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 24 / 41
On the Back Page of the January 2013 issue of the absolute sound there is an interesting interview. While slightly off the 24/96 topic, it does raise a point about the intransigence of audiophiles.
I'm not much of a fan of this publication, but I think that they were very brave publishing this interview.
I'm not much of a fan of this publication, but I think that they were very brave publishing this interview.
I'm not much of a fan of this publication, but I think that they were very brave publishing this interview.
This 58 page thread dating back to 2007 is evidence enough of this?:D
PS: oops, I made it 59...
PS: oops, I made it 59...
Change the 'Posts per Page' amount in your Settings.
I only see 15 pages @ 40 Posts/Page.
Lookie...Lookie - The intransigence just got smaller!! 😃 :p
Best of Luck
Userlevel 2
I'm considering getting a SONOS but I realized that it doesn't support 24 bit 192khz files. Then I see that there is a thread that has been going on for years actually debating whether they should add it or not. I'm shocked that they haven't. Honest question, is there a DAC chipset made that doesn't support 24 bit 192 kHz? I would think this is more about Sonos being up to date with the current technology more than anything else. Processing power is cheap these days, there isn't any reason a $350 device couldn't handle those bitrates.
I was attracted to the sonos system because of the design and apparent ease of setup. I wonder why Sonos can't make something Logitech was selling for less 3 years ago. Think I'll sit out for the time being until they catch up with old technology.
I was attracted to the sonos system because of the design and apparent ease of setup. I wonder why Sonos can't make something Logitech was selling for less 3 years ago. Think I'll sit out for the time being until they catch up with old technology.
But is Logitech still selling it today? I think that is a more telling question.
Did they ever get it working reliably when streaming hires files and trying to sync them?
My understanding is that their sync was unreliable at best, and that was only when streaming MP3s.
In fact they only got any form of syncing working relatively recently in the last couple of years, although this didn't stop them falsely claiming to have it.
If you want a hires, multi-room streaming solution, go ahead and try to find one, but such a mythical beast doesn't seem to currently exist, and I don't think ever has.
Cheers,
Keith
My understanding is that their sync was unreliable at best, and that was only when streaming MP3s.
In fact they only got any form of syncing working relatively recently in the last couple of years, although this didn't stop them falsely claiming to have it.
If you want a hires, multi-room streaming solution, go ahead and try to find one, but such a mythical beast doesn't seem to currently exist, and I don't think ever has.
Cheers,
Keith
I know they had problems with synching anything that had to be transcoded on the server (ALAC was one) and 24/96 had to be transcoded for players that didn't support it, so there you go.
I too was always amused by the posters who stated "Sync works great for me!!" when their forum was always filled with sync problems - ALAC, gapless tracks (which every "Sync works great for me!!" person conveniently never owned), BBC station problem which evolved into "core server bug with synchronised playing", etc. The only sync problem ever posted here is when someone tries to play the same radio station on two zones without linking the zones first. 😉
If you want a hires, multi-room streaming solution, go ahead and try to find one, but such a mythical beast doesn't seem to currently exist, and I don't think ever has.
Cheers,
Keith
Would it be correct to add...regardless of price?
And a add on question: Again regardless of price, what is another solution that does all that Sonos does in the sphere of multi room audio - synched if the same music, or different music from one source? Or two sources, if one were to play internet radio from the broadband feed and music from a NAS.
There are certainly some Linn systems that appear to do this, but IMO not very well. The feature is called Songcast which basically retransmits the music received by a "master" unit to the others. The control of it seems clunky from the description (you have to connect each stream to the "master" specifically, and then have limited control, only volume it appears, from the "slave" devices), but much more importantly the sync is reported to be dreadful: apparently it is "a minimum of 100ms" between synced systems which will sound lousy if the rooms are within earshot of each other.
(To put this in perspective, my family complain about the 70ms delay Sonos has on line in if I pipe the TV audio to the kitchen unless I shut the door between them, and that's not even in an adjacent room).
