Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
Page 21 / 41
With all due respect, that isn't the key point. The issue is whether Sonos would make more money by devoting their finite resources to something else.
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.
Why? For a variety of reasons (all of which have been discussed ad infinitum in this thread):
Finite resources. Some of us have our wants and needs for the system and would rather Sonos spend capital and time on those rather than 24/96.
Reliabilty/Functionality. Sonos works great as is and adding 24/96 support may change that. Accomplishing full 24/96 support may require a redesign of hardware which could compromise the current robust reliability and functionality.
Cost. If Sonos decides to go all out in support of 24/96, and the return on investment isn't there, the cost of that effort is not going to be recouped in the non-selling Hirez player. Instead, it's going to be passed on to me; a user who wants to expand his system, but never wanted, nor will ever buy, the non-selling Hirez player.
Support. Sonos support is some of the best there is. If 24/96 is implemented in a non-intuitive way, or requires exceptions to the Sonos "it just works" philosophy, Sonos support will be taxed. This either translates into extra cost (see above) or a decrease in the quality of support.
Folks
Not to put to fine a point on it, but I don't think either of these arguments hold any water whatsoever with regard to this discussion. They could be raised for ANY discussion pertaining to a new and or enhanced sonos feature…not just the production of a hi-res variant.
1. Would sonos's finite corporate resources be taxed by this effort, thereby damaging the quality of it's existing products, and/or future product enhancements?
2. Should Sonos allocate it's finite resources to something else, ie..something more important, more desired by it's user/marketplace, more potentially profitable, etc.?
Those are questions that should be asked for anything that sonos might bring to market.
Simply put, none of us are in a position to make anything more than an intelligent guess on this. The reason for that is that none of us have any idea what the Sonos corporate goals, operations, budgets, personnel, etc, are. I do have some experience here. I've worked for 30+ years, all within Fortune 50 companies in various sales and marketing positions. I'm currently managing a multi-billion dollar product line for one of those companies. Which simply means I have some in-depth experience with product launches, product life-cycles, P&L, marketing and distribution, etc, and the decision making process relative to product feature/functionality decision making. There is simply no way that anybody other than the Sonos product and marketing management teams can know what their P&L looks like, and to what extent a feature such as a hi-res product could potentially impact it. Period. Any talk about this in the forums is nothing more than pure speculation.
So the question at hand, concerning a hi-res format continues to be, as it is with any new Sonos offering, will there be sufficient demand for the product to offset costs associated with developing and bringing it to market. I, as do many others, contend yes. We continue to write to Sonos in the hopes that they will hear us. "Jgatie & "ratty" contend no. Fine..those are simply opposing contentions.
Arguing that it's "worthless" or of less value than another potential product enhancement, because hi-res is a technical "sham", or will not be profitable due to the size of the marketplace is both conjecture and more simply, a judgement call. Neither of these will or should have anything to do with a Sonos decision. Were I a member of the sonos marketing team, there are various market analysis techniques, I would utilize to gauge the potential marketplace & future demand for a hi-res product. Then it would become a fairly basic P&L proposal to management.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but I don't think either of these arguments hold any water whatsoever with regard to this discussion. They could be raised for ANY discussion pertaining to a new and or enhanced sonos feature…not just the production of a hi-res variant.
1. Would sonos's finite corporate resources be taxed by this effort, thereby damaging the quality of it's existing products, and/or future product enhancements?
2. Should Sonos allocate it's finite resources to something else, ie..something more important, more desired by it's user/marketplace, more potentially profitable, etc.?
Those are questions that should be asked for anything that sonos might bring to market.
Simply put, none of us are in a position to make anything more than an intelligent guess on this. The reason for that is that none of us have any idea what the Sonos corporate goals, operations, budgets, personnel, etc, are. I do have some experience here. I've worked for 30+ years, all within Fortune 50 companies in various sales and marketing positions. I'm currently managing a multi-billion dollar product line for one of those companies. Which simply means I have some in-depth experience with product launches, product life-cycles, P&L, marketing and distribution, etc, and the decision making process relative to product feature/functionality decision making. There is simply no way that anybody other than the Sonos product and marketing management teams can know what their P&L looks like, and to what extent a feature such as a hi-res product could potentially impact it. Period. Any talk about this in the forums is nothing more than pure speculation.
