Zp 24/96

That's fair enough, but there is a strong argument to say that Sonos should provide a mechanism to do that itself. One could envisage a Hi-res ZP 90 that would need to be wired. It would provide 24/96 for a listening room and transcode down to 16/44.1 for the remainder of the Sonos setup. This would allow 24/96 files to be played without making the rest of the installation obsolete. The current situation does rather make a nonsense of 'Stream all the music on earth in every room'

Yes, a "Wireless" multi-room audio system that needs to be wired? :rolleyes: And yet you expect marketing terms such as "'Stream all the music on earth in every room" to mean you can actually stream all the music on earth? Shouldn't you be complaining that it can't play WMA Lossless, 8-tracks, cassettes, wax cylinders, or live Borneo drum circles? It's amazing the selectiveness which one can apply when speaking about favored additions to the Sonos system. A term as specific as "wireless" can go out the window, but a nebulous marketing phrase like "All the music on earth" must be interpreted as gospel when it comes to hi-rez. It's really silly.

As far as I understand it, the first 'hop' from the router needs to be wired. From then on, Sonos wireless net takes over. I am suggesting for those who want 24/96, the box at the end of the first hop would need to be the hi-res box. It could transcode if needed for the rest of the sonos network or output 24/96 to a playback system. No change in system topology, but no good if the first hop isn't anywhere near your listening room.

The bold is the reason for my incredulity at the "wireless" system requiring a wired component. There is a reason the Bridge was created and only costs $50 (originally $100). People complained about their "wireless" system requiring at least a $350 music box (ZP80) where they do not want music. The Bridge fixed this obvious and glaring exception to the marketing material. What you suggest is adding a similar obvious and glaring exception, requiring a player to be wired in a "wireless" system. And it would be an obvious and glaring exeption put in place for a minority of a minority of digital audio users (hi-rez users being a minority of lossless users, which are a minority of those who listen to digital audio). In sheer marketing terms, it does not make sense.

The bold is the reason for my incredulity at the "wireless" system requiring a wired component. There is a reason the Bridge was created and only costs $50 (originally $100). People complained about their "wireless" system requiring at least a $350 music box (ZP80) where they do not want music. The Bridge fixed this obvious and glaring exception to the marketing material. What you suggest is adding a similar obvious and glaring exception, requiring a player to be wired in a "wireless" system...

On a somewhat related note....

I'm starting to think that based on the current hardware limitations, Sonos will have little choice but to transform the "simple" bridge, into a media server of sorts for "Sonos Next" (next hardware iteration of Sonos). At that time, I see rolling in hi-rez downsampling support (if not play-back to hi-rez receivers).

I don't see any other way for Sonos to offer next generation hardware / features, without completely alienating users who have existing hardware. (Of course, Sonos may decide that Sonos Next would simply not be compatible with 1.0...)

The lack of hi-res support is clearly a limitation of the existing Sonos hardware, if it had been an easy software fix, I would imagine it would have been done by now. As we have already discussed, I do not believe that hi-res in of itself brings anything to the party, but there is a growing catalogue of well presented hi-res music that is closed to Sonos users without having to transcode on a PC prior to playing. My suggestion was how to address this within existing Sonos hardware constraints without current users being excluded.

Whether or not users need 24/96 is rather beside the point. The last couple of reviews I have read in magazines of the streamer market have made a point of Sonos' lack of hi-res support. This will become a marketing disadvantage before too long.

Fair enough, but I was simply postulating that the marketing disadvantage of offering a "wireless" system that requires you to "wire" one of their players may just outweigh any advantage 24/96 gains. I'm not arguing that 24/96 support doesn't gain anything in the checkbox war with other systems. However, I am curious as to the importance the general public (and let's face it, Sonos' latest vendor; Target, is the very definition of general public) places on the 24/96 checkbox vs. having to wire an expensive box in a wireless system. Historically, the latter was obviously found to be very important, because the Bridge exists. How that compares to the wish/hope/dream for 24/96 by Sonos' intended market, nobody but Sonos knows.

Why the 150k limit?

Hello -

I would like to suggest that Sonos develop a NEW version of the CONNECT specifically for audiophiles. Essentially, I would like to see a player that could handle 24-bit FLAC files, with coax, optical and balanced digital outs only (no internal DAC or analog outs). This player should also have a 12-volt trigger built-in. NICE-TO-HAVE - allow 150,000 tracks instead of the current 65,000. This unit would be perfect for my 2-channel only "higher-end" room. Price could certainly be the same as the current CONNECT and I bet it would cost less for Sonos to make - maybe the higher margin would make up for the lower volume!