Compare that to Sonos where the sync is good enough to use to create a stereo pair in the same room.
And, by the way, Linn are one of the main sponsors of hires (it's one way they justify the high cost of their kit).
So your answer is, no, if you are willing to pay enough money, and put up with a substandard user experience and poor sync, there are solutions out there that nominally do what Sonos does.
But if you want something that actually does what Sonos does with decent sync, but with support for hires then I don't think there's anything on the market at any price.
Cheers,
Keith
Userlevel 1
Hmm, well, Simple Audio's Roomplayers DO exist, I've seen them in the flesh. You didn't say it had to be wireless!
I've no idea how well they sync though...
I've no idea how well they sync though...
I've no idea how well they sync though...
I'm told they don't have sync at all.
Certainly they didn't at launch which, if they add it later, it sounds like it's an addon rather than a fundamental part of the design (like it is on Sonos) which is likely to mean they'll struggle to make it work well. Put another way, if it was that easy, why has everyone except Sonos struggled to make it work effectively or reliably.
I think we can discount Simple Audio as a valid comparison.
Cheers,
Keith
Userlevel 1
Sonos is well established in the mass market I would say, now it's time to put out a true high end unit, with high resolution support.
Likely something that most people would use with a high end dac (maybe you wouldn't even need to include a built in dac just a high quality jitter free digital output).
Judging from this thread there are more than a few audiophiles that want all the best in the digital age with the ease and interface that Sonos offers and would easily throw down the cash...
Likely something that most people would use with a high end dac (maybe you wouldn't even need to include a built in dac just a high quality jitter free digital output).
Judging from this thread there are more than a few audiophiles that want all the best in the digital age with the ease and interface that Sonos offers and would easily throw down the cash...
Userlevel 2
I'd really like a high resolution unit. I'd pay at up to $1500 for a unit that could I terrace to a DAC that supports USB Class 2 audio.
My wish list of things would be for it to support 24/192 (or hey, maybe 24-32/384?). I would also like to see DSD streaming since a ton of DACs are coming out with that capability. I'd love to see the u it be able to index over SMB share connections as it currently does, but would love for it to be able to index The contents of SACD ISOs just like JRiver can.
Realistically this probably won't happen. And I'll just have to end up building a CAPS server with JRiver for all my hi-Rez stuff. 😕. I just like the Sonos iPad app so much! JRemote is decent but it just isn't up to par.
My wish list of things would be for it to support 24/192 (or hey, maybe 24-32/384?). I would also like to see DSD streaming since a ton of DACs are coming out with that capability. I'd love to see the u it be able to index over SMB share connections as it currently does, but would love for it to be able to index The contents of SACD ISOs just like JRiver can.
Realistically this probably won't happen. And I'll just have to end up building a CAPS server with JRiver for all my hi-Rez stuff. 😕. I just like the Sonos iPad app so much! JRemote is decent but it just isn't up to par.
Userlevel 1
My Bloody Valentine have just released their long awaited follow up to Loveless. It is available to download in a variety of formats including 24/96 Wav.
This format is becoming increasingly available and I find it hard to believe that Sonos dismiss it so readily.
If it is not possible due to hardware limitations they should say so instead of making arguments that carry no weight.
Despite DBTs showing people can not tell the difference there is similar research showing the same between high bit rate MP3 and lossless yet Sonos have not stopped support for lossless formats on the ground that most people cannot tell the difference.
The same goes for hi-res having more 'noise' than redbook - if lossless is deemed to have better audio quality than why don't Sonos exhibit the same quality control and only allow lossless files and hi but rate lossy.
If it is possible for Sonos to play hires then they should allow this and let the customer decide what sounds best to them.
This format is becoming increasingly available and I find it hard to believe that Sonos dismiss it so readily.
If it is not possible due to hardware limitations they should say so instead of making arguments that carry no weight.
