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 4 / 41
This forum is for the discussion of possible future Sonos developments.
The criticism wasn't about an individual's perceptions -- which they're perfectly entitled to -- it was in response to the "just support the damn files already" imperative.
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.
+8
Actually gatie you're wrong. Logitech just released a new version for $1500.00 because of demand it be brought back. They also listened to their customers that complained about the pretty much worthless Trans-Nav controller on the front panel, they removed it, which brought the price down $500.00 at retail. http://www.logitech.com/en-us/speakers-audio/wireless-music-systems/devices/7934
Squeezebox did the high end unit thing with the Transporter. It was discontinued last year. Supposedly it never sold enough to justify its existence.
Agreed.
Personally, I cannot take anyone who claims the sonic benefits of hires are "obvious" seriously. That is simply not the case.
I'm still open minded about whether the differences are audible at all, or not but to claim they are "obvious" is simply incorrect. Even most hardened audiophiles will agree the differences are subtle and that you may require prolonged listening in a familiar environment (such as your own home) with familiar source material to detect the nuances.
If the differences were "obvious", they would have been proven beyond doubt by now in the many blind-listening studies that have been conducted. These studies have all been inconclusive (meaning statistically, no significant audio differences were detected by the study group).
And to those who think the the people on these forums who are sceptical of the benefits of hires are doing so only because we are defending Sonos, let me direct you to the following thread, on the Slimdevices forums, where despite having it as a capability on their platform, many of the regulars (at least one of whom is a professional studio Engineer) consider hires to be of dubious value.
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=88056
Cheers,
Keith
My comments (deliberately) weren't aimed at any one person or post. This is a very long thread but you don't have to go very far back to see that many comments within it do indeed question and criticise other people's perceptions and beliefs.
Which is quite healthy unless and until it becomes personal or bad tempered.
Which is quite healthy unless and until it becomes personal or bad tempered.
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.
ErikM,
I can't speak about the demand for such a product, but the original was probably priced wrong and offered to the wrong audience. LOGITECH specializes in fairly inexpensive mass audience products. I don't think that the typical LOGITECH customer would appreciate either version of the product. This product needs special handling.
I'm not saying that the product can't be successful, but LOGITECH will need to bring in some specialized marketing talent. The audiophile community requires stroking.
I can't speak about the demand for such a product, but the original was probably priced wrong and offered to the wrong audience. LOGITECH specializes in fairly inexpensive mass audience products. I don't think that the typical LOGITECH customer would appreciate either version of the product. This product needs special handling.
I'm not saying that the product can't be successful, but LOGITECH will need to bring in some specialized marketing talent. The audiophile community requires stroking.
Userlevel 2
As I explained thoroughly in another post in this thread - Blind ABX tests with human senses is simply bad science.
It is a proven fact that the human mind is incapable of comparing subtle differences in any of our senses. We just are not very good at using our senses to compare objects because we have to use our memory.
Blind tests, while good in some instances, are not necessarily a good indicator for subtle differences. The brain introduces bias, even in a blind test, add to it fatigue and nerve memory - and you've got a recipe for bad science.
A good example of this is comparing the heat within two buckets of water. One bucket is 82-degrees while the other is 86-degrees. I ask you to stick your hand in one of the buckets for 30 seconds. Then dry off and put it in the other. Do you think that you could determine which was hotter 100% of the time? More than likely, the answer is no. Our bodies and minds are simply not built for that type of comparison.
Our sight is the only sense that can reliably compare objects and that is through direct visual comparison. This is because it is the only type of testing that removes the element of memory. All other forms of sensory comparison, including non-direct visual comparison (objects with spacing between them), depend on a person's highly unreliable memory for sensory impressions. The more testing performed, the more the characteristics of the stimuli blur within the human mind.
When it comes to audible differences the brain's ability to remember sound is very poor. Probably among the worst of the senses. We can remember the overall sound, but humans tend to translate sound to feeling rather than remember the actual sonic profile.
If you want a truly scientific study rather than psuedo-science that is bound to prove the null hypothesis then I would set up a test that monitors brain activity and overall body reaction (blood pressure, breathing pattern, oxygen levels) of a listener when exposed to extensive listening of compressed vs non-compressed vs high resolution - both from a double blind and a non-blind test. I would be interested to see how the brain/body system reacts. *THAT* is pure science without the statistical variance imbued by the unreliability of human sensory memory.
Which is quite healthy unless and until it becomes personal or bad tempered.
Absolutely, and of course ad hominem attacks are not permitted.
