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 29 / 41
No offense, but your questions about "resolution" and the use of 16 vs. 24 bits are completely answered by the Xiph article.
With the quasi-religious undertones of the hi-res advocate, I can't see them being swayed just by pointing them at a single web-site - however highly you or I might rate them. After all, for all they know this web site could be to audio what Ken Rockwell's site is to photography.
I tend to prefer a scientific statement/theory/stance to be backed up by many others, hence my point about the single-source approach.
On source can easily be dismissed by the believer - dismissing many different reputable sources saying the same thing this is much, much harder.
Also, the Xiph article is not "one source". It lists dozens of references, along with links to peer reviewed scientific studies that back up their conclusions.
All of which begs the question: Why are you critiquing the use of an article that you so obviously have not read?
I've often thought that these audiophiles who so love to brag about their $50K cables would have been much better off spending the money on an EE degree. That Asimov quote is so relevant to the audiophools.
Numbers always make for better bragging rights than actual performance. It's much cooler to say "I spent $10,000 on this DAC/Amp combo! It does 24/192 and is 1000 Watts!! Yours only does 24/96 and 750 Watts! Neener, neener, neener!" than to say "I spent $100 on acoustic wall treatments and fixed the resonance problem with the end table by putting 4 99 cent rubber feet on it."
Remember, Audiophiles don't listen to music, they listen to gear.
As I said before, I'm not saying that I disagree with anything in the article, and the associated links, but ISTM that the reverence for this one article approaches the fervour shown from the opposing camp...
The beauty of science is that, if it's proven to be wrong at any point, scientists will accept it, revamp their ideas and move on.
On the point about choosing your preferred experts, in the further reading section of the article we are encouraged to look at "Coding High Quality Digital Audio" by Bob Stuart of Meridian Audio - but he then goes on to say "Our conclusions differ somewhat (he takes as given the need for a slightly wider frequency range and bit depth without much justification)" - so he praises the article, but then says that the guy is wrong. But if he's an expert, and the other guy's an expert - but they are saying contradictory things, then which is correct? And if either expert is wrong (and one must be), then surely that casts doubts upon their credibility...
He then edits this to say "I may not agree with many of Mr. Stuart's other articles, but I like this one a lot." So, even our 'expert' doesn't agree with the 'expert' - or doesn't rate him on a general basis - so he's picking the one bit that he likes/agrees with...
Is it any wonder that the layman has doubts?
I have read the article, and don't disagree with anything in it.
My point here was that, to an outsider, the constant pushing of this one article can appear as evangelical in it's own way as the opposing camp.
I wouldn't call it reverence. I would call it a reference. It's used so commonly because it is a good reference from a reputable and independent source, which is unusual in the audio industry.
The beauty of science is that, if it's proven to be wrong at any point, scientists will accept it, revamp their ideas and move on.
This is true, but it does need real proof. An opinion is not proof, regardless where it comes from. A proof is a deconstruction of the original point complete with an explanation or where the errors are, or perhaps a better proof.
I've not seen that happen with this particular article yet. A lot of the arbitrary standards proposed in the Bob Stuart article are based on quite weak arguments with a lot of "in my opinion". He's pretty much saying that he's making educated guesses.
On the point about choosing your preferred experts, in the further reading section of the article we are encouraged to look at "Coding High Quality Digital Audio" by Bob Stuart of Meridian Audio - but he then goes on to say "Our conclusions differ somewhat (he takes as given the need for a slightly wider frequency range and bit depth without much justification)" - so he praises the article, but then says that the guy is wrong.
That is allowed,and isn't as contradictory as it might first appear. The Bob Stuart article is a great article when it comes to describing audio coding. This and the Xiph article have more in common than not. However, the Bob Stuart article is rather arbitrary when it comes to selecting formats.
Consider, also, that he works for a vendor, Meridian, who are a high-end audio equipment vendor who have a vested interest in the adoption of higher specification standards. He is a far from neutral party in this. In fact he continually refers to the "ARA" as if it was something of weight and significance when, in fact, the "Acoustic Renaissance for Audio" group are a Meridian-sponsored group whose role is to advocate for higher technical standards that directly benefit their sales.
Xiph, by the way, are neutral in all this. Their work supports hires and standard res. Their only "skin in the game", if they have any, is that they are advocates of openness and honesty, and (it seems) they see "hires" as fundamentally dishonest.
But if he's an expert, and the other guy's an expert - but they are saying contradictory things, then which is correct?
