Zp 24/96
A
Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
Page 2 / 41
+8
Thanks NoBob, that's certainly a reasonable response..
You offer vinyl to digital enthusiasts as a market driving force and call us silly?
Me dies! :rolleyes:
And Sonos markets zoneplayers as capable of connection into the Dac of your choice...via digital out.....yet its nigh on impossible now to buy a DAC now WITHOUT 24 bit capability.
Go figure
In DAC world, 24 BIT has become the standard. Thats it. There is no turning back. You can go on denying it as long as you like, but that's the reality.
I'm done now trying to figure out this anti 24 Bit rhetoric....oh and go keep enjoying your 2 megapixel digital camera as well :)
...Lifes too short to drink cheap wine....
Couldn't agree more with jgatie. Let's get some of the countless Sound Ideas actioned, especially those that could significantly enhance operability. The Sonos concept as it stands delivers what it set out to do, but its ease of use eg playlist management, and its ancient Desktop Controller GUI could be easily brought up to date IMHO. And please fix the delay issue with external DAC processing! Much more important than pandering to a tiny minority.
How does faster WiFi technology help my existing Sonos players? Hint: it doesn't. Sonos doesn't use WiFi, but as a Sonos owner, you already know that.
The flac conversion takes seconds. Yes, in total, it will take time, especially if the files are spread out through your library. If that amount of time isn't worth it, then don't do the conversion and continue to play them on whatever non-Sonos player you like.
They're not going to play on your Sonos, whether you can hear a difference, whether it takes time to convert, or whether you get a faster router. It is what it is.
The flac conversion takes seconds. Yes, in total, it will take time, especially if the files are spread out through your library. If that amount of time isn't worth it, then don't do the conversion and continue to play them on whatever non-Sonos player you like.
They're not going to play on your Sonos, whether you can hear a difference, whether it takes time to convert, or whether you get a faster router. It is what it is.
I think this is the response given every time us "closed minds" types are confronted by the "open minds" who consistently deny/ignore proven facts like the placebo effect, human physiology, mathmetical theory, and audio physics. Yet they keep posing the same question.
Userlevel 2
Religious fervour? Where did I exhibit that?
I said:
For me, the most compelling arguments for Sonos to support these formats are:
1. People want them, and it's important from a commercial standpoint to give people what they want.
2. Some music is sold only in higher resolution format and it's a pain in the arse to have to downsample in order to be able to listen to it on the Sonos.
Trust me, if I really cared about this issue, I'd exhibit more fervour than is in evidence above.
I personally don't really care about reason #1, because I don't work for Sonos and don't own shares in the company. It's purely a commercial consideration for them. If people start to buy a competitor's hardware instead of buying Sonos, it doesn't matter whether the reason is valid or bogus, it's still a serious business issue. As someone who owns a lot of Sonos gear, I'd actually like to see them stay in business, for all the obvious reasons.
That leaves just the downsampling issue, about which you say:
You can't be serious. It takes less time to downsample than it does to download the files in the first place. I spend more time embedding artwork.
That it takes less time to downsample the files than it does to download them is utterly irrelevant and completely misses the point. The point is that it takes any time at all, because the whole step ought not to be necessary.
Time is a precious and finite commodity. The quicker chores are done, the better. Bad enough that I should have to spend time ripping CDs or downloading music -- necessary evils -- without having to then perform further maintenance.
If you went to a restaurant and were kept waiting for your starter, would you then be content to also be kept waiting for your main meal, as long as the second delay was shorter than the first?
The challenge for Sonos will be that without a defined hi-res upgrade path, the product will slide in perception to more of a mid-fi lifestyle product than a serious hi-fi contender (which may well be Sonos' plan). It is not clear that anyone selling cutting edge hi-fi makes any money, so perhaps Sonos is smart in this approach. It will however be harder for the custom install brigade to push Sonos for high $$ applications when the competition can all handle hi-res.
The elephant in the room is of course the Touch, which now Squeeze seem to have addressed the software reliability issues (and with Sonos' recent software stumbles with 3.6) must be seen as serious competition. With full hi-res capability and available for as little as £135 (if you wait for a special), perhaps Sonos' users who want hi-res could buy a Touch for their main listening room to sit alongside their Sonos installation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11
But, why be ready.
A significant architectural overhaul, incompatible with the 2.5+ million units out there, for unproven technical reasons and to cater for a niche (hires) of a niche (lossless) of the market? Sonos appear to have more sense of where their business opportunities lie.