However posts which point out the effect of bias and placebo; which highlight the science and controlled tests; which observe that hires content often sounds better simply due to more careful mastering; and which note that the HiFi industry is always keen to up-sell to the 'latest and greatest' are all valid arguments.
Unfortunately it seems that for true believers in hires it's a tenet of faith which no amount of evidence can dislodge. That's fine and they're entitled to their beliefs. In the opinion of many, however, hires is a distraction and Sonos have wisely ruled it out for now.
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'.
+8
As I'm sure you know Slim Devices was the original company that developed the SqueezeBox and then later the Transporter. Interestingly Slim Devices was founded fully two years before Sonos was! Anyway Slim Devices was always a tweaky audiophile/ computer geeky type company. Slim Devices actually did a great job marketing and selling the Transporter. In fact when the Transporter was released there was quite a backorder for it. Slim Devices got very successful with the Squeezebox products (including the Transporter) and Logitech offered to buy them for a whole bunch of $$$$ It really was Logitech that didn't quite know what to do with the Transporter since Logitech is really more a mass marketer.. From what I've read on various forums seems that when Logitech sort of stopped building the Transporter the faithful really complained, so Logitech decided to bring it back at a more competitive price by eliminating the pretty much redundant and expensive TransNav control on the front panel.
Userlevel 2
Personally, I cannot take anyone who claims the sonic benefits of hires are "obvious" seriously. That is simply not the case.
I'm still open minded about whether the differences are audible at all, or not but to claim they are "obvious" is simply incorrect. Even most hardened audiophiles will agree the differences are subtle and that you may require prolonged listening in a familiar environment (such as your own home) with familiar source material to detect the nuances.
I agree wholeheartedly. I think anyone saying it is obvious is simply blowing smoke.
At the end of the day, I am not even sure there is a perceptible difference.
I simply have tracks that *are* high resolution and I'd like to play then. Noticeable difference or not.
Arrrrggghh. I quoted the wrong post. I meant to hit the Ferrari one.
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.
As the OP, just like to let everyone know I've moved on...
When I'm not listening to music on my best equipment via a new Linn DS, I now stream all by 24 bit files from the DS via line level analog out into my Sonos system through the remainder of the house..
Yeh I know this is then "re converted back to digital"..whatever...
Sure beats down converting them and having 2 different bit copies in my library
I now pretty much only purchase 24 Bit tracks for adding to my collection. I do still listen to new 16 bit music, but I do this via Rhapsody
So enjoy the arguments everyone, but since the company didn't offer me a knew product I wanted to buy, I've simply shopped elsewhere...
Catch ya
Wap
When I'm not listening to music on my best equipment via a new Linn DS, I now stream all by 24 bit files from the DS via line level analog out into my Sonos system through the remainder of the house..
Yeh I know this is then "re converted back to digital"..whatever...
Sure beats down converting them and having 2 different bit copies in my library
I now pretty much only purchase 24 Bit tracks for adding to my collection. I do still listen to new 16 bit music, but I do this via Rhapsody
So enjoy the arguments everyone, but since the company didn't offer me a knew product I wanted to buy, I've simply shopped elsewhere...
Catch ya
Wap
gtyer,
I agree with you. I don't think blind ABX is the be all/end all/last word in proving whether A is better than B. But what I hope when one states that A is better than B is that they have taken some effort to eliminate personal biases and are giving each of the choices a fair test.
Most of the time, I don't feel this happens with regard to comparing music/audio/electronics. Doesn't have too much to do with science. State the opinion that A is better than B, then tell us what you did to come to that conclusion. If it is stated, "I did such and such to eliminate variables, I did so and so to eliminate biases. I matched gain on both signals so that Fletcher-Munson would be happy...." then I can warm up to these opinions. But when it is stated that "even my deaf grandfather/indifferent significant other could hear the difference, why can't you?" I just have to take issue with that.
You intrigue me with your ideas of testing with brain monitoring. Would still seem to be fraught with error/inconclusiveness and subject to interpretation. If you could recommend some further reading, I am all ears, (unbiased ears I might add);)
I agree with you. I don't think blind ABX is the be all/end all/last word in proving whether A is better than B. But what I hope when one states that A is better than B is that they have taken some effort to eliminate personal biases and are giving each of the choices a fair test.
Most of the time, I don't feel this happens with regard to comparing music/audio/electronics. Doesn't have too much to do with science. State the opinion that A is better than B, then tell us what you did to come to that conclusion. If it is stated, "I did such and such to eliminate variables, I did so and so to eliminate biases. I matched gain on both signals so that Fletcher-Munson would be happy...." then I can warm up to these opinions. But when it is stated that "even my deaf grandfather/indifferent significant other could hear the difference, why can't you?" I just have to take issue with that.