Thanks,

Bob


First I'm working at a hifi store which is official retailer for sonos in my country.

I believe a product like this, by Sonos throwing away the DAC itself(because people with better DACs obv wanna use their better DACs)

Pricewise considering what it does should land around same price as the Connect however i'd still buy it if it would cost more. If sonos don't do this they will loose alot of people as higher bit rates are getting more and easier to get. Audiophiles/music lovers will look for other products that can offer them to use their DACs and not limit them to "low" res music.

Although I am thoroughly enjoying this sensational thread, I do feel people are getting a little carried away. Sure hi-res is cool, but the fact of the matter is that a large part of the gains are in the inaudible hearing spectrum. Furthermore, the gain in quality is often purely due to a better remaster of an original recording, not the fact that it is now 24 bit or 96 kHz. Try listening to some original recordings and Japanese remasters for example and you'll know what I mean.

I love my sonos, and I'm anxious to see the new line of products. However, if I could choose between a new 'gimmick' feature that would allow me to listen to those classic rock albums again but now in 24/96, or an upgrade that involves an improved power supply, circuitry and DAC I would know what to choose.

+1 the player should support 24-bit and all sample rates.

+1 on HiRes.

Well..it's been some time since I've weighed in on this thread, as I spoke my piece some time ago. I've continued to follow it..yet chosen not to get into the debate on whether hi-res is "mainstream" enough yet to make it a market that sonos might address. Well...the fact that the most mainstream of mainstream providers (Apple) is now beginning efforts to provide hi-res music, is clearly a sign that there is an active and growing marketplace here. Now I know there has been also been an active debate about the value of hi-res....and whether or not it's an audible difference..can be actually heard/recognized...etc..etc...etc. Well...perhaps a story here may shed some light. While my wife is an avid wine enthusiast and has over the years attempted to sway me in that direction...I remain today steadfastly a "brew" man...I love all types of beer's, lagers, ales..but simply have not been able to develop a taste for wines. Now I've seen her and her friends sip the stuff..gargle w/it...slurp it...sniff it...and they all wax long and with great poetic license on the variations, scents, tastes, tannins...fruitiness..etc..etc (I could go on ad-nauseum)....but you get it..right? To them it's a wonderful world of disparate qualities that they all enjoy..whilst I cannot seem to acquire the taste. Does that mean I think the purchase and consumption of wine is a waste...or that you can't really tell the differences between two variants of chardonay's from the XXX district of France? Well no..not at all. Each to their own. So I think to argue that hi-res is not really an improvement or audibly discernible from CD-res music is really kind of beside the point..isn't it? The fact that many audiophiles are passionate about it...willing to spend large sums of monies to buy equipment that supports the retrieval & playback of hi-res signals...and further...invest large sums of monies to re-purchase favorite music (which they've already previously bought in lower res variants) says that it has value for them. And this is not a small segment of the market any longer. If you follow the audio world...read all the mainstream mags (stereophile, Absolute sound, etc)..visit audiophile websites..and follow the "big" shows and manufacturer's offerings...computer based hi-res music is an absolutely huge and growing business...period. Whether or not you can "taste" the difference..or choose to spend your hard earned cash on acquiring a wine-celler full of bottles and all the associated accouterments to enjoying them is really a personal decision based on your personal tastes, and the enjoyment, and value which you place upon them. Well...I for one can "taste" the difference...and that taste has enough value to me...that I've been willing to invest the time and monies necessary to acquiring, ripping and/or copying a large library of hi-res music files…and investing in the necessary equipment to decode, resolve and play them. Does the fact that there are those on this forum who say this is a waste, because the differences are inaudible, or not discernible in any way lessen my enjoyment of same…absolutely not. I'd never try to tell my wife and friends that those fine differences that they seem to be able to discern and taste are "phantom" flavors. Even if they are…I don't think that it would in any way lessen their enjoyment of their pursuits. So for me..my Sonos system will remain one of the best audio investments I've made..both in overall value and enjoyment…and one which I continually share with family and friends. I've probably helped with the purchase and installation of over 20 systems at friends/family after they've come to see how much fun a sonos system is…and how easy & what a joy it is…. to use. Do I wish Sonos would jump on board the hi-res bandwagon..absolutely. I hope at some point that Sonos management will see the opportunity they have to expand on the overall Sonos experience for a large community of users who…like myself..would be willing to pay a premium for a hi-res sonos component, software, or whatever it is… that Sonos would deploy to offer the capability. The hi-res marketplace is certainly a very viable, growing and enthusiastic market…and one which I think Sonos would do well to serve. Is it for everybody..or every sonos user…clearly not. But for those of us who do like to slurp…sip…sniff…and swirl our hi-res music about in our systems…and look for those nuances and joyful experiences that doing so brings to us…well…absolutely. I'll pay a premium for that experience any time…especially when it's simply an adjunct to an already great experience... which is my Sonos system today!

