content. I'm not even sure that the move by Apple to provide 256kbs AAC files was noticed, or appreciated, by the masses.
I would think that Apple's first step would be standard 16-bit ALAC availability within iTunes. Can't see the reason to jump over that CODEC into 24-bit ALAC other than the Artists/Labels/RIAA do not want a CD equivalent format supplied via iTunes. Possibly the 24-bit CODEC gives the industry another way to re-monetize prior music purchases once again....even before standard ALAC is available for purchase.
I use iTunes to rip our CD collection into ALAC for Sonos (and 256kbs VBR for iDevices) Have done this since 2005. Other than the weekly "free music" from iTunes, I have purchased only 15 tracks from Apple. This is 15 out of over 10,000 total tracks in my Library - and I have another 300+ CDs remaining to rip from our collection. Unless the song/album is impossible or impractical to obtain in a Lossless format, I will not purchase any music in a Lossy format from any vendor.
Should Apple provide ALAC music downloads via iTunes I would probably stop buying CDs. Perhaps this is what the music industry fears? Just spit-balling here. But I would certainly welcome the ability to purchase Lossless music via iTunes.
Is this what will finally prod Sonos in to taking hi-res seriously at last?
You can hope, but I doubt it. There are enough cogent posts here that give compelling marketing reasons as to why Hi-Res music may still be a small subset of the Sonos target market. Then there is the debate whether 24-bit music is any better than 16-bit (with identical mastering).
I was agnostic towards Hi-Res music, but I now can see where Sonos would befit from supporting the format (or at least passing it to an external DAC).
I do think that if Sonos could have accommodated Hi-Res music playback in some manner, they would have by now. Therefore, I believe that incorporating Hi-Res into the current Sonos platform is not as technically easy as those may wish it to be (as a concept).
One can still down-sample a Hi-Res file into 16-bit CD quality format that Sonos will play. Inconvenient, but there is enough supporting evidence that audio quality does not suffer. Others may disagree. More importantly, Sonos cannot implement Hi-Res transport without maintaining its primary feature/function: whole-house sync'd music from 1 or more zones.
Whether or not the "check-box for Hi-Res" argument has any actual sales validity is a marketing question for Sonos.
Certainly eliminating the wailing of the small-but-vocal Hi-Res community may reduce the frustrations of many on theses Forums (from both camps). But then, what next will the heated debates be about, if not HD music???
Time Will Tell
Best of Luck
Finally, there isn't any material about in hires formats. The majority of music (99.999%) is produced and mastered for CD. A CD master is 16-bit. Yes it's possible to go back to the original pre-master tapes/files (many of which are in 24 bit or higher) and remaster it for hires, but to do this properly takes a lot of time and money. It's one of the things Linn do and get paid for doing, which is why they are keen to hype it.
And for older pre-digital music where only the masters are available (and not the original unmixed tracks), these are fully resolvable in 16-bit standard res. formats, and there's nothing you can do to increase the resolution of these recordings.
I'm all for better quality music, but most modern music is mastered in such a way that it doesn't take full advantage of even the standard res formats we have in common use today, and I don't see any big outcry from the public about that.
Keith
https://www.hdtracks.com/ Lots of Hi RES Stuff and some of the very best sounding ones are originally analog recordings, so I don't quite get your point. You aren't saying that a 16/44 digital file (CD quality) sounds as good as a Analog Studio Master that was originally done at say 30 ips on half inch tape??? You're kidding right????
No I'm not kidding.
A studio master tape (assuming it's not degraded with age) has a dynamic range of 80dB max assuming they use Dolby-A noise reduction. Standard res audio has a dynamic range of around 95dB, so the full dynamic range of studio tapes is fully realisable with CD Redbook.
Standard res also has a wider audio bandwidth and lower noise floor. With careful dithering, 16-bit audio can resolve sounds at -110 dB. This is below the threshold of human hearing at normal listening levels.