You intrigue me with your ideas of testing with brain monitoring. Would still seem to be fraught with error/inconclusiveness and subject to interpretation. If you could recommend some further reading, I am all ears, (unbiased ears I might add);)
Userlevel 2
+1 on this from me. I've got a bunch of (completely legal) concerts that encoded using 24 bit. I can play them on foobar, but not Sonos.
Seems silly to me (but then, I haven't read all 67 pages of this thread to see if there's a real technical limitation).
Would really like to avoid having to downsample a whole bunch of flac files.
You should go visit other forums if you want this.
When I'm not listening to music on my best equipment via a new Linn DS, I now stream all by 24 bit files from the DS via line level analog out into my Sonos system through the remainder of the house..
That sounds like a good, pragmatic solution to me.
Cheers,
Keith
Userlevel 2
To exclude inconclusiveness - one would have to test all subjects at rest. I would assume baselines for all subjects would be different, so one would have to determine average baselines and individual subject baselines. (for all testing parameters)
Once the baselines are established - I would set up listening sessions.
The primary bias I'd be worried that could be introduced is "personal" bias. Basically, how the individual is feeling on that day. I'm sure music affects each person based on their mood. Since this test would be to determine the effects to the body while listening to music - it might be difficult to separate.
At the end of the day, ABX tests for changes to sensory input is invalid science. Like I've said - it's hard for the human memory to process change in senses. In some of these cases, the changes would be miniscule - AT BEST. So, in order for an even half-way valid ABX test, the subject has to be intimately familiar with the subject (in this case, it would be song). The subject would have to be intimately familiar with the environment (in this case the room/speaker set up). Then test. But that's near impossible.
Anyone that says hi-res music is ridiculously audibly different is, in my opinion, full of it. In that case an ABX test would have a high success rate. But it's a minor difference, if any at all.
Science aside, I'd simply like Sonos to be able to handle my music library. And since a lot of my library is vinyl recorded by a friend on his over-the-top setup at 24/96 ... I'd enjoy being able to feed that through. So, my desire is purely based on wanting my playlist available and nothing to do with quality.
Seems silly to me (but then, I haven't read all 67 pages of this thread to see if there's a real technical limitation).
Would really like to avoid having to downsample a whole bunch of flac files.
There's a real technical limitation. More than one:
1) Bandwidth will be at the very least tripled over playing 16/44.1 FLAC files, never mind MP3.
2) Sonos is first and foremost a multi-room system, therefore the inability to sync the files with players which are not 24/96 capable is a problem.
In addition, the market for 24/96 is a niche of a niche, which according to all scientific theory and studies gives no benefit to the actual music quality heard, and may even introduce intermodulation distortion not present in 16/44.1 downsampled version. See: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Because of these factors (it is assumed), Sonos' official suggestion/support site currently lists the support of hires files as "Not Planned": Support high resolution files @ask.sonos
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.
Userlevel 2
Now that Apple are allegedly looking to provide 24-bit music via iTunes maybe someone at Sonos will finally realise the potential of this format.
I've been a party to lots of A/B showdowns and the results were mostly "my dog is better than your dog, period". No one wins and everyone goes home mad. Every once in a while there is wide agreement among panelists that one unit sounds better. I wish that I could put some science on that, but I can't. While we could agree which unit sounded better, we could not always agree on why it sounded better and that is troublesome.
I'm not so keen on the ABX box because many arrogantly accept that it is the only "neutral" box in existence. Why is that? If we can fabricate an ABX box that does not affect the sound quality, why can't we fabricate equipment that has this quality too? I my experience the ABX box obscures the differences between units. I've worked with units that obviously (sigh) sounded different and a particular unit sounded better to many panelists. After we connected the units through an A/B switcher, the difference between the units was not so obvious. I could put some science on this because one can measure and detect the existence of the ABX box, but we then would fall into a shouting match about how significant my measurement is to the overall outcome.
I think that the issue here is that the science is low precision, too many science types do not appreciate this, other science types will openly acknowledge this lack of precision, and the emotional types capitalize on this to discredit science and make wild claims about their infallible auditory abilities. Yet, these wild auditory ability claims can be embarrassed with very simple experiments.
It's a mess, but in the end my dog really is really better than your dog -- get over it.