The things is these articles mostly agree that "hires" (24 bit, 96kHz) is pointless. The Xiph article points to 44.1 and 48kHz as being "standard res". The Bob Stuart article suggests 48kHz as a standard is adequate but 44.1kHz not. The difference of opinion is minor.
Personally, I believe 44.1kHz is adequate, but 48kHz is attractive for a whole other set of reasons than just audibility: it's the standard used for film, it's an easy multiple of the 96kHz commonly used in recording, which makes it easy to convert it without damaging it, and many DACs and ADCs are natively 48kHz as well.
If 48kHz became the next standard for music formats, I wouldn't complain one bit, and I suspect the Xiph guys wouldn't either.
And if either expert is wrong (and one must be), then surely that casts doubts upon their credibility...
Neither are wrong, because they are largely arguing for the same thing. Both say that hires formats are pointless. The disagree slightly on whether 44.1kHz is good enough.
He then edits this to say "I may not agree with many of Mr. Stuart's other articles, but I like this one a lot." So, even our 'expert' doesn't agree with the 'expert' - or doesn't rate him on a general basis - so he's picking the one bit that he likes/agrees with...
Well, yes. As I said, the general gist of both articles is that hires is pointless. However, the Bob Stuart article advocates for 48kHz and 20 bits based on some fairly arbitrary logic. The Xiph article advocates 44.1kHz and 16 bits as being good enough based on the fundamental laws of sampling theorem. I would trust the latter, personally. The explanation is more complete and it fits with current scientific theorems. It doesn't rely on opinion or guesswork.
Is it any wonder that the layman has doubts?
I don't disagree., which is why people like me argue with such vigour, and why we point people at the Xiph article so often.
It is a minefield, and vendors exploit people's doubts for profit. All we can do is try to educate.
Cheers,
Keith
My point here was that, to an outsider, the constant pushing of this one article can appear as evangelical in it's own way as the opposing camp.
I doubt anyone here is under the false assumption that we are going to cause a true-believer to see the light. Audiophilia truly is like religion. We could cite 10, 100, 1000 sources, and they will never change their view. So instead of playing a game of "one up" with sources (where we link to objective scientific articles, and they link to subjective, anecdotal reviews), we just link to the most comprehensive article on the subject for the layman audience and let readers take away what they want.
BTW, If tit-for-tat back and forth between the objective/subjective is what you crave, read the first part of this (and other) threads. Nobody has convinced anyone firmly on the other side yet, although I imagine some on the fence were educated (and some on the fringe were put on ignore).
Firstly, thanks to you and everyone else for taking the time to answer so fully...
It's used so commonly because it is a good reference from a reputable and independent source, which is unusual in the audio industry.
As I said, I don't have concerns with the article itself, just at how it's sole advocacy appears to the hi-res group. If you genuinely believe that these things (hi-res, amp design, etc) make a significant difference - especially if you believe that you can hear them, then your chosen 'experts' will be those who advocate your world view - and there are thousands of snake-oil sellers out there willing to do so...
This is true, but it does need real proof.
Well, I did say 'proven' 😉 I take your point about the lack of challenge to the article, but then one could easily say the same about many articles on the web. To the initiated, it may not be worth refuting because it's 'so obviously wrong' - it must be - "I can hear the difference!!"
A lot of the arbitrary standards proposed in the Bob Stuart article are based on quite weak arguments with a lot of "in my opinion". He's pretty much saying that he's making educated guesses.
Quite... So here you have one guy, working for a particular manufacturer, making one set of statements, yet many another audio guys working for many other manufacturers might be espousing the importance of hi-res et al... In essence, we're choosing which of these audio 'experts' we choose to believe...
I'm afraid that I generally give very little credence to people with a commercial interest (with the exception of Peter Walker, I suppose - another example of choosing ones preferred experts;))
If 48kHz became the next standard for music formats, I wouldn't complain one bit, and I suspect the Xiph guys wouldn't either.
Sounds logical...
Neither are wrong, because they are largely arguing for the same thing.
Yes, I accept that... Effectively, though, the guy is saying "I don't agree with much of what this other guy says, but I'm endorsing this one article, even though I don't agree with all of it, because bits of it supports my own views". Wouldn't it carry more weight if he could say "read this article by an independent, world renowned scientist whose work I admire wholeheartedly"?
It is a minefield, and vendors exploit people's doubts for profit. All we can do is try to educate.
