Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
Page 26 / 41
Quite possibly. One of the downsides of being in the game longer, and more successfully, than anyone else is that you will seriously annoy your exisiting customers if you start bringing out kit that isn't fully compatible with the older kit.
The capabilities of the kit is largely dependent on how much computing power is available. There's no reason that you couldn't use much more powerful processing in each unit to provide 24 bit multi room audio in sync - but only if every piece of hardware had the same capabilities.
On of the many reasons that people like Sonos is because a piece of kit that you buy today will work perfectly with one bought a number of years ago. In the days of disposable technology, this is fairly unusual.
At the moment Sonos has a proven track record in sync multi-room streaming audio. The sales figures indicate that their sales (and presumably, revenues) are booming. I don't see that deeply annoying existing customers by making their existing investment obsolete is a very sensible sales strategy, particularly if it's only being done to please a very small minority (albeit a very vocal one) of customers. With the rise of internet streaming (which has comparitively low res files), I would imagine that Sonos see even less reason to risk their currently very successful business model.
In this respect, anyone new to this area has an advantage - they don't have to worry about compatibility with existing units, or upsetting a loyal customer base.
There's also the question of wireless bandwidth. A 24/96 file would require about 3 times that of a 16/44.1. The number of Players supportable on SonosNet would be significantly reduced from the current figure of 32.
With the rise of internet streaming (which has comparitively low res files), I would imagine that Sonos see even less reason to risk their currently very successful business model.
To judge by comments in interviews this seems to be their attitude. They see the strategic direction as being towards the Cloud. There's an awful lot of low-hanging fruit available without the architecture upheaval hires would imply.
In this respect, anyone new to this area has an advantage - they don't have to worry about compatibility with existing units, or upsetting a loyal customer base.
Indeed, and competition is good. However a newcomer would have much to do to match Sonos' position in brand recognition and user experience.
The reference has been made elsewhere in the thread, but it's worth pointing out again that on ask.sonos.com the support of hires tracks has been marked as Not Planned.
I recently heard an interview on CKUA with a sound engineer. I forget his name but he essentially said CD sound and even compressed variations are up to the last rung of the ladder. Some people are spending far too much time and money trying to get the final rung under them.
He also said we forget about the music. There are songs that are recorded like sh*t but are hits. BECAUSE THEY ARE GREAT SONGS!
That last bit hit home to me. I remember playing the Monkees' I'm a Believer over and over on 45 on a portable turntable. I was in heaven. Scratches and all.
He also said we forget about the music. There are songs that are recorded like sh*t but are hits. BECAUSE THEY ARE GREAT SONGS!
That last bit hit home to me. I remember playing the Monkees' I'm a Believer over and over on 45 on a portable turntable. I was in heaven. Scratches and all.
He also said we forget about the music.
And to my age affected ears, I am pretty sure that the last rung won't yield audible benefits. It is very liberating to know and accept this. It has allowed me to vastly simplify my systems.
I would much rather enjoy the music with the reliability that the current Sonos architecture brings to it.
To judge by comments in interviews this seems to be their attitude. They see the strategic direction as being towards the Cloud. There's an awful lot of low-hanging fruit available without the architecture upheaval hires would imply.
Indeed, and competition is good. However a newcomer would have much to do to match Sonos' position in brand recognition and user experience.
The reference has been made elsewhere in the thread, but it's worth pointing out again that on ask.sonos.com the support of hires tracks has been marked as Not Planned.
Cash is king ;)
If there was a way Sonos could make tons of money by catering to a niche audience it would.
If you're going to go into the playback of high resolution files you'll need a parallel infrastructure that supports it. The communication strategy as well as the equipment receiving the signal would obviously be high end.
Considering how well the current equipment works, a Sonos HD line of products would most likely be a jaw-dropping experience to listen to.
Imagine for a moment a future 9.2 setup using 9 PLAY:3 HD speakers and 2 HD SUBS with automatic room calibration. You'd also need an iPad interface to fine-tune speaker positioning and view the calibration results...
High resolution is a whole different ball game if you're selling speakers AND a wifi content transport infrastructure. I don't see this happening until there is pressure from a competing product. The research and development costs alone can easily be a deal breaker.
I find it interesting that the poster who touched off this latest round of "I'm gonna dump Sonos for XYZ as soon as it comes out!!!" was previously in here touting the Simple Audio system. I imagine we can look forward to another post in about a year or so exclaiming the superiority of the next big "Sonos killer." :rolleyes:
All this talk of a competitor is fine, but it suggests that all a competitor has to do is create a beyond-full-res capable system and they will steal the market.
