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 30 / 41
Yes. Stop.
It's not planned. They're not doing it. It doesn't matter why.
Either transcode the files to 16/44 -- and that is where the inaudibility applies, whether you like it or not -- or begin migrating to a system that can play these alleged hi-rez files. One of those options is practical and fairly inexpensive. The other, drastic and expensive.
Just stop whining about it.
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
No it's not. Those formats require up to 6 times the per-stream bandwidth of 16/44. SonosNet wasn't built to accommodate it.
Why should Sonos break their existing architecture just to service the needs of those reluctant to transcode once at the point of storage, and who instead insist that Sonos carts huge files around and downconverts them every time they're played.
It makes no sense, and Sonos have thankfully drawn a line under the matter.
Oooooh, somebody saw the Denon thread, where it was revealed they don't support hires! And by the way, I've fully admitted my hearing is deteriorated due to attendance at punk shows in my youth. That's why I rely on science to tell me reality, because I really don't "trust my ears".
I think this thread should be a sticky. All the controversy in one place, duly highlighted by that action.
It will also prevent other threads on the subject from being written.
It will also prevent other threads on the subject from being written.
It doesn't really need to be. True believers have probably subscribed to the thread anyhow.
We rarely get anyone raising the issue afresh on a new thread. Most go and vent on the "not planned" request thread at ask.sonos.
Monty Montgomery responds to someone who doesn't quite agree:
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/63490.html
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/63490.html
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/63490.html
Funny stuff, and yet so typical of the drivel on many audiophile forums.
The crux of it for me is this:
" But if the CD really does capture the expressible playback range, and I argue it does, what point is there in simply adding more numbers? It's just bigger. And maybe it's fun, because shiny toys. But it's not technically better."
This is the bit the audiophiles hate, because they love their shiny toys above everything else, including reason, rationality, Science, Engineering, established facts, and their wallets!
Cheers,
Keith
" But if the CD really does capture the expressible playback range, and I argue it does, what point is there in simply adding more numbers? It's just bigger. And maybe it's fun, because shiny toys. But it's not technically better."
This is the bit the audiophiles hate, because they love their shiny toys above everything else, including reason, rationality, Science, Engineering, established facts, and their wallets!
Cheers,
Keith
It would be more accurate to say not audibly better. Because technically it is better. Except in some cases where it has been shown to be technically worse.
There is similar going on in every hobby, and it seems to be a male preserve.
Photography for instance. But there is one essential difference - one uses a camera to take pictures, and picture taking needs constant interaction with the camera. Ergonomic improvements can go a long way to enhance the pleasure of picture taking, leading to more picture taking, and sometimes then, to better pictures. I recently used two modern cameras, each as good as the other technically. But one is simply a joy to take pictures with, the other isn't as involving. Which one would be used more, and probably take better pictures as a result - easy to guess.
Even things like smartphones are in the same category, although the various things they do are of dubious use, IMO.
But the audiophile equipment hobby is almost unique, in that the equipment just sits there, delivering music. Not much call to interface with it frequently - functionally, it may as well be out of sight. I suspect that makes it a more frustrating hobby than many others. And more of a mystery.
One sees some signs of the frequent interfacing here as well, witness all the hoopla over the new controller, for example.
No, that's the whole point. If all that's needed to accurately reproduce the humanly-audible analog waveform is to sample it at 16/44.1, then anything higher/deeper/whatever than that is just a waste of resources for enduser playback.
Not technically better. Actually, (and definitionally) worse.
'HiRes' delivers no better music audio than 'StdRes' but it does so at a larger file-size, requires more bandwidth & processing, and stresses wireless transmission systems to failure.
You are falling into the "bigger must be better" trap.
Sometimes bigger is just less efficient (in multiple ways).
Best of Luck
It may just be semantics - I agree about the waste of resources. And that the better isn't audible. All I saying is that from a purely engineering perspective, it may measure to be better.
'HiRes' delivers no better music audio than 'StdRes' but it does so at a larger file-size, requires more bandwidth & processing, and stresses wireless transmission systems to failure.
You are falling into the "bigger must be better" trap.
See above. It depends on how you define "better". And to repeat what I have said elsewhere - I find well mastered 256kbps I tunes purchases to be excellent in a resolving system, using the Connect wired to a middle to high end external DAC. I no longer buy CDs just to be able to get lossless rips from them. It would cost me ten times as much, and the technically better here would be meaningless for me.
I think you are confusing "higher specification" with "better".
From an Engineering point of view, a solution which fits the requirement, in the most efficient way, would be considered "best".
A solution which included unnecessary padding would be considered "inefficient" and, therefore, not "better" than a solution which met the requirement more efficiently (all other things being equal).
If that inefficiency also could cause unwanted side-effects which detracted from the ability to deliver the original requirement, then it definitely wouldn't be considered "better".
You see, most real Engineers aren't only concerned with raw specifications. They are concerned with solving problems in ways that are functional, technically efficient, cost-effective, and deliverable.
Also, there is more to Engineering than understanding a bit about the technology. Real Engineering is a specialist form of Applied Science, and follows much of the same Scientific principles.
Most audiophiles (and most recording studio "engineers" and producers) aren't Engineers. They may understand some of the technology, but they chase specifications, and that is not what a real Engineer would do.
So, in terms of specifications, yes hires has bigger numbers, but that is meaningless in an Engineering sense given the application. It might be useful if you are playing Top Trumps or boasting about the size of your (ahem) "hardware" to others, but not if you are listening to music.