+8
I didn't realize that knowledge was static..Last I checked we have made progress in all manner of disciplines because great minds questioned the status quo..Maybe you should change your handle here to Saint Bellarmine LOL...:rolleyes:
I think this is the response given every time us "closed minds" types are confronted by the "open minds" who consistently deny/ignore proven facts like the placebo effect, human physiology, mathmetical theory, and audio physics. Yet they keep posing the same question.
Userlevel 2
Very true.
Remember CDs? When they were introduced the cost of manufacturing and distributing media dropped significantly, and yet the price to the end-user went UP. This actually went to court in the UK and the record industry won on the basis they were providing "a higher quality product" (something many audiophiles would dispute).
Yes, I'm old enough to remember that, but not so old that I'd forgotten about it again.
Fast forward a few years and we now have MP3 downloads. These are demonstrably degraded quality compared to CDs, the cost of manufacturing is close to zero, and the cost of media distribution has plummeted, and yet we are paying pretty much the same price as we pay for CDs, or maybe more.
That's why I won't buy MP3s unless it's the only way to purchase a given release. I still prefer CDs, followed by FLAC downloads. MP3 is an absolute last resort for me.
The other thing to consider is how many studios are releasing material in hires? There aren't very many. The ones that do are those that those that seem to have a vested interest in the audiophile market and in promoting hires as a premium format.
In my case, it's just one or two artists that I care about, who are self-releasing in higher resolution formats. 24/48 is probably the maximum I've purchased, but the Sonos can't handle that, never mind 24/96.
Another thing is that a lot of music is very badly produced and mastered these days.
I know. I've loaded a few of the loudest CDs from the last couple of years into a sound editor to look at the wave form. They're clipped to hell by the excessive amplification and dynamic compression.
That's just the way that many people like it to sound now. They need to be able to hear it through tinny, poorly isolating ear-buds in the middle of a traffic-congested city. The volume knob seems to have gone out of fashion.
Maybe I have overstated the case in that these versions are not necessarily deliberately degraded, but simply that the studio did not want to put the effort into mastering them well, or felt that a "more commercial" mastering would sell more.
Well, that's an entirely different kettle of fish and I agree that remasters, in particular, often don't get the loving treatment they deserve.
Of course, not every product is as commercially viable as the Beatles' back catalogue. The work done on those is absolutely stunning, and I'm not even what you'd call a fan of the band.
In that respect, the studios who have taken these original recordings and remastered them with care should be congratulated at least for exposing the potential of the original recordings. However, having gone through this process there is no reason in the world why the remastered version should not be distributed in standard res as well as hi res.
I agree. You'd think there was more money to be made by offering both, too.
I think it is pretty obvious by now which market Sonos is aiming for.
The elephant in the room is of course the Touch, which now Squeeze seem to have addressed the software reliability issues (and with Sonos' recent software stumbles with 3.6) must be seen as serious competition. With full hi-res capability and available for as little as £135 (if you wait for a special), perhaps Sonos' users who want hi-res could buy a Touch for their main listening room to sit alongside their Sonos installation.
Better check the forums for that "elephant in the room." I believe the "Is Logitech going to abandon the Squeezebox line" posts have finally outnumbered the problems with install, maintainance and usage posts. Seriously, a company that is discontinuing products and lowering customer service at the rate Logitech is for the Squeezebox line is not an "elephant in the room."
Doesn't sound like arrogance at all.
I didn't tell you what you can or cannot hear, I merely quoted a scientific study which proved, using trained listeners, that there are no differences heard when downsampled from hires. You very well may hear a difference. Whether those differences are due to a superior master which will sound the same in 16/44, or your Superman/Bionic Woman style golden ears, has yet to be determined.
Some light reading for you. The theorem without which digital audio wouldn't exist goes way back to 1933. Physics hasn't changed since then. 😉
The "great minds" of audio are mostly gone now (Peter Walker & Edgar Villchur among the most prominent). Today's great engineers aren't much interested in solved problems.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
Userlevel 2
You're quite probably right, and those people are no doubt Sonos's target market, but they're not the niche market that Sonos currently sells to.
Amongst the kind of people who currently find themselves considering Sonos as an option, the number would be much higher and increasing disproportionately fast.
So, you either cater to the market you find yourself in, or you find a way to drill into a new segment of the population, the mainstream.
Ultimately, though, consumers are always wooed by higher numbers. More is better. In that regard, high definition audio will be an easy sell from a marketing perspective.