Clearly this isn't the case. Beyond-full-res (aka "hires") is neither new, nor is it absent from the market. Other companies, nominally competitors to Sonos, have been in the market with beyond-full-res capable systems for many years. None have been as successful as Sonos, and many have fallen by the wayside, despite having beyond-full-res capability.
The view that beyond-full-res capability is currently anything other than a niche desire with an insignificant impact on the market and consumer buying is a view borne of ignorance, fantasy, and a staunch refusal to consider evidence (both historical and current) of the market that Sonos operates in.
Beyond-full-res capability isn't about lack of competition. It's about lack of requirement from consumers.
Cheers,
Keith
Clearly this isn't the case. Beyond-full-res (aka "hires") is neither new, nor is it absent from the market. Other companies, nominally competitors to Sonos, have been in the market with beyond-full-res capable systems for many years. None have been as successful as Sonos, and many have fallen by the wayside, despite having beyond-full-res capability.
The view that beyond-full-res capability is currently anything other than a niche desire with an insignificant impact on the market and consumer buying is a view borne of ignorance, fantasy, and a staunch refusal to consider evidence (both historical and current) of the market that Sonos operates in.
Beyond-full-res capability isn't about lack of competition. It's about lack of requirement from consumers.
Cheers,
Keith
Good point...
Isn't that the point, though - all the evidence seems to point to 24 bit files sounding no better than, and possibly worse than, CD quality files... The only difference is in the mastering, which may be superior for the 24 bit version.
I can't see the point of changing everything to 24 bit just to hear inferior quality sound - it's not logical.
That's a good question. I think that when you get into the 2K + range, there are streamers/servers out there already that have enough "name recognition" that its going to be a tough market for a company like Sonos to break into. But that's just my opinion - it would be hard for me to write a check for a couple of thousand bucks for a piece of audio equipment manufactured by a company that hasn't produced that sort of thing in the past. There are too many other options that would seem safer to me.
On the other hand, if Sonos produced a box that was limited to streaming/serving a digital bitstream to my DAC/integrated amp from SonosNet (or even hardwared into ethernet) using the same Sonos interface, and that box contained better jitter rejection of the incoming data, better clocking of the outgoing stream, an electrically quieter power supply, and better signal isolation, I would be willing to pay a premium for that. I wouldn't notice better SQ in most of the places I listen to Sonos (eg. my kitchen), but I would be in the market for a Sonos streamer that I could plug into the system I use to listen to music seriously.
What is a reasonable premium? For me - maybe a $300-$500 upcharge. That's off the top of my head, but I know I'd be tempted. That kind of $$$ doesn't usually kill the deal when experimenting with a hobby like audio, but I think Sonos could make a profit at that range, especially by leaving out all the DAC/analog stuff and amplification.
Would I be able to tell the difference? Who knows. That question misses the point - only a miniscule number of users are ever going to really conduct any A/B subjective testing, blinded or not. What matters is that I would like to upgrade the system, and if I THINK it sounds better, well, that's in MY head.
The point is, I'm willing to pay if Sonos is willing to produce. What's wrong with that?
The point is, I'm willing to pay if Sonos is willing to produce. What's wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with that as a wish or desire.
However, you may be in such a small (yet vocal) minority, that it makes little financial sense. From either Sonos' or your perspective.
i.e. - The price Sonos needs to charge to bring it to market is too high for the limited targeted audience.. OR ..The up-charge value your cohort will willingly absorb is a money-loser for Sonos to undertake.
These are variables we can debate ad nauseum, but it's the Product Managers and Product Marketers of Sonos who have a better understanding of their actual market and users. They've already indicated their current negative decision over on ask.Sonos. That may change as technology improves, but it has to make business sense to Sonos - despite your perceived needs.
I see nothing undesirable about a Sonos ZonePlayer that can pass thru 24bit audio. Perhaps with some specific restrictions on how it interfaces (or not) with their traditional ZPs.
Somehow, I think they have thought this through and yawned at that small, potential market and decided to direct their limited resources elsewhere.
Best of Luck
I can't see the point of changing everything to 24 bit just to hear inferior quality sound - it's not logical.
My definition of sound heaven involves multi-channel high rez content. Mostly playback of DVDA-SACD material.... standards that failed for many reasons. Biggest of which are education and valuing quality and well mastered sound.
