Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
Page 20 / 41
+1 on your idea. Wished I'd thought of it yesterday.
They are. The previous posters have been trying to tell you -- fairly gently, I might add -- that your presentation makes your ideas unreadable. There may have been some excellent points in that giant wall of text, but we'll never know.
One of the requirements for exchange is that the medium used be suited for the purpose. It's not that we don't want to read it, but that it's unreadable.
You're welcome to present your positions in any format you like, but it's telling that the only response to all of those words is not based on the content but on the presentation. If you don't want people to read it, then that's exactly the way to ensure that nobody does.
I read it, all of it. I agree with your points 100%.
I also really like paragraphs 🙂
I also really like paragraphs 🙂
Interesting and well written piece.. but my HiRes files still sound better than the same ones converted to 16/44.. but that's just me.
And the fact that even if it is all marketing, which is open for debate, Sonos needs to be at the front of the line not at the back..
And the fact that even if it is all marketing, which is open for debate, Sonos needs to be at the front of the line not at the back..
For me all of this will get resolved when a major player will put out a 96+/24+ format up for grabs easily by anyone. Were iTunes now silently upgrading all their files to 192/24, I'm sure Sonos engineers would then try to find a way.
I don't see my Sonos system playing them at high frequencies. I wouldn't care less, I don't think that caters up to majority of users outside a small audiophile crowd. But not playing a file, even if downsampled, annoys me. I choose some files in the lib, they are getting skipped silently, and it bothers me to no end.
I don't see my Sonos system playing them at high frequencies. I wouldn't care less, I don't think that caters up to majority of users outside a small audiophile crowd. But not playing a file, even if downsampled, annoys me. I choose some files in the lib, they are getting skipped silently, and it bothers me to no end.
I don't see my Sonos system playing them at high frequencies. I wouldn't care less, I don't think that caters up to majority of users outside a small audiophile crowd. But not playing a file, even if downsampled, annoys me. I choose some files in the lib, they are getting skipped silently, and it bothers me to no end.
If you don't care if they are downsampled, then downsample them once and you are done. There are literally hundreds of downsampling programs out there, there is no sense in waiting for Sonos to incorporate downsampling when you can do it now yourself. Afterwards, move your originals, or tag them something different, and then you can then play all your music on your Sonos system. Easy Peazy.
This is one of the rare occasions I agree with jgatie. If you have 24/96 or better files then use XLD on Mac, or DBpoweramp on PC to downsample to 16/44 for Sonos to play.. BTW with either there's no need to retag, I would though keep the original HiRes files in the event that someday Sonos will play them.
I have approximately 200 96/16 albums, a dozen 96/24, and a few hours worth in 192/24. They are all in ALAC in iTunes. They are fully supported by my iOS devices (thanks to the downsample checkbox -yes I vouch for convenience on portable devices!)... And whenever I play these songs in my main music room, using the proper DAC, I am glad I have them. What you are suggesting is already what I am doing, is to have a second folder with all these solely for Sonos, and add a [hd] flag in the album name of the original so I won't use them in Sonos, as they are silently getting skipped but still present in my Sonos library.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have HD playback, although quality is good on the P: and C:A devices, I'm quite sure the difference between a 44 and a 96 file would be minimal if existent at all, so for these, a downsample would be perfect. Remains the Connect, with the Digital Out, and for that one, YES I would be very happy to have a 96KHz out to play on my Sonus Faber speakers. 🙂 but let's face it, at least recognising the files and be able to play them, even if 44KHz, would still be a huge improvement over the current "skip" situation.
We're enjoying our new Sonos system, and I am well into ripping our few hundred CD's to flac files. It seems clear that CD's are beginning to go away, and there are are already some sites that are starting to accumulate flac files for sale, with some excellent ones at 24/96 or higher. It would be REALLY nice if Sonos would move in that direction, at least as far as 24/96, which current network technology will support.
Joe
+1
Joe
+1
Who else thinks that 24/96 playback is essential to stay on top of the market? With more and more people discovering high quality downloads, the need for a streamer that plays 24/96 resolution files becomes greater.
I wonder when Sonos will fill up this gaping hole in their system. I still prefer Sonos over the 'other ones' for ease of use and price.
I wonder when Sonos will fill up this gaping hole in their system. I still prefer Sonos over the 'other ones' for ease of use and price.