A carefully transferred tape master should sound identical to the original in standard res or, perhaps, even better with some work.
I don't doubt, on the other hand, that there are some dreadfully transferred tapes which have resulted in poor sounding CD versions. As with any mastering/remastering to do it properly requires a skilled mastering Engineer with the right equipment and time. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of current CD remasters haven't had the benefit of such expert and careful treatment.
Bear in mind, also, that if the studio has access to the original multi-track tapes (in other words, the source material before mixing and mastering) then it is fully possible to digitise the individual tracks and remix them. In this case it's fully possible to achieve a much higher quality result than the original tape master.
Cheers,
Keith
So dynamic range is the only parameter that effects sound quality?
This is a pretty through piece on the inherent advantages of Hi Res music files. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a-prima-donna-pc,544-4.html
Of course there's always ways to out reason, reason.. Me I like my music to sound as good as it can.. I wonder if the same folks that seem to diss higher bit rate audio also argued against all the other improvements that have made hifi better and better over the years..anyway no skin off my nose, think I'll go listen to some music .. Running on Empty 24/192 sounds great, maybe with a wee dram of the good stuff :-)
And in case anyone who's not biased is reading this remember CD's or 16/44 is what we have because in the SEVENTIES when the CD format was developed 16 bit audio was state of the art..I think technology has improve a little since then 🙂
This is a pretty through piece on the inherent advantages of Hi Res music files. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a-prima-donna-pc,544-4.html
Of course there's always ways to out reason, reason.. Me I like my music to sound as good as it can.. I wonder if the same folks that seem to diss higher bit rate audio also argued against all the other improvements that have made hifi better and better over the years..anyway no skin off my nose, think I'll go listen to some music .. Running on Empty 24/192 sounds great, maybe with a wee dram of the good stuff :-)
And in case anyone who's not biased is reading this remember CD's or 16/44 is what we have because in the SEVENTIES when the CD format was developed 16 bit audio was state of the art..I think technology has improve a little since then 🙂
I am very satisfied with my 16-bits audio collection, and it's playback quality. Only following this thread because of the interesting arguments of the contributors.
I am pretty convinced that the dynamic range of 16/44 is pretty good, but there is also something with the frequencies a 44khz stereo system can reproduce; that is why vinyl listeners claim a record-player can produce better sound quality than a cd-player.
Allthough we cannot hear anything above frequencies 16/44 can reproduce, it is not impossible that the sound might sound more lively because of resonance and feeling.
(but nevertheless: still very satisfied with the current quality... 😉 )
I am pretty convinced that the dynamic range of 16/44 is pretty good, but there is also something with the frequencies a 44khz stereo system can reproduce; that is why vinyl listeners claim a record-player can produce better sound quality than a cd-player.
Allthough we cannot hear anything above frequencies 16/44 can reproduce, it is not impossible that the sound might sound more lively because of resonance and feeling.
(but nevertheless: still very satisfied with the current quality... 😉 )
No, but I mentioned some other parameters as well. For every audio characteristic you can think of, CD specification exceeds analogue tape.
You deride redbook as being "old", but it was designed by audio Engineers to exceed the specification of all of the current formats of the time and, therefore, to resolve them. It was also designed to exceed the specification of the human ear to resolve audible differences.
Of course, not much was known about the practical aspects of digital audio production at the time, and it's only relatively recently we've come to appreciate the different requirements and techniques used in recording, mixing and mastering of digital audio. Certainly these days we have learned that some of those techniques involve careful mastering to ensure the eventual transfer to CD goes as well as possible, and that includes careful handling of compression, noise reduction and dither to ensure optimum transfer to redbook format. In the early days of CD, the need for these techniques wasn't appreciated and that resulted in a lot of poor recordings. Even today many CDs are poorly mastered.