Yes, I suppose that you're right... I've never seen the enlightened respond to logical arguments, though...
As I said, I don't have concerns with the article itself, just at how it's sole advocacy appears to the hi-res group. If you genuinely believe that these things (hi-res, amp design, etc) make a significant difference - especially if you believe that you can hear them, then your chosen 'experts' will be those who advocate your world view - and there are thousands of snake-oil sellers out there willing to do so...
Well, I did say 'proven' 😉 I take your point about the lack of challenge to the article, but then one could easily say the same about many articles on the web. To the initiated, it may not be worth refuting because it's 'so obviously wrong' - it must be - "I can hear the difference!!"
Quite... So here you have one guy, working for a particular manufacturer, making one set of statements, yet many another audio guys working for many other manufacturers might be espousing the importance of hi-res et al... In essence, we're choosing which of these audio 'experts' we choose to believe...
I'm afraid that I generally give very little credence to people with a commercial interest (with the exception of Peter Walker, I suppose - another example of choosing ones preferred experts;))
Sounds logical...
Yes, I accept that... Effectively, though, the guy is saying "I don't agree with much of what this other guy says, but I'm endorsing this one article, even though I don't agree with all of it, because bits of it supports my own views". Wouldn't it carry more weight if he could say "read this article by an independent, world renowned scientist whose work I admire wholeheartedly"?
Yes, I suppose that you're right... I've never seen the enlightened respond to logical arguments, though...
Vive la résistance!
;)
Cheers,
Keith
Agreed... And so, yes, I suppose using logic is probably not going to work 😞
Isn't this chestnut a lot easier to put to bed than the ones involving equipment? Take a 24/96 file, downsample it to 16/44 and run both in a double blind test. Level matching should not be the issue it ends up being when change of equipment is involved.
No need to rely on what other people say, test for yourself and see if you hear a difference.
Or am I missing something?
No need to rely on what other people say, test for yourself and see if you hear a difference.
Or am I missing something?
Or am I missing something?
1. Double blind tests aren't always easy to run (although plugins like the one for foobar2000 make it somewhat easier).
2. The audiophile brigade have poured enough scorn on it that people have their doubts.
It's the "science doesn't know everything" and "there are still things that are unexplained" argument which leads people to believe in ghosts and homoeopathy.
Cheers,
Keith
No need to rely on what other people say, test for yourself and see if you hear a difference.
Or am I missing something?
Already been done, peer-reviewed, and published. Participants ranged from students to trained listeners. Nobody heard a difference.
Still doesn't stop the "trust your ears (except when it comes to double-blind tests)" crowd. Doesn't even slow them down. They are plucky, I'll give them that.
2. The audiophile brigade have poured enough scorn on it that people have their doubts.
It's the "science doesn't know everything" and "there are still things that are unexplained" argument which leads people to believe in ghosts and homoeopathy.
Where one is switching back and forth between hardware, I agree that DBTs are not easy to set up. But for this comparison, the hardware is unchanged, volume controls need not be moved around. Should be easy to ask some one to switch back and forth, not knowing which is which.
But if people doubt a scientific way to eliminate all but what their ears tell them, and rely on others saying that there is better SQ from 24/96 more than trusting the unbiased evidence of their own ears, there is nothing to be said.
But if people doubt a scientific way to eliminate all but what their ears tell them, and rely on others saying that there is better SQ from 24/96 more than trusting the unbiased evidence of their own ears, there is nothing to be said.
It's a problem that's been around for a very long time:
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. -- Hippocrates
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. -- Hippocrates
True, and one can understand this prevailing when the science needs a lab/equipment for it to be carried out. What is puzzling in this case is the reliance on other people's opinions - of either camps - when it is not a hard task to evaluate things for yourself at home with no investment and little effort.
A Wikipedia article on Belief Bias which references an article (and others) on Hostile Media effect. Adds a little bit of light to the heat.
This can lead to the conclusion that "the experiment is ill conceived or executed," "there is something wrong with the music files or conversion programs", or (gasp) "I'm not good enough", because there must be a difference, right?
This can lead to the conclusion that "the experiment is ill conceived or executed," "there is something wrong with the music files or conversion programs", or (gasp) "I'm not good enough", because there must be a difference, right?
This can lead to the conclusion that "the experiment is ill conceived or executed," "there is something wrong with the music files or conversion programs", or (gasp) "I'm not good enough", because there must be a difference, right?