So the question at hand, concerning a hi-res format continues to be, as it is with any new Sonos offering, will there be sufficient demand for the product to offset costs associated with developing and bringing it to market. I, as do many others, contend yes. We continue to write to Sonos in the hopes that they will hear us. "Jgatie & "ratty" contend no. Fine..those are simply opposing contentions.
Arguing that it's "worthless" or of less value than another potential product enhancement, because hi-res is a technical "sham", or will not be profitable due to the size of the marketplace is both conjecture and more simply, a judgement call. Neither of these will or should have anything to do with a Sonos decision. Were I a member of the sonos marketing team, there are various market analysis techniques, I would utilize to gauge the potential marketplace & future demand for a hi-res product. Then it would become a fairly basic P&L proposal to management.
Arguing that it's "worthless" or of less value than another potential product enhancement, because hi-res is a technical "sham", or will not be profitable due to the size of the marketplace is both conjecture and more simply, a judgement call. Neither of these will or should have anything to do with a Sonos decision.
Uhhhh, whether something "will not be profitable due to the size of the marketplace . . . should not have anything to do with a Sonos decision?" Are you sure you meant to write that? Also, if the possibility exists that "hi-res is a technical 'sham'" and part of the potential market believes this to be true, why is it not a valid discussion? Quite honestly, I find it a valid discussion from an audio enthusiast's view, as well as a marketing view. This is a forum for audio enthusiasts, is it not?
Were I a member of the sonos marketing team, there are various market analysis techniques, I would utilize to gauge the potential marketplace & future demand for a hi-res product. Then it would become a fairly basic P&L proposal to management.
As most of us have stated, if the checkbox of hirez is shown through marketing studies to be a profitable measure which will not affect the current/future sales and reputation of Sonos in a negative manner, then Sonos would be a fool not to pursue it. Matter of fact, a successful company like Sonos has probably already done this market research and come to a conclusion.
Make of that what you will.
We can't know whether there's a profitable business case in isolation, even with access to infinite resources. We can however speculate that -- given Sonos' market positioning, the potential RoI on other development possibilities, and the limits on growth rate of any SME organisation -- there's a lot of lower hanging fruit which product management is likely to view as more deserving of development attention.
Omm, maybe I'm missing something here but:
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. .
Maybe you didn't means this, but you can already play your CDs at full resolution on Sonos. The Xiph article doesn't denounce the use of lossless files. In fact it promotes it:
"Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.
A second reason to distribute lossless formats is to avoid generational loss. Each reencode or transcode loses more data; even if the first encoding is transparent, it's very possible the second will have audible artifacts."
Bear in mind Xiph produces probably the most popular lossless codec on the market: FLAC
What the article is denouncing is the trend for distributing music in formats which is recorded in formats out of the hearing range of dogs and bats. This is largely driven by opportunist greed in the music industry, and blind, ignorant assumption amongst some consumers that more highly sampled data automatically has to sound better.
The other idiotic, but popular myth rife amongst hires supporters (AKAIK I've not seen it used on these forums) is that hires is "as the record producers want it to be heard" because hires is normally used in recording studios, and that music is somehow being damaged by being forced into the CD format. The best way to tell if someone really doesn't have a clue about audio technology is if they state this as "fact".
The reality is recording studios use hires because they don't want you to hear it. Using hires in a recording studio gives them space to push all of the nasty noise and artefacts generated by digital processing into. They know it won't be audible, and that it will be filtered out anyway before it hits the market.
But, if you really are concerned about having a hires unit in order to get the best from your ripped CD's you shouldn't be. Sonos will play them fine at full resolution. A hires unit will not make the slightest difference for material originating from CD.
Cheers,
Keith
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. .
Maybe you didn't means this, but you can already play your CDs at full resolution on Sonos. The Xiph article doesn't denounce the use of lossless files. In fact it promotes it:
"Lossless formats like FLAC avoid any possibility of damaging audio fidelity with a poor quality lossy encoder, or even by a good lossy encoder used incorrectly.
A second reason to distribute lossless formats is to avoid generational loss. Each reencode or transcode loses more data; even if the first encoding is transparent, it's very possible the second will have audible artifacts."
Bear in mind Xiph produces probably the most popular lossless codec on the market: FLAC
What the article is denouncing is the trend for distributing music in formats which is recorded in formats out of the hearing range of dogs and bats. This is largely driven by opportunist greed in the music industry, and blind, ignorant assumption amongst some consumers that more highly sampled data automatically has to sound better.