Certainly there are problems inherent in mastering for CD, and characteristics of the format that have to be accommodated, but that's always been the case for shellac, tape, vinyl, radio... One of the key jobs of the mastering Engineer is to understand and accommodate those characteristics and to master accordingly, but that doesn't mean the format is poor or audibly limited in any way. Hires certainly reduces (or removes) the need for this stage of mastering, but doesn't necessarily mean you'll get something that sounds better.
As for that rather poor article, I can tell you that I was studying sampling technology in my teens and have a Bachelors degree in Electronics Engineering, during which I studied audio, sampling and signal analysis. Whilst it's not a subject I have addressed in mathematical detail for a number of years, I really don't need such Mickey Mouse articles to try to explain audio to me, especially when the author clearly knows so little about the subject. Quite frankly any article which tries to explain hires by showing waveforms with "jaggies" and concludes that "the object of the exercise being to retrieve the original curve" shows a deep ignorance of the subject and isn't worth the paper it's written on. If you use articles like this as a reference for digital audio technology then it's no surprise you're a fan of hires.
I will also mention that one of my friends (in fact I'm seeing him at the weekend) was one of the lead developers for the SADiE DAW (one of the primary tools used for digital mixing and mastering in modern studios) and spent a significant portion of his life understanding and solving the issues of working with digital media in conjunction with respected audio Engineers including Bob Katz. We talk about this sort of stuff a lot, and his view of the world (as a respected expert in his field) is completely different from yours.
The following thread is worth reading. Readers should note that this thread is from the Squeezebox forums and many of the people involved are audiophiles with high end setups including modded Transporters. At least one of the people is a respected studio audio engineer. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=89733
That's one of those ethereal "we can't know everything" sort of statements that Psychics and Homoeopaths use. Perceptual studies have been conducted with a range of sounds with and without high frequency components and concluded that no significant difference could be perceived by the test subjects.
If I want people to go away with a message then it's this: whatever the audible benefits of hires, the primary reason for hires tracks sounding better is better production, NOT the format.
Cheers,
Keith
I do agree with you, but there is one problem with:
the primary reason for hires tracks sounding better is better production, NOT the format.
Sonos should 'just work'. I do not care about the reproduction sampling frequency stuff, but being able to play as many types of files without having to convert them to a format is a nice feature. (But to me never a showstopper; whenever i buy cd's i do not mind ripping them, so converting them is not a major issue to me)
Sonos should 'just work'. I do not care about the reproduction sampling frequency stuff, but being able to play as many types of files without having to convert them to a format is a nice feature. (But to me never a showstopper; whenever i buy cd's i do not mind ripping them, so converting them is not a major issue to me)
I don't get it, how do you listen to them on Sonos then?
Sonos should 'just work'. I do not care about the reproduction sampling frequency stuff, but being able to play as many types of files without having to convert them to a format is a nice feature. (But to me never a showstopper; whenever i buy cd's i do not care about ripping them, so converting them is not a major issue to me)
There I don't disagree with you. I'm also not saying that there are no benefits to hires.
What I am saying is that 99% of the time hires is hyped up by people who seem to believe there is something inherently "magical" about these formats that automatically makes music sound better. Often this is fuelled by a grossly naive understanding of audio and audio perception, which is largely exacerbated by misleading articles like the one quoted above.
The trouble is this does their cause no good as they come across as ignorant, and it's easy to then dismiss all audiophiles as being similarly ignorant, which they are not (there are some very educated audiophiles in the thread I linked to in my last post).
Also, it shifts focus away from "better quality music", which I'm sure we all want, to a technical specification based "numbers-game" about formats, which actually does nothing to guarantee better quality music. A badly transferred/mastered master tape can easily sound worse in a hires format than a decent transfer done to CD.