I don't.
http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?t=7951&highlight=24%2F96
http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?t=27793&highlight=24%2F96&page=2
In short, some do not see the "gaping hole" as a hole at all, considering 24/96 files are a niche of a niche product, and probably not the market Sonos is looking for.
http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?t=27793&highlight=24%2F96&page=2
In short, some do not see the "gaping hole" as a hole at all, considering 24/96 files are a niche of a niche product, and probably not the market Sonos is looking for.
Me neither.
I wish that Sonos would support 9600 Hz and higher encoding. This would allow it to be a aficionado system rather that an alternate mp3 player. Presently higher encoded music from HDtracks and others cannot be played. This is unfortunate and it makes my Sonos installation unusable for great sound.
There are a fair number of current and would-be sonos users who need/want better digital quality. 24bit in particular gives huge advantages in dynamic range and signal/noise ratio. Anyone recording or mastering music on a mac already has this, and the pros have had 24/96 or better for a long time. Increasingly you can get high-quality digital audio for classical and even (gasp!) rock and pop, so the trend is well under way.
SO why hasn't sonos brought out a high-spec ZP?? I hope I am wrong, but it seems a bit like sonos are not investing much in product development and are too busy milking the cash cow to care if they they miss the high end of the market.
It would be a pity to see sonos, who really led the field and have a great product, overtaken!
SO why hasn't sonos brought out a high-spec ZP?? I hope I am wrong, but it seems a bit like sonos are not investing much in product development and are too busy milking the cash cow to care if they they miss the high end of the market.
It would be a pity to see sonos, who really led the field and have a great product, overtaken!
SO why hasn't sonos brought out a high-spec ZP?? I hope I am wrong, but it seems a bit like sonos are not investing much in product development and are too busy milking the cash cow to care if they they miss the high end of the market.
It would be a pity to see sonos, who really led the field and have a great product, overtaken!
Read the thread.
SO why hasn't sonos brought out a high-spec ZP?? I hope I am wrong, but it seems a bit like sonos are not investing much in product development and are too busy milking the cash cow to care if they they miss the high end of the market.
It would be a pity to see sonos, who really led the field and have a great product, overtaken!
To repeat what jgatie posted: Read This Entire Thread.
Also follow the many links posted in this Thread that give much better explanations on the +/- of 24bit music, as well as why in recording/mastering it makes a difference, but in playback - not so much (or at all).
Best of Luck
... especially http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?p=159189#post159189 and follow the link there.
Essential reading IMHO.
JXB and others.. you guys are missing the point. Sonos is truly not concerned about sound quality, of course neither is most of the world, just take a look at the current state of the CE industry, at least here in the USA there are almost no more specialty audio stores left, but I digress. Sonos is concerned about one thing, Market Share, they are concerned about building their brand, they are not an audiophile company, what they do, they do better than any one else and frankly their sound quality is in line with current mass market expectations, no one except the very small and ever shrinking (and frankly monetarily unimportant) audiophile market thinks that Sonos doesn't sound great, and for the target market it does, look at all the folks that think mp3 sounds good, or that the Play 5 or 3 sound good, and they do if your level of expectation is a Bose Wave Radio..
In this context Sonos has no more need to be an audiophile company than, say, my Netgear switch. When a ZP80/90/CONNECT is set to Fixed Volume the digital output is bit perfect to the source. Sonos simply transports and unpacks the bits.
That's my point exactly...
Of course it's curious why so many "bit perfect to the source" devices don't all sound the same, but hey CD players in 1982 sounded perfect too..
Of course it's curious why so many "bit perfect to the source" devices don't all sound the same, but hey CD players in 1982 sounded perfect too..
So long as volume is Fixed, Sonos should output source-perfect data. IIRC it's even been tested with Dolby encoding (which it clearly can't decode) to verify transparency.
Jitter could be a marginal factor, depending on how the downstream equipment behaves.
Jitter could be a marginal factor, depending on how the downstream equipment behaves.
Jitter could be a marginal factor, depending on how the downstream equipment behaves.
Downstream equipment which includes ears and minds. 😉
Agreed, especially as decent DACs will re-clock.
Like so many discussions regarding music and "high-fidelity" there will always be active disagreement on what "hi-fi" is..and what, if any value, it has for the listener. Although I don't consider myself an audiophile in the classic sense..ie..I don't spend thousands of dollars on cryogenically treated, high cost cables, anti-vibration devices, and esoteric power conditioning technology, I do rip all my CD's to lossless formats. I do this, because on my high end rig in my living room, I can most definitely hear the differences between mp3 files and lossless formats.