Cheers,
Keith
From an Engineering point of view, a solution which fits the requirement, in the most efficient way, would be considered "best".
A solution which included unnecessary padding would be considered "inefficient" and, therefore, not "better" than a solution which met the requirement more efficiently (all other things being equal).
If that inefficiency also could cause unwanted side-effects which detracted from the ability to deliver the original requirement, then it definitely wouldn't be considered "better".
You see, most real Engineers aren't only concerned with raw specifications. They are concerned with solving problems in ways that are functional, technically efficient, cost-effective, and deliverable.
Also, there is more to Engineering than understanding a bit about the technology. Real Engineering is a specialist form of Applied Science, and follows much of the same Scientific principles.
Most audiophiles (and most recording studio "engineers" and producers) aren't Engineers. They may understand some of the technology, but they chase specifications, and that is not what a real Engineer would do.
So, in terms of specifications, yes hires has bigger numbers, but that is meaningless in an Engineering sense given the application. It might be useful if you are playing Top Trumps or boasting about the size of your (ahem) "hardware" to others, but not if you are listening to music.
Cheers,
Keith
Most audiophiles (and most recording studio "engineers" and producers) aren't Engineers. They may understand some of the technology, but they chase specifications, and that is not what a real Engineer would do.
I would throw in almost every reviewer in that category, more so the ones that have pages of colourful charts that demonstrate the better numbers, while not alluding to any actual well conducted listening comparison test.
The word " real" is interesting. Now, it is one thing to say that someone with an engineering education selling the common snake oil isn't a real Engineer.
But would you extend it to the ones developing newer DAC chipsets? I am not sure if it is even in their brief to measure their output performance via a double blind AB test with precision level matching, to validate their advance. I am not saying this is right or good, just pointing out the probable situation.
And there are lots of engineers involved in developing lots of new products that don't fit the description you use of a real Engineer. Actually, I would venture to say that a small percentage of all the engineers in the world do.
Ah, you may be thinking of the infamous 'stairstep' diagram showing how 44.1kHz sampling can surely yield only a crude approximation of the original band-limited analog waveform ... thereby at a stroke demonstrating that the reviewer hasn't even a basic understanding of digital audio.
Or a basic understanding of how the human brain works either. The words I have heard used for that step effect is that the soul of the music resides between the 0s and 1s, and is lost in digital audio, which is therefore soulless. My response to this usually is to ask how come one is able to enjoy the video experience - it is just a rapid succession of still frames after all, not analog as in real life. Is real life also analog anyway - good old wave v particle thing there...
But I am also referring to the many other fancy charts for things like jitter, noise floor, distortion etc. where at the end of the day the question is if the improved performance of all these is now beyond the range of audible hearing, what difference does it make?
Userlevel 1
You're still missing the point, the point about the "step effect" is that it doesn't exist at all, as digital audio simply does not create a stepped approximation waveform of the type often shown by those trying to show how much "better" 24-bit music must be. It's not that the effect is "inaudible", it's that it's complete and utter nonsense.
Quite possible, I am not an engineer. The way I conceptualise digital audio for myself is if that if there are enough 0s and 1s of information the resultant of these is seamless enough for my brain to not notice the gaps. Works for me, even while it may be wrong too.
PS: allow me a stab at it though - the speakers still need analog signals to work. The more the 0s and 1s, the more the information content and the closer the signal to the recorded analog sound, and therefore more hifi. Once past a certain amount of information, more fi doesn't matter, because it can't be audibly heard.
How about that?:-)
Don't worry, this is a very common misconception. The point is that it's not only "seamless enough for your brain": It's absolutely (read: not 99,9999999999999%, but 100%) seamless.
Got it:). Does my PS above reflect it better?!
With so much noise on this thread, I am sure the OP won't mind this digression:
Can some one post a brief description of what a DAC does, at it simplest? I can see the video analogy is faulty, but it would be good to have it replaced by something else.
Can some one post a brief description of what a DAC does, at it simplest? I can see the video analogy is faulty, but it would be good to have it replaced by something else.
You could go here and watch Monty Montgomery's videos. He goes through material pretty quickly so you might need to pause/rewind/replay.
Userlevel 1
NO! You're still thinking that there are gaps, there aren't! A 16-bit 44kHz audio file will PERFECTLY reproduce any analogue signal up to 22kHz, not very nearly perfectly, PERFECTLY!
THERE. ARE. NO. GAPS.
THERE. ARE. NO. GAPS.
Hmm, notwithstanding the shouting, I still have a question.
Quote:
Digital Filter - Fills in the Blanks
The digital filter is the computer algorithm that looks at the digital audio in the past, and the digital audio in the future and tries to figure out what was going on with the music, and tries to shape the final analog output to match as closely as possible that original waveform, now missing for ever.
Unquote
What I understand from this is that even the 16/44 file will have gaps that will have to filled in by the DAC to give a step less analog output, that matches as closely as possible the analog signal recorded, before it was digitised.
It follows from this that a 256kbps file will have more gaps and something will have to do the work of trying to figure out what these larger gaps are so that a step less analog signal can be produced.
It also follows that more content than a 16/44 file will have smaller gaps to be filled, but the result will still be an approximation of the original wave form.
I also understand that the approximation from the 16/44 information content is good enough to audibly sound the same as the original analog wave form.
Question: whats wrong with the above?
Page 30 / 41
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.