The other idiotic, but popular myth rife amongst hires supporters (AKAIK I've not seen it used on these forums) is that hires is "as the record producers want it to be heard" because hires is normally used in recording studios, and that music is somehow being damaged by being forced into the CD format. The best way to tell if someone really doesn't have a clue about audio technology is if they state this as "fact".
The reality is recording studios use hires because they don't want you to hear it. Using hires in a recording studio gives them space to push all of the nasty noise and artefacts generated by digital processing into. They know it won't be audible, and that it will be filtered out anyway before it hits the market.
But, if you really are concerned about having a hires unit in order to get the best from your ripped CD's you shouldn't be. Sonos will play them fine at full resolution. A hires unit will not make the slightest difference for material originating from CD.
Cheers,
Keith
I was a big fan of SACD. I could hear the difference. Even casual listeners could hear the difference. I also listened to SACD with b&w nautilus 802 speakers. So as much as I'd like to pretend that my desire to listen to audio with that level of detail and accuracy is normal, it isn't. Most people just aren't willing or able to spend the money on such products. I recently purchased a pair of black CM9s for my bedroom. I drooled over the speaker at my audio dealer. As sad as this may sound I haven't been able to duplicate the sound that made me purchase the speakers in the first place. It wasn't until I moved my dac and CD player into the bedroom that it seemed to click in. But lets face it the CD is dead. Someone may bring it back to life but right now for all intensive purposes its on life support at best. I stream from spotify. I honestly can't say that I can really say that its that much better than rhapsody, but I'd like to believe it is. I tried the whole ripping files into FLAC etc and it just isn't for me. It requires to much additional time and steps to get it all together, I have a job. I've loved this hobby for more than 10 years now but I can't see even an avid listener doing some of the things true enthusiasts are willing to do. All said I'd love it if SONOS would produce anything that made the audiophile community shut up. I'd buy it. I'm sure others would too. The CD came around because of increased convenience and use. SONOS is the new CD. Somehow theres been a resurgence of records. Even I'm thinking about buying a record player. I hope SONOS saves me with something thats easy to use and actually produces better sound than what I can get off a CD.
Wbelpaso2.
I'm bugged by your observation. Be careful with your comparisons. Valid comparisons are surprisingly difficult to set up.
In my experience those who are sensitive to any potential SACD advantage don't appreciate the quality of Spotify and Rhapsody, yet you did not make any comment on the online service audio quality. Online listening seems to be your normal mode.
SACD's are usually released from the very best source material and mastered by the very best 'A' crew. This careful choice of material and careful processing makes a huge difference, even when listening through second rate equipment. Since SACD's cannot play on regular CD players, a direct comparison with regular equipment is not possible. With HDCD's, since they are compatible with regular equipment, I notice that the HDCD's sound better than regular discs (of the same session), regardless of how the HDCD is played. I attribute this to the more careful mastering process by the 'A' crew.
How do you normally listen to your 802's? CD's, Rhapsody? Spotify? Is the amplifier in your bedroom in the same class as the amplifier driving the 802's?
I assume that you are using a ZP80/ZP90/CONNECT in your bedroom. What happens if you insert your DAC in the bedroom?
What happens if you rip a SACD disc to FLAC and use this file as your comparison source?
I'm bugged by your observation. Be careful with your comparisons. Valid comparisons are surprisingly difficult to set up.
In my experience those who are sensitive to any potential SACD advantage don't appreciate the quality of Spotify and Rhapsody, yet you did not make any comment on the online service audio quality. Online listening seems to be your normal mode.
SACD's are usually released from the very best source material and mastered by the very best 'A' crew. This careful choice of material and careful processing makes a huge difference, even when listening through second rate equipment. Since SACD's cannot play on regular CD players, a direct comparison with regular equipment is not possible. With HDCD's, since they are compatible with regular equipment, I notice that the HDCD's sound better than regular discs (of the same session), regardless of how the HDCD is played. I attribute this to the more careful mastering process by the 'A' crew.
How do you normally listen to your 802's? CD's, Rhapsody? Spotify? Is the amplifier in your bedroom in the same class as the amplifier driving the 802's?