Despite DBTs showing people can not tell the difference there is similar research showing the same between high bit rate MP3 and lossless yet Sonos have not stopped support for lossless formats on the ground that most people cannot tell the difference.
The same goes for hi-res having more 'noise' than redbook - if lossless is deemed to have better audio quality than why don't Sonos exhibit the same quality control and only allow lossless files and hi but rate lossy.
If it is possible for Sonos to play hires then they should allow this and let the customer decide what sounds best to them.
Userlevel 1
Nobody involved with Sonos has taken part in this thread, the arguments that you think carry no weight do not come from Sonos. It IS a hardware limitation by the way.
Despite DBTs showing people can not tell the difference there is similar research showing the same between high bit rate MP3 and lossless yet Sonos have not stopped support for lossless formats on the ground that most people cannot tell the difference.
Because those are common formats, 24-bit isn't common, even now.
You also failed to mention that the My Bloody Valentine is also available in 16-bit WAV as well. Why the hell they decided on WAV I don't know, anyone that wants decent tagging or album art is going to have to convert it to a different format anyway, so they might as well have just done FLAC and ALAC versions.
The benefits of lossy files are:
1) Ubiquitous formats
2) Small file sizes for use in portable players
3) Appeal to persons who just want the music, they don't care about sound quality.
Now let's see how 24/96 holds up to that:
1) Ubiquitous formats
24/96 is a niche of a niche format. It is a an extremely small subset of lossless, which in itself is niche of digital music as a whole. Even audiophiles are not all sold on them, as seen by the xiph.org article
2) Small file sizes for use in portable players
24/96 files are not smaller, they are much larger.
3) Appeal to persons who just want the music, they don't care about sound quality.
This is the opposite for 24/96, 24/96 appeals to audiophiles who care about sound quality. Which would be great, except the appeal is an illusion if the files are indistiguishable from Redbook. Even worse, they can indeed be inferior to Redbook due to intermodulation distortion.
To sum up, the format is not ubiquitous, it offers no storage savings, and the only claimed benefit is either a myth, or an actual detriment to sound.
Userlevel 2
Sonos doesn't support 24/anything, never mind 24/96.
The fact is that the music industry is slowly embracing higher resolution formats, particularly in certain areas, such as classical.
More and more music is being sold in higher than 16/48 format (the outer limits of what the Sonos can handle), sometimes exclusively in such a format.
No-one wants to have to spend any of their time downsampling files for playback on old hardware, so the desire to play these files is real, reasonable and has less and less to do with being an audiophile as time goes by. They are simply becoming more widespread.
I, myself, have gathered a small quantity of 24 bit files over time. I don't know whether I'd be able to hear an audible difference between these and their 16 bit cousins, but frankly, nor do I care. I own them, so I want to be able to play them.
The long and short of it is that the old hardware is looking very long in the tooth now. It was great in 2005 and held up well for several years after its launch, but it is looking very much its age now; and not just in the codecs it supports.
Perhaps this is why we have seen Sonos shift focus over the years, going more and more after the lower end of the market, as its capabilities naturally shift towards the lowest common denominator.
The fact is that the music industry is slowly embracing higher resolution formats, particularly in certain areas, such as classical.
More and more music is being sold in higher than 16/48 format (the outer limits of what the Sonos can handle), sometimes exclusively in such a format.
No-one wants to have to spend any of their time downsampling files for playback on old hardware, so the desire to play these files is real, reasonable and has less and less to do with being an audiophile as time goes by. They are simply becoming more widespread.
I, myself, have gathered a small quantity of 24 bit files over time. I don't know whether I'd be able to hear an audible difference between these and their 16 bit cousins, but frankly, nor do I care. I own them, so I want to be able to play them.
The long and short of it is that the old hardware is looking very long in the tooth now. It was great in 2005 and held up well for several years after its launch, but it is looking very much its age now; and not just in the codecs it supports.
