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 3 / 41
Nothing is "a must" in audio. We all like what we like regardless. If your unhappy with Sonos and it's lack of higher rez performance then jump ship to another manufacturer that does. Pretty simple really. Sonos will only get that message if enough people start looking elsewhere.
Sonos used to be a leading edge product but seem completely content to let others catch up and surpass it. As much as I like Sonos, if a product doesn't evolve it will eventually go the way of your old VHS player.
Sonos used to be a leading edge product but seem completely content to let others catch up and surpass it. As much as I like Sonos, if a product doesn't evolve it will eventually go the way of your old VHS player.
The OP stated that "24/96 is a must." I assume "a must" means Sonos must support it in order to survive. However, since 24/96 caters to a small, elite, and finicky market, then by very definition it is not "a must." If it were "a must" for a company to survive, then it would be available from a larger number of music sources. A better analogy would be why would anyone say it is "a must" for TGI Fridays to carry Dom Pérignon?
PS - I find it hilarious that a short time ago an unfounded rumor was passing through this thread that Apple was getting into the hires music business. It was stated that this move legitimizes the hires music market. Now that the rumor has fizzled out, me mentioning that hires isn't "a must" or it would be sold by Amazon and Apple is being scoffed at. And around and around we go!
bluefooted,
I don't think that SONOS is or ever was attempting to capture the audiophile market. While very noisy, the audiophile market is not huge. The lifetime earnings of many of the very successful audiophile companies is a fraction of the annual earnings of SONOS.
Really, at this point 24/192 is a "me too" resolution. 24/384 or 32/384 used in the studios is more leading edge.
I don't think that SONOS is or ever was attempting to capture the audiophile market. While very noisy, the audiophile market is not huge. The lifetime earnings of many of the very successful audiophile companies is a fraction of the annual earnings of SONOS.
Really, at this point 24/192 is a "me too" resolution. 24/384 or 32/384 used in the studios is more leading edge.
Userlevel 2
Seriously? That's like saying that a Michelin star restaurant shouldn't carry Dom Pérignon because TGI Friday's doesn't have it. This is where audiophiles are going and I THOUGHT Sonos wanted to cater to that market. I'd venture a guess that most people who blindly download whatever quality digital files iTunes is feeding them are just as happy to listen to said files on their phone with a crappy pair of earbuds...
Care to post the market analysis which proves this seemingly unintuitive statement? If "24/96 is a must" why isn't it sold by Amazon or Apple, the two largest sellers of digital music in the world?
Userlevel 2
Please, 24/96 is a must nowadays.
+1 here!🆒
+1 here!🆒
Right! I could think of no better place to post the Pone assessment link and do the two birds with one stone thing:D.
Yaaaaay! The quarterly resurrection of the legendary 24/96 thread !! 🙂
Because to my ears and brain the missing information is irrelevant, and I for one am glad that this is the case. YMMV.
Hard disk space, yes. For internet usage, especially when you have to pay for it over mobile, bandwidth still matters for most folks.
the_lhc,
By the way, you are not alone. I just discovered a discussion about off-center. FWIW, I was not a participant in this discussion.
NAKAMICHI developed a turntable to deal with this.
Edit: Added link (that I originally omitted)
By the way, you are not alone. I just discovered a discussion about off-center. FWIW, I was not a participant in this discussion.
NAKAMICHI developed a turntable to deal with this.
Edit: Added link (that I originally omitted)
Userlevel 1
For example, if someone changes the speed on their turntable, this will cause a pitch change in the music. I will be aware of this, but I will not cross the room to deal with it because I don't care. If the record is not flat or the hole is not exactly centered, there will be cyclic pitch changes (once per revolution). This drives me crazy and is one of the reasons why I have never enjoyed vinyl.
And this is a puzzle. In my experience off center is rampant, yet I don't recall any reviewers mentioning this. I guess this could have been the luck of the draw -- reviewers receive flat, well centered copies -- or perhaps reviewers have a higher threshold for "don't care" in this case.
I'd have to say I think it's your imagination, I've been listening to vinyl for 30 years and I've never heard that phenomenon or found vinyl with an off centre hole, in fact I don't see how it could even happen given the hole is created by the pressing process, which seems to make it impossible for it to be off centre.
Cheers,
Keith
Yep, opinions certainly vary, but I would agree on car audio differences are going to be harder to discern. On home audio even of mediocre quality I would beg to differ though.
MP3 was created to conserve space at a time when space was at a premium. Today it isn't. Why anyone would buy a file with missing information is beyond me. You can't get that info back by upsampling it either because it's just not there. I get the convenience of MP3, especially to transfer between portable audio devices, but as a main listening file....wouldn't be my first choice.