The blue-man group DVDA cd is totally amazing in a calibrated 7.2 setup.. but I've already got the equipment for that.
Question is: should Sonos upgrade its equipment to manage high rez multi-channel content via wifi ? Would be cool but there is no demand for quality content like that.
You can see image quality improvements (thus the never ending rez improvements) but sound quality appreciation takes training and a good measure of education.
Or one could conclude that formerly very content Sonos customers are telling the company to evolve. Since buying the Sonos ZP90, I have heard competition that were able to sell products at similar prices or cheaper than Sonos that sounded better when coupled to a good and reveiling DAC.
So please explain: Since when may customers no longer be critical on products they buy? The Logitech Touch sounded better when the external powersupply is used, but is no longer available. The simple Audio solution sounded good, but isn't there yet development wise. So blame it on me to still be looking out for a better product for the buck. And if that means replacing my ZP90, that's OK by me.
Offcourse: You do not have to be as picky as me when it comes to sound quality, but you do not need to be so touchy when somebody is critical on the performance of a Sonos product. Are you a Sonos deveopler, or what? A Sonos product is okay soundwise, but I for one am expecting a better product this year than the one from a few years ago. I also want to be taken serious as a customer, and not be told what to need or not to need. Not Sonos, not any other company, nor you will be the judge of that.
I personally don't know what to think about audio files comprising greater bit-depth and higher sampling frequencies than Redbook. I think its foolish to discount the possibility that Hi Rez files might produce a better listening experience when those files are processed properly. First of all, I think too much is made out of the whole "Sampling Theory" argument that you can't hear frequencies above 20 kHz (I probably can't hear above 14 or 15, given my age...), so you don't need to digitally sample/measure the analog waveform at a frequency higher than 40 kHz. I'm sure that 99.9% of the people that trot out the Nyquist/Shannon theorum have 1) never studied it, and 2) couldn't understand it if they did. Both of those parameters apply to me, but I DID try to pursue it in an "analog" fashion for a while - reading about it and trying to understand what Prof. Shannon and Dr. Nyquist (who were NOT collaborators, BTW - weren't even contemporaneous) were trying to say. Forgive me if I have this wrong, but I believe the Nyquist Theorum states that one can reconstruct perfectly an analog waveform if one samples the waveform at a frequency at least twice that of the highest-frequency component wave that is contained within the complex waveform - AS LONG AS 1) THE COMPLEX WAVEFORM IS PERIODIC (REPEATS ITSELF OVER AND OVER), AND 2) YOU HAVE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO SAMPLE THE WAVE. Since neither of those conditions apply to recorded music, it may be inaccurate to dismiss the notion that a Hi Rez file might be able to reconstruct the analog information more richly. And, as far as bit-depth goes, the use of greater word-lengths in recording allows the noise to be shifted away from the real audio information and therefore filtered out more effectively without losing the music along with the noise. But I'm not convinced it doesn't also have some benefit in playback - or that the presence of greater bit-depth can't be used during processing to produce better SQ.
Its pretty clear to me the Sonos is drilling a lot of holes where the wood is thinnest - they haven't substantially improved the product in years, but they keep coming out with new applications for it, and therefore building new audiences and markets...and profits. Can't blame 'em for that. I like the system - it does what its designed to do very well. I do wish, however, that they gave a nod to those of us who are interested in trying to see just how GOOD the experience can be from a sonic standpoint. If they don't want to delve into higher resolution audio processing, fine. But how about offering a product with some concessions to well-recognized features that could improve the sound quality of Redbook? Things like better clocking of the data so those of us who output digitally into an outboard DAC could get the benefits of reduced "jitter". Or better power supplies. Or better isolation...
Come on, Sonos, we're in the minority, but there's a market for a Sonos-based network player with some tech enhancements. Nobody is going to be interested in a Sonos product for 2K, but some of us would pay a reasonable premium for better technology.
Just my two cents...
I couldn't agree more. It isn't even only about the 24 bit discussion, but about the drive I would expect from Sonos to make any resolution file sound better.
What is holding you back? Buy I decent or high-tec DAC with build-in reclock function and connect it to the digital out of the ZP90.
You won't get anything better than that. No Sonos "improvement" needed to get the highest standard.