Perhaps this is why we have seen Sonos shift focus over the years, going more and more after the lower end of the market, as its capabilities naturally shift towards the lowest common denominator.
+20
Absolutely, the Play 3/5 range are clearly evidence of this and the Playbar due at some point hints at another market.
Over the past year I have not purchased a single audio CD, all have been 24bit downloads. Now its true I can convert them but its a right pain having to maintain two libraries in addition to backups.
Yes hi-res audio is so mainstream, the very few Sonos owners who are screaming for it had to go to other websites and beg non-Sonos owners to sign up here and gin the poll. It's as big as DVD and twice as nice! :rolleyes:
Whatever is said about the merits for/against the support of hi rez, I'm with IanM..
If I have collected some of these files, I want to play them..
So what I've done is simply moved on and spent my hard earned with someone else.
It's as simple as that...
Around 8K now..
4k for a Linn Streamer. And now 4K for a DSD/24-192 capable DAC...
If Sonos fail to support that end of the market, at the end of the day that's Sonos's problem.. I can't do anything about it. Nobody can. They either want my money or they don't. I would have thought there would be high margins in hi rez.. (Audiophiles like me luv to spend dollars on their hobby..often irrationally..)
But heck. What do I know? 🙂
If I have collected some of these files, I want to play them..
So what I've done is simply moved on and spent my hard earned with someone else.
It's as simple as that...
Around 8K now..
4k for a Linn Streamer. And now 4K for a DSD/24-192 capable DAC...
If Sonos fail to support that end of the market, at the end of the day that's Sonos's problem.. I can't do anything about it. Nobody can. They either want my money or they don't. I would have thought there would be high margins in hi rez.. (Audiophiles like me luv to spend dollars on their hobby..often irrationally..)
But heck. What do I know? 🙂
Classic eco101. The dilemma is determining market elasticity. Could SONOS have sold enough $4k high end streamers to generate the income produced by their 2M+ "rooms" sold to date?
And it's also a marketing issue. Would selling fewer $4K units generate the same market momentum as 2M+ less expensive units. Would a "showcase" unit justify its cost by generating market buzz even though it may not be an obvious monetary success. Would SONOS have 6500+ dealers selling $4k products?
There are some technical points too. 24/96 transfers a lot of data. Networks that are currently on the margin, but working very well, would fall off the edge. This would generate bad press.
Passing this back to the marketing side, how much would this bad press cost in terms of lost sales? Which is higher, the lost opportunity cost of of failing to introduce 24/96 units or, the lost sales of lower priced units due to the "obvious failure" of the system.
How many high end companies can boast 2.5M+ units in the field and continued year over year of doubled sales at this level? Sure, a small company can "explode" from 50 units to 100 units a year and this could be a nice income for a very small company. SONOS was built for the large scale from inception. Give SONOS some credit for getting a few things right.
And it's also a marketing issue. Would selling fewer $4K units generate the same market momentum as 2M+ less expensive units. Would a "showcase" unit justify its cost by generating market buzz even though it may not be an obvious monetary success. Would SONOS have 6500+ dealers selling $4k products?
There are some technical points too. 24/96 transfers a lot of data. Networks that are currently on the margin, but working very well, would fall off the edge. This would generate bad press.
Passing this back to the marketing side, how much would this bad press cost in terms of lost sales? Which is higher, the lost opportunity cost of of failing to introduce 24/96 units or, the lost sales of lower priced units due to the "obvious failure" of the system.
How many high end companies can boast 2.5M+ units in the field and continued year over year of doubled sales at this level? Sure, a small company can "explode" from 50 units to 100 units a year and this could be a nice income for a very small company. SONOS was built for the large scale from inception. Give SONOS some credit for getting a few things right.
How many high end companies can boast 2.5M+ units in the field and continued year over year of doubled sales at this level?
I think it's fair to attribute Sonos's success (in an extremely competitive market and in challenging economic times) to knowing their market and being laser focussed on their product. They have stated that things like video are a distraction they don't want to get into. I believe the audiophile market is the same.