I actually think a genuine problem with hires formats is the assumption they are automatically better. They may not be. Just because a track is published in a hires format, it doesn't mean it's been produced to the sort of high standards needed to warrant the hires format. I have heard of tracks being published in hires format which are really just reformatted versions of the standard CD track, or are just a straight transfer done from the vinyl master. Without knowing the providence of the track there's no easy way for consumers to know this. And people are buying blind unless the vendor gives a production history at point of sale, which they generally don't. The trouble is if people assume the hires version has to be better, they stand a good chance of being fleeced, and the hifi and record industry have a track record of being less then trustworthy in their marketing. We need to refocus the debate from being about formats to being about production quality.
There may well be good reasons for hires formats. The characteristics of anti-aliasing filters may be one. The very fact that such formats exist and people want to play them is another.
Cheers,
Keith
I must say all of your points are very well thought out and reasoned, very logical-very objective!
I only have one question, pretty simple one, one that really only requires a yes or no answer: Have you ever listened in your home, with your gear, with your ears, to any Hi Res 24/96 flac or Wav against their known 16/44 versions (as in exact same master, one sampled to 16/44, and same master at 24/96) And please I know you're bright and will most likely find a semantic problem with my question, but I think you understand my question.
I only have one question, pretty simple one, one that really only requires a yes or no answer: Have you ever listened in your home, with your gear, with your ears, to any Hi Res 24/96 flac or Wav against their known 16/44 versions (as in exact same master, one sampled to 16/44, and same master at 24/96) And please I know you're bright and will most likely find a semantic problem with my question, but I think you understand my question.
I only have one question, pretty simple one, one that really only requires a yes or no answer: Have you ever listened in your home, with your gear, with your ears, to any Hi Res 24/96 flac or Wav against their known 16/44 versions (as in exact same master, one sampled to 16/44, and same master at 24/96) And please I know you're bright and will most likely find a semantic problem with my question, but I think you understand my question.
Yes.
I've also listened to very high quality 24/96 files compared to 16/48 in a professional listening room facility with almost certainly better acoustics than the listening environment of anyone on these forums.
But I fail to understand the relevance. By the way, I'm not out to trick. I hate semantic games as much as anyone.
Cheers,
Keith
If you've listened in your own home on good gear, where you could spend the time in a familiar and stress free environment and feel that 16 bit is as good as you need, and that the higher bit rate files weren't any better than I have no quarrel.
My beef is with people that have never really listened in their home with good gear, and then use other peoples opinions as the basis for deriding those of us (and there are many) who have listened extensively in familiar surroundings on good gear and feel that with well mastered material that the higher bit rate stuff does sound better.
This whole issue reminds me of the early days of compact disc.. All the "objective" press all the engineers claimed that it sounded perfect because it measured perfect.. I'm 100% confident that if one could compare an original Sony CDP101 to say a Oppo player ( pretty close in actual price ) that even a deaf man could hear the difference 🙂
My beef is with people that have never really listened in their home with good gear, and then use other peoples opinions as the basis for deriding those of us (and there are many) who have listened extensively in familiar surroundings on good gear and feel that with well mastered material that the higher bit rate stuff does sound better.
This whole issue reminds me of the early days of compact disc.. All the "objective" press all the engineers claimed that it sounded perfect because it measured perfect.. I'm 100% confident that if one could compare an original Sony CDP101 to say a Oppo player ( pretty close in actual price ) that even a deaf man could hear the difference 🙂
Hires? Nah, I just feel being tricked into only supposedly better gear.
Everybody has a CDP now, so at least two industries are interested in making everybody buy something new.
I need to buy new players and new content, just like in the early days of CD.
So call it a conspiracy theory, but I think there is still much potential in 16/44, if "they" (well, what do I know... sound engineers?) just made an effort.
To my ears the main difference between vinyl and CD was: the crackles disappeared.
Everybody has a CDP now, so at least two industries are interested in making everybody buy something new.
I need to buy new players and new content, just like in the early days of CD.
So call it a conspiracy theory, but I think there is still much potential in 16/44, if "they" (well, what do I know... sound engineers?) just made an effort.