And for the HD material discussion, it won't be the first or the last one, but this is an interesting article: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
So please explain: Since when may customers no longer be critical on products they buy? The Logitech Touch sounded better when the external powersupply is used, but is no longer available. The simple Audio solution sounded good, but isn't there yet development wise. So blame it on me to still be looking out for a better product for the buck. And if that means replacing my ZP90, that's OK by me.
Offcourse: You do not have to be as picky as me when it comes to sound quality, but you do not need to be so touchy when somebody is critical on the performance of a Sonos product. Are you a Sonos deveopler, or what? A Sonos product is okay soundwise, but I for one am expecting a better product this year than the one from a few years ago. I also want to be taken serious as a customer, and not be told what to need or not to need. Not Sonos, not any other company, nor you will be the judge of that.
When someone disagrees with you, it does not automatically make them an employee (especially when Sonos employees are denoted with a '- Sonos' after their names). Besides, I didn't even debate your points, some of which I agree with. All I did was point out that you have been here previously with the same bluster about the latest and greatest product that was going to spell certain doom for Sonos; yet here you are back again. My post was simply pointing out the fact that although your threats to ditch the product are quite vocal, they also seem to be mostly idle in nature. If that makes me a company shill, then Sonos has been quite delinquent in sending my checks. :rolleyes:
I understand your point of view. Just commenting on your own words and the obvious rolleyes smiley you added. The fact I didn't find my next step in streaming yet and am explaining my frustration with Sonos at this time, doesn't mean that you can shove it aside because I am of this conviction longer than just this week. You are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. I just expect my opinion to be respected as much as the next guys' is.
Again. If I thought Sonos sucked, I wouldn't have bought it. However, I don't feel that decision pressures me into staying with it. I really think Sonos could do better in the department of sound quality and see no reason why not to ask the question. Every company needs to develop it's business and also redevelop existing products as time goed by. Sonos saw the benefits of streaming before others and were better than the rest then. Now they seem to be standing still and others might pass them. In my opinion they should strive more towards better sound quality. And maybe I am alone in that and it's time for me to move towards bigger and better things. That's okay too.
And for those who are searching for a good streaming product, I will post again as soon as I made up my mind about Sonos. Just thought the info I started with a few days ago would be interesting to other music lovers. Just didn't expect to get so much negativity from some at the Sonos discussion board. Just wanted to share a new development.
You won't get anything better than that. No Sonos "improvement" needed to get the highest standard.
And for the HD material discussion, it won't be the first or the last one, but this is an interesting article: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
That's just it. I tried the NAD M51 DAC with my Sonos ZP90 and had high hopes. I then tried the M51 with the Logitech Touch. The Touch clearly won. Which means Sonos (which is more expensive than Touch including external powersupply together) isn't as good as I hoped. Not even when playing Redbook files. I also tested against a Linn Majik DS which has it's own DAC and is also way better (but in a different financial leage).
I love the Sonos interface though, so I still have high hopes for Sonos to develop a Zoneplayer that actually sounds the part with a top external DAC. Again, I like Sonos a lot, but want them to develop their products and feel I deserve better quality for the money. If not, I may indeed chose the better sound quality above the better interface.
And for those who are searching for a good streaming product, I will post again as soon as I made up my mind about Sonos. Just thought the info I started with a few days ago would be interesting to other music lovers. Just didn't expect to get so much negativity from some at the Sonos discussion board. Just wanted to share a new development.
It isn't negativity in blind defense of Sonos. It is just that many of us are just as convinced that 24/96 isn't the answer to better sound, and want to make sure that music lovers understand that a lack of this feature isn't something to worry about while evaluating Sonos as a streaming solution.
And for those who are searching for a good streaming product, I will post again as soon as I made up my mind about Sonos. Just thought the info I started with a few days ago would be interesting to other music lovers. Just didn't expect to get so much negativity from some at the Sonos discussion board. Just wanted to share a new development.
People have been "sharing new developments" of impending Sonosian doom since I first purchased Sonos 5 years go. First it was the Transporter, then the Duet, then the Linksys, then Airplay, then the bogus Apple story about supporting 24/96, then the Touch, then Simple Audio. In that time, Sonos has grown to 2.5 million sold. Now, the latest "killer" is the Olive One, and to tell the truth, I sure hope it works better than any of the others. Because then every self-proclaimed golden ears (with their always accompanying Kryptonite-like allergy to blind testing) can go spew their snake oil "it's like night and day" nonsense over on their boards.