I once had a long, protracted discussion with someone who believed all the energy needed to run the world could be extracted from seawater by separating Hydrogen from Oxygen via electrolysis. He was repeatedly told about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states you need as much energy in as you get out of the reaction, and the net result would be a negative amount due to inefficiency in the process of electrolysis.
This argument went on for pages and pages, with him insisting it was possible, and everyone else trying to explain the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in increasingly more layperson language. He kept up the "Well science doesn't know every thing!" mantra, and the rest of us kept up with the explanations of the scientific method, etc. When he finally understood what the 2nd Law states and how it applies to electrolysis, do you think he capitulated? Heck no! He came right back and said "Well, Laws are made to be broken!" :rolleyes:
Made the day, reading that, and having a good belly laugh!!
It was pure comedy. One of his arguments was "Well if that Law is true, how come we can burn oil or coal and get more energy out than it takes to drill/dig for it?" He truly thought he had found a loophole in the Laws of Thermodynamics. The explanation that oil/coal's energy comes from being compressed in the Earth's crust over millions and millions of years was ignored.
Userlevel 2
I'm using the sonos connect now for a year with great pleasur but I noticed that à sonos moderator redirected someome to this post to give the 24bit playable music option à +1.....
Here is my +2 and à comment about the fact that there is since 2007!!!! still no support on 24 bit files....
How about updating the sonos range guys!!
Or will 24bit files maybe point out that the internal sonos dac isn't so forgiving for thes hi res files?! And it will sound crap?
No idea but it would be nice to make a change for the better Sonos
Here is my +2 and à comment about the fact that there is since 2007!!!! still no support on 24 bit files....
How about updating the sonos range guys!!
Or will 24bit files maybe point out that the internal sonos dac isn't so forgiving for thes hi res files?! And it will sound crap?
No idea but it would be nice to make a change for the better Sonos
Sonos have ruled it out for now. If you have the stamina, read this thread though.
I'll help you by pointing you to a piece from experts in digital audio which sets out the scientific/technical arguments.
As the original starter of this thread, let me say, Sonos still doesn't get this. You never have.
It's NEVER been about whether it is possible one can hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit tracks.
They could be physically exactly the same.
It is completely irrelevant what you, Neil Young, Steve Jobs, Wikipedia, President Obama, Opera Whinfrey, so called "digital audio experts", Albert Einstein, The man with the most acute hearing ever discovered, me, you JGatie, or you ratty, or The man on the moon, or anyone else thinks if there is any difference..
It is *totally* irrelevant.
That is *not* the point.
The point is the formats and tracks exist and your customers therefore want to play them
Stop telling your customers what they should and shouldn't do... It's none of your business what files customers might want to play. Your business is to help them play them 🙂
Geeeeeeeezzz
It's NEVER been about whether it is possible one can hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit tracks.
They could be physically exactly the same.
It is completely irrelevant what you, Neil Young, Steve Jobs, Wikipedia, President Obama, Opera Whinfrey, so called "digital audio experts", Albert Einstein, The man with the most acute hearing ever discovered, me, you JGatie, or you ratty, or The man on the moon, or anyone else thinks if there is any difference..
It is *totally* irrelevant.
That is *not* the point.
The point is the formats and tracks exist and your customers therefore want to play them
Stop telling your customers what they should and shouldn't do... It's none of your business what files customers might want to play. Your business is to help them play them 🙂
Geeeeeeeezzz
Stop telling your customers what they should and shouldn't do... It's none of your business what files customers might want to play. Your business is to help them play them 🙂
On the other hand, Sonos is perfectly within its rights to choose which customers/markets it wants to address, and unfortunately for you, up to this point in time, you and a few others are excluded. Probably because there are too few of you to be of interest to Sonos at this time.
But nice try in keeping this ancient thread alive:).
PS: I see that this thread is almost 7 years old. And Sonos has still not seen it fit to address this need. Does that not give a hint about how Sonos has decided to position itself as well as about the size/growth of the Hi res music market?
It is *totally* irrelevant.
That is *not* the point.
The point is the formats and tracks exist and your customers therefore want to play them
The point is they exist for purely marketing reasons, so that "high end" manufacturers can create a market for their unneccesary products through FUD, and so that audiophools will repurchase music yet again, at inflated prices. Thankfully, Sonos has thus far been able to resist this unscientific hokum. Doesn't appear to be hurting sales. 😉
Page 29 / 41
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.