To my ears the main difference between vinyl and CD was: the crackles disappeared.
Everybody has a CDP now, so at least two industries are interested in making everybody buy something new.
I need to buy new players and new content, just like in the early days of CD.
So call it a conspiracy theory, but I think there is still much potential in 16/44, if "they" (well, what do I know... sound engineers?) just made an effort.
To my ears the main difference between vinyl and CD was: the crackles disappeared.
I got nothing to add to this...
In the following months, I am going to embark in ripping my full vinyl collection. I don't plan on doing this often, so I will rip them @ 192/24, slightly process them through WaveArts plugins, and then save the result in 96/24, in ALAC. I have also recorded many shows @ 192/24, which I plan on keeping at that resolution.
I can transfer them safely to my iPhone, since I have the 128Kbps option enabled, so it effectively converts them to a supported resolution.
However, the only point that's stopping me from keeping these in high resolution is Sonos.
I read most of the thread, and I agree to a few potential solutions.
For me, the key resides in the bridge actually understanding there's a high resolution file, and reducing its quality prior to sending it to the other Sonos. I would be perfectly happy to have my files reduced to a 44/48-16 for the whole Sonos environment, as long as I can at least play my files.
As for playing 96/24 for real, if it's supported by D/A-D/D hardware of course, like there's an option to automatically recompress files sent through the Sonos mesh or not, there could very well be a "play at native resolution" choice that would play the sound up to 96/24 (and linear-stepdown anything higher).
In essence, if the user chooses to keep files in HD for some of the devices, they would be kept optionally, at the user's risk.
On my side, my good playback environment is fully wired, and is of high resolution enough to see a striking difference between uncompressed and 320Kbps MP3/256Kbps M4A. I objectively blindly listened to 44 and 96 and could readily tell the difference. Which doesn't mean it's not excellent at 44/16/uncomp, but I do see a difference.
So ... to resume my long mail ...
- At least have higher res being step down to 44/16 so they can be played.
- At best have the optional-with-caveats-with-potential-limitations to support 96/24.
- Yes I would be pissed off if the system couldn't reduce 192/24 files so they couldn't be played, but I would understand.
- No I wouldn't be pissed off, I'd seriously understand if you couldn't play my 2L recordings files @ 352800Hz/24bits 🙂 I'd be impressed if you'd do it though 🙂 http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
I can transfer them safely to my iPhone, since I have the 128Kbps option enabled, so it effectively converts them to a supported resolution.
However, the only point that's stopping me from keeping these in high resolution is Sonos.
I read most of the thread, and I agree to a few potential solutions.
For me, the key resides in the bridge actually understanding there's a high resolution file, and reducing its quality prior to sending it to the other Sonos. I would be perfectly happy to have my files reduced to a 44/48-16 for the whole Sonos environment, as long as I can at least play my files.
As for playing 96/24 for real, if it's supported by D/A-D/D hardware of course, like there's an option to automatically recompress files sent through the Sonos mesh or not, there could very well be a "play at native resolution" choice that would play the sound up to 96/24 (and linear-stepdown anything higher).
In essence, if the user chooses to keep files in HD for some of the devices, they would be kept optionally, at the user's risk.
On my side, my good playback environment is fully wired, and is of high resolution enough to see a striking difference between uncompressed and 320Kbps MP3/256Kbps M4A. I objectively blindly listened to 44 and 96 and could readily tell the difference. Which doesn't mean it's not excellent at 44/16/uncomp, but I do see a difference.
So ... to resume my long mail ...
- At least have higher res being step down to 44/16 so they can be played.
- At best have the optional-with-caveats-with-potential-limitations to support 96/24.
- Yes I would be pissed off if the system couldn't reduce 192/24 files so they couldn't be played, but I would understand.