I love the Sonos interface though, so I still have high hopes for Sonos to develop a Zoneplayer that actually sounds the part with a top external DAC. Again, I like Sonos a lot, but want them to develop their products and feel I deserve better quality for the money. If not, I may indeed chose the better sound quality above the better interface.
Nonsense. The Sonos has been tested by Audiophile magazine to be bit-perfect to the source when set to fixed output. Jitter issues in the Sonos (as if they are audible :rolleyes:) would be taken care of by the reclocking in the DAC. If you are hearing differences, it is because you have not level matched, you have not set the Sonos to fixed output, you have some sort of leveling/equalizer setting in the tracks, the Touch is coloring the sound, or you are hearing things. But it is not the quality of the output of the Sonos which is making the difference, because Sonos cannot change the bitstream when set to fixed-output; it merely passes it through. So any differences are in the track settings, or downstream of the Sonos.
And before you start in on this, please note that every person who has claimed "my xyz player sounds better than the Connect through my DAC" has eaten a big plate of crow when it turns out they had some setting wrong. After fixing the cause for the unfair comparison, they've heard no differences.
And before you start in on this, please note that every person who has claimed "my xyz player sounds better than the Connect through my DAC" has eaten a big plate of crow when it turns out they had some setting wrong. After fixing the cause for the unfair comparison, they've heard no differences.
You're sure of yourself! I knew when I posted you would have to respond with an answer like you did. But to post a statement this strong I didn't even expect from you. What is it you just have to defend Sonos till the end? It's a good product, but the best ever? There's more needed than bit perfect file transfer to get better sound.
I for one try to be curious of nature and have tried these products out in my own home on my own equipement. There are no wrong settings. Connected like you describe. Just a simple connection between the tested streamers and DAC. And I also try to leave room for other peoples' believes. As I am allright with it that you believe there's no difference between these systems.
But if that makes you happy I will leave this discussion be, for it is a clear as crystal that you do not want to hear anything critical about Sonos. Why still eludes me, but for the sake of it, let's by any means stop this discussion. It's obvious that when you cannot hear the difference, there's no question in your mind you're right and everybody else is wrong, so wrong. Well enjoy your bit perfect and supreme Sonos equipement that can never be bettered.
Ignorence is bliss. Let's just agree to disagree. Bye!
For those of us who are curious, like you, could you explain what more is needed?
I love the Sonos interface though, so I still have high hopes for Sonos to develop a Zoneplayer that actually sounds the part with a top external DAC. Again, I like Sonos a lot, but want them to develop their products and feel I deserve better quality for the money. If not, I may indeed chose the better sound quality above the better interface.
Hmmm...interesting.
I’ve done a similar test: connect a ZP90 and a Linn DS to one and the same DAC (at that time a Wolfsson with reclock)
DAC was connected to some studio grade active speakers. There was no audible difference whatsoever, using AIFF files.
Our conclusion was that the digital out of SONOS is identical to the digital out of the Linn. Only improvement (read: difference) can be achieved by choosing a DAC with the audible characteristics of your personal choice.
Last week I read a paper of someone who was looking for “better” sound and bought the Linn DS to replace his SONOS + DAC.
Guess what: after three days of blind testing he send back the Linn since it gave him no improvement at all (he was already using a very decent DAC).
He performed his blind test by disconnecting the optical fibers and reconnecting them without looking which device was connected to what input.
One thing he noticed during these tests: both his Linn DS as well as the software needed to be reset at least once a day while Sonos proved his reliability.
Talking about quality :-)
What I’m trying to say and what is backed up by at least a couple of tests: as long as you use the digital out of Sonos there is no difference with other brand names Qsound wise. It all depends on the used DAC (and off course the amplifiers and speakers).
However, there is one aspect that Sonos excels in: reliability
Hope this helps in your search for better sound.
What I’m trying to say and what is backed up by at least a couple of tests: as long as you use the digital out of Sonos there is no difference with other brand names Qsound wise. It all depends on the used DAC (and off course the amplifiers and speakers).
However, there is one aspect that Sonos excels in: reliability
Hope this helps in your search for better sound.
My experience with admittedly personal and therefore limited testing is that the used DAC can well be the one in Sonos - provided level matching is accurately done to less than 0.2 db difference.
And music files can be lossy as long as they are 192kbps or above.
PS: Caveat - like the rest of me, my hearing is over 50 years old, so maybe I don't hear so good:-). But accepting that has allowed me to now focus more on music and reliability than stay on the SQ improvement treadmill.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.