There are those in this forum who would argue that I'm "hearing things" and that there are studies with qualitative data that demonstrate I'm hearing phantom effects, because, in effect, I want to hear them. (ref: the xiph.org post which so many posters here have referenced, as evidence that I am in fact "hearing things"). So be it. But those phantom effects are of enough value to me, that I'm willing to provide my hard earned cash to Sonos, if they would be willing to offer a hi-res ZP 90 variant. I would also contend that there are many, many others who would also. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, or think I'm wasting my money, or that hi-res isn't mainstream yet, the bottom line for Sonos is corporate profits. If they build it, will they sell enough units to offset thier costs (R&D, manufacturing & distribution, marketing, etc)? I would argue that they most certainly will. This tread, which contains over 400 replies and close to 60K views, would also seem to indicate that there is significant interest from the Sonos installed base. And as you all know, active forum posters represent a small percentage of the overall base.
I use Sonos as the backbone of my whole house system, but in my "critical listening" area (my living room), the sonos feeds a benchmark DAC, which then feeds my "hi-fi" system. For the remainder of my home, sonos feeding in-wall speakers is just fine for background listening. My point is this. I choose to take the time to rip carefully, in a lossless format, and play through a high quality DAC, when I want to do some "dedicated" listening. I also chose to spend the monies to purchase high quality components, speakers, etc, because they bring me much enjoyment, and thus have an intrinsic value to me. That doesn't imply that this value is something, that everyone would recognize and/or share.
I love my Sonos system, and have an extensive multi-room system. I would also love it if Sonos offered a hi-res variant of the ZP 90 and I would willingly shell out a premium price to purchase one. This doesn't mean that those of you, who are totally content with 16/44 or MP3 music, need purchase one, or have anything forced upon you and your sonos system. For those who feel this way, Sonos offers a perfectly good system as is. Fine! Why argue the merits (or lack thereof) of hi-res music formats if it's of no value to you. My and many others, desire for a hi-res Sonos component, should actually be meaningless to those of you content with your Sonos and music in it's current state. You pay for what you want…and we pay for what we want and value. End of issue/divide.
There are those in this forum who would argue that I'm "hearing things" and that there are studies with qualitative data that demonstrate I'm hearing phantom effects, because, in effect, I want to hear them. (ref: the xiph.org post which so many posters here have referenced, as evidence that I am in fact "hearing things"). So be it. But those phantom effects are of enough value to me, that I'm willing to provide my hard earned cash to Sonos, if they would be willing to offer a hi-res ZP 90 variant. I would also contend that there are many, many others who would also. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, or think I'm wasting my money, or that hi-res isn't mainstream yet, the bottom line for Sonos is corporate profits. If they build it, will they sell enough units to offset thier costs (R&D, manufacturing & distribution, marketing, etc)? I would argue that they most certainly will. This tread, which contains over 400 replies and close to 60K views, would also seem to indicate that there is significant interest from the Sonos installed base. And as you all know, active forum posters represent a small percentage of the overall base.
I use Sonos as the backbone of my whole house system, but in my "critical listening" area (my living room), the sonos feeds a benchmark DAC, which then feeds my "hi-fi" system. For the remainder of my home, sonos feeding in-wall speakers is just fine for background listening. My point is this. I choose to take the time to rip carefully, in a lossless format, and play through a high quality DAC, when I want to do some "dedicated" listening. I also chose to spend the monies to purchase high quality components, speakers, etc, because they bring me much enjoyment, and thus have an intrinsic value to me. That doesn't imply that this value is something, that everyone would recognize and/or share.
I love my Sonos system, and have an extensive multi-room system. I would also love it if Sonos offered a hi-res variant of the ZP 90 and I would willingly shell out a premium price to purchase one. This doesn't mean that those of you, who are totally content with 16/44 or MP3 music, need purchase one, or have anything forced upon you and your sonos system. For those who feel this way, Sonos offers a perfectly good system as is. Fine! Why argue the merits (or lack thereof) of hi-res music formats if it's of no value to you. My and many others, desire for a hi-res Sonos component, should actually be meaningless to those of you content with your Sonos and music in it's current state. You pay for what you want…and we pay for what we want and value. End of issue/divide.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.