- No I wouldn't be pissed off, I'd seriously understand if you couldn't play my 2L recordings files @ 352800Hz/24bits 🙂 I'd be impressed if you'd do it though 🙂 http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
When the first CDs were produced in the early 80s, as was said earlier, the mastering engineers didn't have a good grasp of the new format and that made for some pretty poor CDs. I'd imagine that the vinyl lovers back then found it very easy to dismiss the CD. But fast forward almost 30 years and I think we'd all agree that CDs have moved on a long way and although there is still a lot of guff out there, there are some superbly mastered CD available, especially when you stumble across the artists that really take pride in producing quality music. So do you think fast forwarding another period, if the 24bit formats were allowed to grow in usability, engineers would use it more, get familiar and learn how to push the new boundaries and the step up could be better realised?
Right now we've got companies like HDtracks who are under suspicion of upscaling redbook and selling it off at a premium. And that is awful, and should be policed. Similar things were being offered by market stall holders in the 80s selling knock off CDs. But it shouldn't be a reason for the format not to take off, there's always been conmen exploiting the illinformed.
I suppose my point is, the difference between 16 and 24bit may be zero, negligable or even in some cases worse right now, but 24bit has more potential to go further and hopefully will better reach its potential in the years to come.
I admit, I've not yet had the chance to do a proper test of 16/44 vs 24/96 yet, but I will after xmas now that my friend has a Linn Superuniti. I'd like to do some blind taste tests to really see if my own ears can tell a difference as there's strong opinions on both sides here. In the interests of trying to make the fairest test possible, if I use Society of Sound to download a 16bit and a 24bit version of the same album to test, can i assume its the from the same master? I think all their albums are new recordings specifically for their site.
Right now we've got companies like HDtracks who are under suspicion of upscaling redbook and selling it off at a premium. And that is awful, and should be policed. Similar things were being offered by market stall holders in the 80s selling knock off CDs. But it shouldn't be a reason for the format not to take off, there's always been conmen exploiting the illinformed.
I suppose my point is, the difference between 16 and 24bit may be zero, negligable or even in some cases worse right now, but 24bit has more potential to go further and hopefully will better reach its potential in the years to come.
I admit, I've not yet had the chance to do a proper test of 16/44 vs 24/96 yet, but I will after xmas now that my friend has a Linn Superuniti. I'd like to do some blind taste tests to really see if my own ears can tell a difference as there's strong opinions on both sides here. In the interests of trying to make the fairest test possible, if I use Society of Sound to download a 16bit and a 24bit version of the same album to test, can i assume its the from the same master? I think all their albums are new recordings specifically for their site.
The safest thing is to get a 24-bit file and make your own 16-bit copy. It's the only easy and reliable way to know for sure that it's from the same source. SOX is a good tool for this.
Also, if you can, connect a decent PC sound card to the Linn and use something like the ABX test plugin in Foobar2000 to do at least some of the testing. This eliminates expectation bias.
Note that one of the claims about ABX is that it places undue stress on the tester and isn't a "natural" listening environment, and that this stress can mask the differences. Some people claim that the differences only start to show through after prolonged listening in a comfortable "known" environment (basically in your own home). I have previously done listening tests in a high-spec audio listening room with the nearest I have heard to "pristine" acoustics and audio equipment in my life, but apparently this isn't good enough.
I mention this because you plan to do testing in your friend's home, rather than your own and, according to some, your results may be affected because of this.
Cheers,
Keith
Note that one of the claims about ABX is that it places undue stress on the tester and isn't a "natural" listening environment, and that this stress can mask the differences. Some people claim that the differences only start to show through after prolonged listening in a comfortable "known" environment (basically in your own home). I have previously done listening tests in a high-spec audio listening room with the nearest I have heard to "pristine" acoustics and audio equipment in my life, but apparently this isn't good enough.