I assume that you are using a ZP80/ZP90/CONNECT in your bedroom. What happens if you insert your DAC in the bedroom?
What happens if you rip a SACD disc to FLAC and use this file as your comparison source?
I just thought I'd throw my +1 request for 192khz/24bit flac support.
I thought I'd enjoy The Dark Knight Rises score I just picked up from HDTracks.
Oh well...
I thought I'd enjoy The Dark Knight Rises score I just picked up from HDTracks.
Oh well...
+1 for the hi-res support
Come on Sonos get a move on with 24/96 or you will be losing me and obviously many others to alternative streaming systems.
Sonos was the best streaming system by far but you have been overtaken and left behind. I want to add more rooms but I will not do so because of this issue. I will look elsewhere next year.
Sonos was the best streaming system by far but you have been overtaken and left behind. I want to add more rooms but I will not do so because of this issue. I will look elsewhere next year.
I'd like to try downloading and listening to some of Linn's high-quality audio files that are available but they won't play on Sonos. So yes please Sonos, let's make it work. 🙂
Yes plx for hi res support
This gets more and more important now that competitor products do support them. It's a key gap knowing that Sonos is also about hifi audio quality.
I was about to purchase an entire system for my house, but now I wonder - I was not aware of this limitation.
I was about to purchase an entire system for my house, but now I wonder - I was not aware of this limitation.
Although there's one less competitor now, Squeezebox is officially dead. That's kind of a shame actually.
I was just about to buy a SONOS CONNECT but discovered it is limited to 16/44 !? ...the SONOS is an ideal solution for me but I can't commit with this limitation ...it is nearly Christmas, please update and also sort out the Clocking/Jitter (there are lots of rip-off aftermarket modifications and I am sure SONOS could refine this at factory) which would make it a World Class source.
Best regards SONOS Dev Team 🙂
Best regards SONOS Dev Team 🙂
IT'S ONLY CHUFFING AUGUST!!!!! ffs...
Best regards SONOS Dev Team :)
Uhm, If you think they are going to drum up a product that can play 24/96 by Christmas, you are not very familiar with the development cycle for consumer electronics. Quite simply, you are off by at least a factor of 4, probably closer to 8, for hardware that must solve the problems listed in this thread.
Sonos was the best streaming system by far but you have been overtaken and left behind. I want to add more rooms but I will not do so because of this issue. I will look elsewhere next year.
I was about to purchase an entire system for my house, but now I wonder - I was not aware of this limitation.
Please note that as of this month, the only "competitor" and "alternate system" which approached Sonos in cost and functionality is no more. Logitech has discontinued the Squeezebox line, in favor of cheap mono internet radios:
http://ue.logitech.com/en-gb/smart-radios#tab-specs
Other "competitors" are either enormously expensive, or are vaporware. I cite this as evidence that the market for hirez does not seem to be what it is oft claimed to be in this thread.
Well not entirely, Simple Audio's Roomplayers DO exist, albeit at double the price for the equivalent device (although this is still within the same order of magnitude as Sonos, unlike the £1000+ devices from other manufacturers) and with the same 65k track limit as Sonos from what I understand (despite requiring Twonky server to run on a NAS if you want to use one).
True. Though they are not available in the US, so they are about as useful as Squeeze for that market. But I should not have ignored the UK.
By the way, has Simple Audio gotten their players to sync yet? Anyone know?
Dunno, I haven't heard anything to suggest that but I'm not paying that much attention to them to be fair.
As an ex audiophile - in the narrower meaning of that word, someone more interested in the tech and the equipment than the music - I know my problem was that I always wanted to be doing something to the system, unable to leave well enough alone. Music took second place far too often.
Looking back I know that many of the upgrades/tweaks didn't do anything audible for the sound. I must say that it was fun while it lasted though.
A "problem" with Sonos is that there isn't anything to do, once installed:) Other than fixes to the rare glitch. In that sense, it is a boring system, but one that gets out of the way of the music. Perfect for me now, where I have, in my main system, an amp and a pair of speakers that, barring breakdowns/accidents, will be the last ones I will ever have.
I went from an airport express streaming solution to Sonos, so I don't have user experience of Squeezebox. But it seems to me that it allows for a lot more user interaction and tweaks, and playing around with hires and the like. Gives people something to do. And therefore, if I may use the word meaning no disrespect, more aimed at a geek user base.