Userlevel 2
I have, personally, thought about getting Squeezebox for the high resolution possibilities. I have dozens of vinyl rips at 24/96 and would like to play them without compromising the audio quality (whether or not folks believe it is different or not).
But at the end of the day - the functionality and prior investment in Sonos has me waiting.
I keep hoping that one day they will realize that all tech becomes obsolete and upgrade their units.
As it stands now - there are so many concerns that can be addressed by upgrading from track count to sorting capabilities to track information to high resolution audio. And the upgrade should function within any current infrastructure.
I just don't see why Sonos would continue to run nearly a decade old hardware. Is it so that the Sonos-apologists have a built in excuse as to why stuff can't be done? Even Apple upgrades.
But at the end of the day - the functionality and prior investment in Sonos has me waiting.
I keep hoping that one day they will realize that all tech becomes obsolete and upgrade their units.
As it stands now - there are so many concerns that can be addressed by upgrading from track count to sorting capabilities to track information to high resolution audio. And the upgrade should function within any current infrastructure.
I just don't see why Sonos would continue to run nearly a decade old hardware. Is it so that the Sonos-apologists have a built in excuse as to why stuff can't be done? Even Apple upgrades.
That would be about the same argument for Ferrari not to make cars given the larger market of Hyundai buyers.
Great minds questioned the status quo, and then proved their hypothesis by conducting carefully controlled experiments which showed their hypothesis to be true. Which is all we are asking.
Amongst the kind of people who currently find themselves considering Sonos as an option, the number would be much higher and increasing disproportionately fast.
So, you either cater to the market you find yourself in, or you find a way to drill into a new segment of the population, the mainstream.
Ultimately, though, consumers are always wooed by higher numbers. More is better. In that regard, high definition audio will be an easy sell from a marketing perspective.
You and I are broadly in agreement, which is why I'm not completely against (and actually, to a degree, in favour of) Sonos building hires support.
My main argument here is that some are treating this with "religious fervour" (as jgatie puts it, although I would not personally count you amongst those) and I think we need a bit of reasonable perspective on this. However desirable this is for some, and I think it's OK for people to state that, they really should understand that their personal needs and desires do not map to the majority of other users and their blind faith in hires formats is not shared by most others.
When they overstate how "vital" this is, gloss over the technical challenges, and resort to overhyping both the benefits and the market for it, take pot-shots at Sonos, and make bold and unjustified claims about the damage Sonos is doing to it's future prospects then they look ridiculous. If anything they are damaging their case as the supporters of this capability start to come across as "crazed fanatics" rather than reasonable advocates.
Cheers,
Keith
I just don't see why Sonos would continue to run nearly a decade old hardware.
Because the system was designed to be a long lasting system, not a disposable one, and that's why people bought it. Most people would be deeply upset, having splashed out potentially thousands of dollars on units around their home, if the system was then obsoleted and new hardware didn't function well (or at all) with the old.
Of course it will have to happen eventually, but I suspect it will have to be done gradually with new hardware forming a bridge between the old systems and the new one, but there has to be some compelling reasons to do this. I see no commercial sense in doing so unless it's for a feature that is wanted by and will benefit a significant portion of the market. The best way for this to happen would be if the new kit has a substantially different role, rather than being a complete across-the-board replacement. Sonos have previously made noises about home theater audio, and that might provide a way to create a parallel but interoperable new range without completely obsoleting the old stuff overnight.
Is it so that the Sonos-apologists have a built in excuse as to why stuff can't be done?
That's such a purile comment I won't bother to address it.
Even Apple upgrades.
Yes but this is an exceptionally bad example. I really don't know why you used the word "even" as it's totally inappropriate: Apple specifically aim to be on the leading edge with disposable consumer devices that people want to upgrade, as this means more Sales.
Obsoleting kit after 18 months in in Apple's DNA. In this respect Apple's strategy is completely the opposite of Sonos's.
My daughter changes the decorative cover on her mobile phone every few weeks, as the covers are cheap and disposable, but it would be crazy to suggest that, based on this, one should contemplate redecorating the house every few weeks!
Cheers,
Keith
Userlevel 1
No it wouldn't. It WOULD be the same as Ford saying they're going to abandon mass-market consumer cars and only make $300,000 supercars from now on though.
HiRes is very handy in the studio because it reduces the likelyhood of recorder noise and overload issues and minimizes computational difficulties while the music is processed during production. I have no issues with those who have the resources and record at 384/32. And, I'm sure that the audiophile community will drop 192/24 into the quaint history bin as they discover that 384/32 is available.