Note also that these are the same folks who claim to hear "night and day", "huge" and "unquestionable"" differences when not heard in an ABX test. 😉
This is exactly what I've done.. and yes the 24/96 (or higher) sound better.. I will say that it's not always a HUGE difference and absolutely the system has to be up to it. But given a Good system, well setup in a good room there's no question the higher resolution files are audibly better. At least to my ears and everyone I've done a demo for.
The safest thing is to get a 24-bit file and make your own 16-bit copy. It's the only easy and reliable way to know for sure that it's from the same source. SOX is a good tool for this.
Also, if you can, connect a decent PC sound card to the Linn and use something like the ABX test plugin in Foobar2000 to do at least some of the testing. This eliminates expectation bias.
Note that one of the claims about ABX is that it places undue stress on the tester and isn't a "natural" listening environment, and that this stress can mask the differences. Some people claim that the differences only start to show through after prolonged listening in a comfortable "known" environment (basically in your own home). I have previously done listening tests in a high-spec audio listening room with the nearest I have heard to "pristine" acoustics and audio equipment in my life, but apparently this isn't good enough.
I mention this because you plan to do testing in your friend's home, rather than your own and, according to some, your results may be affected because of this.
Cheers,
Keith
Also, if you can, connect a decent PC sound card to the Linn and use something like the ABX test plugin in Foobar2000 to do at least some of the testing. This eliminates expectation bias.
Note that one of the claims about ABX is that it places undue stress on the tester and isn't a "natural" listening environment, and that this stress can mask the differences. Some people claim that the differences only start to show through after prolonged listening in a comfortable "known" environment (basically in your own home). I have previously done listening tests in a high-spec audio listening room with the nearest I have heard to "pristine" acoustics and audio equipment in my life, but apparently this isn't good enough.
I mention this because you plan to do testing in your friend's home, rather than your own and, according to some, your results may be affected because of this.
Cheers,
Keith
Worst culprit is usually not the frequency and resolution.
- Loudness war is HORRIBLE, and I usually prefer vinyl releases because they usually don't have a reason to do loudness war there.
- Transcoding from one digital resolution to the other is not a good thing. Especially 50KHz (old 80's format) and 48KHz, when they are sent back to 44.1KHz. I also once got a 32KHz Minidisc "master".
- Multiple DAC/ADC in the chain. Or multiple frequency adaptation. Or "we have plugins let's use them" syndrome. Or people who don't know what the crap they are doing.
- People who don't know how to use proper dithering for end CDs.
- People who don't do things @ 2x (IE: you record at least @ 88.2/24 for 44.1/16; you record at least @ 192/24 for 96/24; you process everything @ 32 bits float, or even better in doubles)
Remove these, and we'd have very potent 44KHz 16 bits CDs.
On a great product, I have not found a major difference between 16 bits and 24 bits, to be frank. However, I have seen a very notable difference between 44KHz and 96KHz, like I see a potent difference between quantized 44KHz and discrete 22KHz (putting analog pass-low at that frequency -- and yes 22KHz is much better).
Seriously, and without being condescending, I don't believe Sonos is a maniacal audiophile product nor it should be. I believe it caters to the "good enough" part of us. It's convenient, it's good, it works well, it has very good quality, it plays very correctly, but that's not the equivalent to some 5K+$ source (or amp, speakers for the Play/Amp versions). It does have a really great resolution, little distortion (before/after 3.6 😉 ). It's no wonder I got them in most of my house rooms. :)
I also use Sonos on my main amp, but only with the fixed digital out, and leave the decoding to another DAC. I don't believe any digital hype about digital wires being better than the other, or digital sources being better than the other (with one caveat: a Realtek sound card I used that had a DAC, and then a ADC for the optical out connector!), as long as they are doing proper data passing, and not applying filters. So for me, the original CD and the ALAC versions are the same, as long as Sonos merely decodes the audio bits, and sends out the uncompressed version to the coax.
But like I wrote in my last text, not being audiophile doesn't mean I don't want it to handle my 96/24 files 🙂 Just downsample them 🙂
- Loudness war is HORRIBLE, and I usually prefer vinyl releases because they usually don't have a reason to do loudness war there.