A niche product, and must not have justified itself via volumes in a company like Logitech.
There seems to be no real competition to Sonos then, at this time. High end streaming solutions from Naim, Linn and the like are very expensive. I am still to figure out what additional value they provide in comparison to Sonos.
Looking back I know that many of the upgrades/tweaks didn't do anything audible for the sound. I must say that it was fun while it lasted though.
A "problem" with Sonos is that there isn't anything to do, once installed:) Other than fixes to the rare glitch. In that sense, it is a boring system, but one that gets out of the way of the music. Perfect for me now, where I have, in my main system, an amp and a pair of speakers that, barring breakdowns/accidents, will be the last ones I will ever have.
I went from an airport express streaming solution to Sonos, so I don't have user experience of Squeezebox. But it seems to me that it allows for a lot more user interaction and tweaks, and playing around with hires and the like. Gives people something to do. And therefore, if I may use the word meaning no disrespect, more aimed at a geek user base.
A niche product, and must not have justified itself via volumes in a company like Logitech.
There seems to be no real competition to Sonos then, at this time. High end streaming solutions from Naim, Linn and the like are very expensive. I am still to figure out what additional value they provide in comparison to Sonos.
Hi again and thanks for some of the useful comments ('ffs', what does this mean, buddy) !? - Christmas is 4 months away, that is not a very long time ;)
This is meant to be a PLUS-1 thread for 24/96 on the SONNOS CONNECT and I am another member of the Public asking for Hi-Resolution support.
I am looking at LINN and NAIM's offerings amongst a few others, although they are more expensive I prefer the SONOS interface, saying this as I have borrowed a friend's CONNECT for the past week and find it a breeze.
My issue is that should I buy a SONOS CONNECT, I will want to at least have the Dr Volk Jitter modification done to the Clock because I will be sending this into a high-end Tag McLaren AV32R DP Processor (modified to sound sweet as) and without low jitter things sound a little unfocused (this is what the Tag McLaren SyncLink technology does, reduced jitter and clock timing to minimal skewing) - ..........so this SONOS will set me back to the tune of £550....and with this outlay I will want to play the odd HiRes track, as they become more prevalent with things like Bluray AUDIO disks being produced even moreso.
This has been a long ongoing request so feel SONOS must have investigated or have something in the pipeline.....otherwise requests fall on deaf ears here
I had an OPPO BDP-93 and if they sort out the iPhone/Android App (it's in the pipeline) in their next model which will be early next year I guess, this may be what I will wait for as it is a true UNIVERSAL Source that 'does' (or will do) everything very well!
🙂
This is meant to be a PLUS-1 thread for 24/96 on the SONNOS CONNECT and I am another member of the Public asking for Hi-Resolution support.
I am looking at LINN and NAIM's offerings amongst a few others, although they are more expensive I prefer the SONOS interface, saying this as I have borrowed a friend's CONNECT for the past week and find it a breeze.
My issue is that should I buy a SONOS CONNECT, I will want to at least have the Dr Volk Jitter modification done to the Clock because I will be sending this into a high-end Tag McLaren AV32R DP Processor (modified to sound sweet as) and without low jitter things sound a little unfocused (this is what the Tag McLaren SyncLink technology does, reduced jitter and clock timing to minimal skewing) - ..........so this SONOS will set me back to the tune of £550....and with this outlay I will want to play the odd HiRes track, as they become more prevalent with things like Bluray AUDIO disks being produced even moreso.
This has been a long ongoing request so feel SONOS must have investigated or have something in the pipeline.....otherwise requests fall on deaf ears here
I had an OPPO BDP-93 and if they sort out the iPhone/Android App (it's in the pipeline) in their next model which will be early next year I guess, this may be what I will wait for as it is a true UNIVERSAL Source that 'does' (or will do) everything very well!
🙂
ti33er,
As announced the Sound Ideas forum is no longer the primary board for feature requests (although the content of existing threads will continue to be noted). Perhaps you'd like to open a new Idea thread over at ask.sonos.com where it might solicit a reaction from Sonos staff and fellow members of that community.
As announced the Sound Ideas forum is no longer the primary board for feature requests (although the content of existing threads will continue to be noted). Perhaps you'd like to open a new Idea thread over at ask.sonos.com where it might solicit a reaction from Sonos staff and fellow members of that community.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.