There is a difference between perceiving and caring about something.
For example, if someone changes the speed on their turntable, this will cause a pitch change in the music. I will be aware of this, but I will not cross the room to deal with it because I don't care. If the record is not flat or the hole is not exactly centered, there will be cyclic pitch changes (once per revolution). This drives me crazy and is one of the reasons why I have never enjoyed vinyl.
And this is a puzzle. In my experience off center is rampant, yet I don't recall any reviewers mentioning this. I guess this could have been the luck of the draw -- reviewers receive flat, well centered copies -- or perhaps reviewers have a higher threshold for "don't care" in this case.
For example, if someone changes the speed on their turntable, this will cause a pitch change in the music. I will be aware of this, but I will not cross the room to deal with it because I don't care. If the record is not flat or the hole is not exactly centered, there will be cyclic pitch changes (once per revolution). This drives me crazy and is one of the reasons why I have never enjoyed vinyl.
And this is a puzzle. In my experience off center is rampant, yet I don't recall any reviewers mentioning this. I guess this could have been the luck of the draw -- reviewers receive flat, well centered copies -- or perhaps reviewers have a higher threshold for "don't care" in this case.
Because, by definition, information does not equal audio.
For instance, I could apply a low-level background noise to a track which most people could not hear. They would not be able to tell the difference between that and the original track in blind testing, even on high-end equipment in acoustically isolated rooms.
That is information, but it is information that cannot be heard. It is a huge error to think that every piece of information or data in digital file formats is audible.
The whole point of lossy audio compression standards like MP3 is that they attempt to minimise the audible affects of the data loss. As the compression level is increased that becomes impossible to do without obvious audible changes, but as the compression levels decrease the differences become increasingly small. There will be a point at which, for a given track, even though a lot of the original "information" has been removed and the file size is smaller, the differences will be inaudible.
Opinions vary on where this point is but most tests suggest that at 320bit/s CBR, MP3s are mostly indistinguishable from the original uncompressed CD.
Cheers,
Keith
Userlevel 1
Well they're probably AAC for a start, today's codecs are an awful lot better than the original ones were but perhaps the main reason is because beyond a certain bitrate it really is very difficult to tell the difference.
I use 320Kbps mp3 in my car and in that environment (which isn't the best obviously) I can't tell any difference between that and 24-bit FLAC, never mind 16-bit FLAC.
Another data point on this subject in the linked article about Pono makes interesting reading:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html
The title is apt - The Emperor has no clothes.
Are you saying your MP3 downloads sound as good as your ripped cd's ? If so, how can that be since MP3 by definition doesn't include all the information.
BTW....if you still have those Spends, those are nice speakers but I think they would open up with some more current behind them.
I have found that my ECM albums bought on ITunes in 256kbps lossy files sound as good as my lossless CD rips - and better than some that aren't as well mastered.
Another data point on this subject in the linked article about Pono makes interesting reading:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html
The title is apt - The Emperor has no clothes.
Another data point on this subject in the linked article about Pono makes interesting reading:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html
The title is apt - The Emperor has no clothes.
You should go visit other forums if you want this.
That is quite impressive signalling discipline for features that are in response to requests. I am not sure who else does this - Sonos must be in rare company if not unique in this.
The Sonos response in the interview is the classic way of answering a question in corporate speak, where you don't want to put out anything definitive unless on one's terms.
So far, every new feature has gone from 'Under Consideration' to 'Planned' approximately 2 releases before coming to fruition. There has not been one feature that has changed from 'Not Planned' to 'Under Consideration' or 'Planned'.
Does Sonos signal new features via this route as a practice - where these have been requested of course.
The Sonos response in the interview is the classic way of answering a question in corporate speak, where you don't want to put out anything definitive unless on one's terms.
Userlevel 1
Yes that's what I thought but I couldn't be bothered with wrestling the Ask search function in order to find out.
What the status of the 24-bit requests over on ask.sonos.com? Not Planned or Under Consideration?
This will be my last post (notifications off). Thanks for all those who added constructive feedback!
Actually, the status is officially 'Not Planned', and has remained such for a few years. Until it changes, I imagine the_lhc's analysis to be more reality than any other.
I for one am quite open to hearing a fair comparison of these with Sonos on all important aspects on this thread, particularly with respect to multi room single source audio - in sync or different music in each room.
I am not that interested in SQ comparisons - I think that with Connect/Connect Amp, Sonos can be as good as anyone can want it to be.
Page 3 / 41
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.