From my own observations, success in that market is as much about clever branding, shmoozing with the right people, ego massaging, and being aware of and able to adapt to the whims of the market than about producing great products. Even if Sonos produced the best product ever at the perfect price-point, their name is now synonymous with the sort of mass-market products that everyday consumers want (like the Play:3/5 range). Sonos simply don't have the audiophile brand credentials to be given a chance in that market, just like few would take a company like Bose, Sony or Phillips seriously in that space.
I think the only way Sonos could achieve success with an audiophile product is to create a parallel "premium" brand, like Toyota have done with Lexus. I can't see them doing that whilst they are being highly successful by maintaining their focus on the mainstream product range they currently have
I also wonder, if you could survey every Sonos customer, past and present (in the light of over 2.5 Million units sold) about hires audio, would the percentage of those who want it be distinguishable from zero?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Cheers,
Keith
Probably not. But it would be a very loud, very vocal zero. 😉
This debate has gone on now for near on 6 years..
You know what..?
Nobody ever mentions passion anymore..
What about producing a high end zoneplayer purely because of the passion to do it?
All you guys on this forum sound old and tired. You really do.
It's the same ol stuff trotted out year on year..
How about Sonos doing something special on the hirez and hif fi front just "because" ..well because why not?
Even a limited release..
But no. We are forever being dumbed down and told we are stupid for even suggesting change. Instead we are told it can't be done. And instead why not be happy with this new (low res) streaming service or *that* new Chinese made plastic speaker boom box. Or go back and do it via that old NAS box way....
There is no passion anymore..
Would the wonderful USofA reached the moon without passion?
Would the English have let Cook ever sail to the ends of the earth without endeavour?
Without that spark, nobody could be bothered doing anything. No rover missions to MARS and no discovery of Australia.
What ever happened to the idea of just doing it for the challenge?
My friends. It's sad.
You guys spouting on the "same ol same old" just re-inforces my feelings. Right or wrong. But those are my feelings anyway.
See you in another 12 months (to see if anything has changed)
Yawn.
Wap
You know what..?
Nobody ever mentions passion anymore..
What about producing a high end zoneplayer purely because of the passion to do it?
All you guys on this forum sound old and tired. You really do.
It's the same ol stuff trotted out year on year..
How about Sonos doing something special on the hirez and hif fi front just "because" ..well because why not?
Even a limited release..
But no. We are forever being dumbed down and told we are stupid for even suggesting change. Instead we are told it can't be done. And instead why not be happy with this new (low res) streaming service or *that* new Chinese made plastic speaker boom box. Or go back and do it via that old NAS box way....
There is no passion anymore..
Would the wonderful USofA reached the moon without passion?
Would the English have let Cook ever sail to the ends of the earth without endeavour?
Without that spark, nobody could be bothered doing anything. No rover missions to MARS and no discovery of Australia.
What ever happened to the idea of just doing it for the challenge?
My friends. It's sad.
You guys spouting on the "same ol same old" just re-inforces my feelings. Right or wrong. But those are my feelings anyway.
See you in another 12 months (to see if anything has changed)
Yawn.
Wap
..well because why not?
Sonos are a commercial company - they are in business to make money. They've chosen to do this is a certain way, and that doesn't include pandering to the fantasies of audiophiles.
As has previously been mentioned, there are good technical reasons why Sonos probably couldn't make a hi-res version without breaking (or seriously risking) their core system. To take this risk for a reason that most people consider nonsensical (and would generate them little extra revenue) makes no business sense whatsoever.
Sometimes the reason that people consistently say the same thing is because it's true...
By all means go and buy an audiophile system that does everything that Sonos does, as well as Sonos does it (particularly multi-zone sync), that also handles Hi-Res. No-one is stopping you.
If no-one else is making one, perhaps there's a good reason...
Page 24 / 41
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.