But, is it really necessary to render beyond 44.1/16 as we distribute to the livingroom?
If HiRes (higher than 44.1/16) in the livingroom is as superior as many very vocal advocates claim, it should be very easy to design a well controlled study and prove the point. I have an open mind and can accept good science. So far, no one has been able prove that we need to go beyond 44.1/16.
And it is possible that some really good science will show that small children and teens might benefit from HiRes, but older folk cannot. This would be awkward because the very young probably don't have the HiRes passion and cannot afford to purchase the required playback systems that could take advantage of HiRes. But, this would not be the first time that we will discover that mother nature is not fair.
But, is it really necessary to render beyond 44.1/16 as we distribute to the livingroom?
If HiRes (higher than 44.1/16) in the livingroom is as superior as many very vocal advocates claim, it should be very easy to design a well controlled study and prove the point. I have an open mind and can accept good science. So far, no one has been able prove that we need to go beyond 44.1/16.
And it is possible that some really good science will show that small children and teens might benefit from HiRes, but older folk cannot. This would be awkward because the very young probably don't have the HiRes passion and cannot afford to purchase the required playback systems that could take advantage of HiRes. But, this would not be the first time that we will discover that mother nature is not fair.
Userlevel 2
Well, clearly some people believe that the desire for support of hi-res formats is much more widespread amongst Sonos users. I don't know what, if anything, that belief is based on, but it's plain that some people don't believe it's a niche desire any more.
Given that people who want something are always noisier than people who don't care, it's hard to gauge the actual interest without proper research, something with a bit more weight than a forum poll.
When they overstate how "vital" this is, gloss over the technical challenges, and resort to overhyping both the benefits and the market for it, take pot-shots at Sonos, and make bold and unjustified claims about the damage Sonos is doing to it's future prospects then they look ridiculous. If anything they are damaging their case as the supporters of this capability start to come across as "crazed fanatics" rather than reasonable advocates.
Again, the problem, as it appears to me, is that neither the people who argue for it nor the people who say it's a waste of time can prove that they, in fact, speak for the majority of users.
One can only hope that Sonos have a foolproof way of determining the commercial importance of this feature, be it overwhelming, non-existent or somewhere in-between.
Userlevel 2
The lack of 24 bit support is the only thing keeping me from investing in Sonos equipment right now. I'm not some audiofile nut playing with uselessly expensive cables. I just have a decent stereo and can easily hear the difference between redbook and 24 bit material when using just a laptop and a fairly cheap USB DAC. Even my girlfriend can hear the difference.
So I'm frankly amazed at the obstinate denial of the obvious sonic benefits of 24/96 when so many customers are requesting it. How about listening to your customers instead of trying to argue with them? I've talked with several people in "Hifiklubben" - the only retailer of Sonos in Scandinavia and they say that more and more people come in to buy Sonos, only to turn away when told it doesn't support HD material...
So I'm frankly amazed at the obstinate denial of the obvious sonic benefits of 24/96 when so many customers are requesting it. How about listening to your customers instead of trying to argue with them? I've talked with several people in "Hifiklubben" - the only retailer of Sonos in Scandinavia and they say that more and more people come in to buy Sonos, only to turn away when told it doesn't support HD material...
Actually, that indicates that ferrari has a market, and so does hyundai... or any other mass market manufacturer. Not everybody can make the ferrari, bentley, lambo, etc... nor does everybody want one.
While I understand that it would be nice to have a single player that plays all... it could be worse, you could be dealing with apple limitations instead. The borg said it best... "you will be assimilated."
While I have the majority of the collection as mp3's, I can tell when they've had a better source. However, does that really take away from the enjoyment... not at all. I would rather have more options stored on my current disk space availability. If I wanted more.... just get more storage. Hard drives are cheap.... just have different collections for different players and be done with it.
And more relevant to me is the fact that I can't hear any differences once mastering variations are taken away.
I can hear differences caused by speaker upgrades, placement or room changes.
Given the above, there is no reason why I would spend money on either the content or the equipment needed to play it. Or give up more relevant features available in the Sonos platform in that pursuit.
People that think different aren't wrong, but they aren't the Sonos target market at this time. And Sonos seems to be doing fine so far without them.
If that changes, Sonos will adapt - which is fine by me as long as I am not affected. Given the evident care that Sonos takes with the installed user base, I don't worry about that happening.
Page 2 / 41
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.