Well..it's been some time since I've weighed in on this thread, as I spoke my piece some time ago. I've continued to follow it..yet chosen not to get into the debate on whether hi-res is "mainstream" enough yet to make it a market that sonos might address. Well...the fact that the most mainstream of mainstream providers (Apple) is now beginning efforts to provide hi-res music, is clearly a sign that there is an active and growing marketplace here. Now I know there has been also been an active debate about the value of hi-res....and whether or not it's an audible difference..can be actually heard/recognized...etc..etc...etc. Well...perhaps a story here may shed some light. While my wife is an avid wine enthusiast and has over the years attempted to sway me in that direction...I remain today steadfastly a "brew" man...I love all types of beer's, lagers, ales..but simply have not been able to develop a taste for wines. Now I've seen her and her friends sip the stuff..gargle w/it...slurp it...sniff it...and they all wax long and with great poetic license on the variations, scents, tastes, tannins...fruitiness..etc..etc (I could go on ad-nauseum)....but you get it..right? To them it's a wonderful world of disparate qualities that they all enjoy..whilst I cannot seem to acquire the taste. Does that mean I think the purchase and consumption of wine is a waste...or that you can't really tell the differences between two variants of chardonay's from the XXX district of France? Well no..not at all. Each to their own. So I think to argue that hi-res is not really an improvement or audibly discernible from CD-res music is really kind of beside the point..isn't it? The fact that many audiophiles are passionate about it...willing to spend large sums of monies to buy equipment that supports the retrieval & playback of hi-res signals...and further...invest large sums of monies to re-purchase favorite music (which they've already previously bought in lower res variants) says that it has value for them. And this is not a small segment of the market any longer. If you follow the audio world...read all the mainstream mags (stereophile, Absolute sound, etc)..visit audiophile websites..and follow the "big" shows and manufacturer's offerings...computer based hi-res music is an absolutely huge and growing business...period. Whether or not you can "taste" the difference..or choose to spend your hard earned cash on acquiring a wine-celler full of bottles and all the associated accouterments to enjoying them is really a personal decision based on your personal tastes, and the enjoyment, and value which you place upon them. Well...I for one can "taste" the difference...and that taste has enough value to me...that I've been willing to invest the time and monies necessary to acquiring, ripping and/or copying a large library of hi-res music files…and investing in the necessary equipment to decode, resolve and play them. Does the fact that there are those on this forum who say this is a waste, because the differences are inaudible, or not discernible in any way lessen my enjoyment of same…absolutely not. I'd never try to tell my wife and friends that those fine differences that they seem to be able to discern and taste are "phantom" flavors. Even if they are…I don't think that it would in any way lessen their enjoyment of their pursuits. So for me..my Sonos system will remain one of the best audio investments I've made..both in overall value and enjoyment…and one which I continually share with family and friends. I've probably helped with the purchase and installation of over 20 systems at friends/family after they've come to see how much fun a sonos system is…and how easy & what a joy it is…. to use. Do I wish Sonos would jump on board the hi-res bandwagon..absolutely. I hope at some point that Sonos management will see the opportunity they have to expand on the overall Sonos experience for a large community of users who…like myself..would be willing to pay a premium for a hi-res sonos component, software, or whatever it is… that Sonos would deploy to offer the capability. The hi-res marketplace is certainly a very viable, growing and enthusiastic market…and one which I think Sonos would do well to serve. Is it for everybody..or every sonos user…clearly not. But for those of us who do like to slurp…sip…sniff…and swirl our hi-res music about in our systems…and look for those nuances and joyful experiences that doing so brings to us…well…absolutely. I'll pay a premium for that experience any time…especially when it's simply an adjunct to an already great experience... which is my Sonos system today!

A little advice - Paragraphs, proper punctuation and capitalization, and less use of ellipsis will go a long way towards getting your message read. I know I didn't get through more than a couple sentences before my eyes started to swim. Seriously, it is about as illegible a post as I've ever seen.

Wow...I thought the forums were for the exchange of ideas. Apparently they are also to ensure we are all using the correct grammar, spelling and punctuation...for those readers who must be simply exhausted from their efforts to toil through the torturous prose of those less skilled in the arts of writing and expression. Hey..I've got an idea! If it's too much of a mental effort to read...then don't. What a concept..eh??