- Transcoding from one digital resolution to the other is not a good thing. Especially 50KHz (old 80's format) and 48KHz, when they are sent back to 44.1KHz. I also once got a 32KHz Minidisc "master".
- Multiple DAC/ADC in the chain. Or multiple frequency adaptation. Or "we have plugins let's use them" syndrome. Or people who don't know what the crap they are doing.
- People who don't know how to use proper dithering for end CDs.
- People who don't do things @ 2x (IE: you record at least @ 88.2/24 for 44.1/16; you record at least @ 192/24 for 96/24; you process everything @ 32 bits float, or even better in doubles)
Remove these, and we'd have very potent 44KHz 16 bits CDs.
On a great product, I have not found a major difference between 16 bits and 24 bits, to be frank. However, I have seen a very notable difference between 44KHz and 96KHz, like I see a potent difference between quantized 44KHz and discrete 22KHz (putting analog pass-low at that frequency -- and yes 22KHz is much better).
Seriously, and without being condescending, I don't believe Sonos is a maniacal audiophile product nor it should be. I believe it caters to the "good enough" part of us. It's convenient, it's good, it works well, it has very good quality, it plays very correctly, but that's not the equivalent to some 5K+$ source (or amp, speakers for the Play/Amp versions). It does have a really great resolution, little distortion (before/after 3.6 😉 ). It's no wonder I got them in most of my house rooms. :)
I also use Sonos on my main amp, but only with the fixed digital out, and leave the decoding to another DAC. I don't believe any digital hype about digital wires being better than the other, or digital sources being better than the other (with one caveat: a Realtek sound card I used that had a DAC, and then a ADC for the optical out connector!), as long as they are doing proper data passing, and not applying filters. So for me, the original CD and the ALAC versions are the same, as long as Sonos merely decodes the audio bits, and sends out the uncompressed version to the coax.
But like I wrote in my last text, not being audiophile doesn't mean I don't want it to handle my 96/24 files 🙂 Just downsample them 🙂
I think that Sonos should lisent to this thread, it is still alive after such a long time.
Sonos We want 24/96 you know that in the future, it's going to get here! So the question will you be here too! 🙂 please be with us, because otherwhise it's a very cool product and it's working well
I'm the owner of a modified sonos zp90 the sound is sweet, jitter is gone music is left, but it has only increased my wish for 24/96-192. I'm hooked on it and it wont let me go. I've got a resampler which can do the job, but it's far from always that it is a good solution
Sonos We want 24/96 you know that in the future, it's going to get here! So the question will you be here too! 🙂 please be with us, because otherwhise it's a very cool product and it's working well
I'm the owner of a modified sonos zp90 the sound is sweet, jitter is gone music is left, but it has only increased my wish for 24/96-192. I'm hooked on it and it wont let me go. I've got a resampler which can do the job, but it's far from always that it is a good solution
Sonos We want 24/96 you know that in the future, it's going to get here! So the question will you be here too! 🙂 please be with us, because otherwhise it's a very cool product and it's working well
I'm the owner of a modified sonos zp90 the sound is sweet, jitter is gone music is left, but it has only increased my wish for 24/96-192. I'm hooked on it and it wont let me go. I've got a resampler which can do the job, but it's far from always that it is a good solution
I agree ! - 24bit 96khz would be very nice !
btw - I was just wondering....
Is it actually technically possible for the ZP90 to playback 24bit / 96khz files ?
ie so whats needed here is a software update ?
Just wondering.... 😉
Is it actually technically possible for the ZP90 to playback 24bit / 96khz files ?
ie so whats needed here is a software update ?
Just wondering.... 😉
I don't believe that the software or Sonosnet can do it.. Even the hardware may not be up to it.. I think if it was doable with the current hardware/software Sonos would have done it, no reason not to.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.