I'm not so keen on the ABX box because many arrogantly accept that it is the only "neutral" box in existence. Why is that? If we can fabricate an ABX box that does not affect the sound quality, why can't we fabricate equipment that has this quality too? I my experience the ABX box obscures the differences between units. I've worked with units that obviously (sigh) sounded different and a particular unit sounded better to many panelists. After we connected the units through an A/B switcher, the difference between the units was not so obvious. I could put some science on this because one can measure and detect the existence of the ABX box, but we then would fall into a shouting match about how significant my measurement is to the overall outcome.
I think that the issue here is that the science is low precision, too many science types do not appreciate this, other science types will openly acknowledge this lack of precision, and the emotional types capitalize on this to discredit science and make wild claims about their infallible auditory abilities. Yet, these wild auditory ability claims can be embarrassed with very simple experiments.
It's a mess, but in the end my dog really is really better than your dog -- get over it.
Userlevel 2
Hello
As a long time Sonos user, I swing by this thread every once in a while. I have posted several times advocating that Sonos should support HiRes files.
It became apparent that wasn't about to happen, so a while ago I invested in a dedicated media renderer in my main system, which allows me to listen to HiRes files. I still use Sonos for the rest of the house - in fact I recently added a Play 5 to my son's room.
In case anyone is interested, I'll share my experiences with HiRes. I don't do blind testing, but I do level match and use AB switching. When I began these experiments my entire music collection consisted of lossless rips of my CDs. My expectation was that I would prefer HiRes files to these lossless files. These are my conclusions:
1. There was no consistent preference for HiRes over lossless (ALAC)
2. There was no consistent preference for lossless over AAC
3. There was no consistent preference for HiRes over AAC
I found that in my case, what mattered far more than the format was the mastering quality of the file. I cannot emphasise this enough. For me it has been a bit of a revelation. I now spend more time trying to establish the 'provenance' of specific releases and then buy the one which I think stands most chance of being well mastered. This does lead to me having bought several versions of tracks, but for sanity's sake I delete the non-preferred versions from the library once I've made a judgement.
This leads me onto another topic (hopefully I will be forgiven for going off-topic, but I think it is relevant). I'm sure most of you know all about the 'loudness wars'. I was aware of it but hadn't really thought through the consequences. Over the last few decades, mastering engineers have progressively applied more and more compression, increasing the apparent loudness of music. Each successive 're-master' almost invariably means a more compressed version. This means that it is very hard to find a version/release of an album that uses even a fraction of the dynamic range offered by 16-bits. To say that we need 24-bits is a sad joke I'm afraid. A well-mastered 16-bit version will have more dynamic range than a more compressed 24-bit version.
Sorry for going on, I'll sum up my findings:
1. If you want to experiment with HiRes audio, build yourself a dedicated renderer and allow it to co-exist with your Sonos system.
2. Don't get hung up on the format (sample-rate or bit-depth). Mastering quality is far more audible.
3. Dynamic range is one clue (not a guarantee) that a particular release has been sympathetically mastered.
Lastly, a request: Does anybody know of a website or database which rates different masterings? There's lots of information on the Steve Hoffman site, but it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.
As a long time Sonos user, I swing by this thread every once in a while. I have posted several times advocating that Sonos should support HiRes files.
It became apparent that wasn't about to happen, so a while ago I invested in a dedicated media renderer in my main system, which allows me to listen to HiRes files. I still use Sonos for the rest of the house - in fact I recently added a Play 5 to my son's room.
In case anyone is interested, I'll share my experiences with HiRes. I don't do blind testing, but I do level match and use AB switching. When I began these experiments my entire music collection consisted of lossless rips of my CDs. My expectation was that I would prefer HiRes files to these lossless files. These are my conclusions:
1. There was no consistent preference for HiRes over lossless (ALAC)
2. There was no consistent preference for lossless over AAC
3. There was no consistent preference for HiRes over AAC
I found that in my case, what mattered far more than the format was the mastering quality of the file. I cannot emphasise this enough. For me it has been a bit of a revelation. I now spend more time trying to establish the 'provenance' of specific releases and then buy the one which I think stands most chance of being well mastered. This does lead to me having bought several versions of tracks, but for sanity's sake I delete the non-preferred versions from the library once I've made a judgement.
This leads me onto another topic (hopefully I will be forgiven for going off-topic, but I think it is relevant). I'm sure most of you know all about the 'loudness wars'. I was aware of it but hadn't really thought through the consequences. Over the last few decades, mastering engineers have progressively applied more and more compression, increasing the apparent loudness of music. Each successive 're-master' almost invariably means a more compressed version. This means that it is very hard to find a version/release of an album that uses even a fraction of the dynamic range offered by 16-bits. To say that we need 24-bits is a sad joke I'm afraid. A well-mastered 16-bit version will have more dynamic range than a more compressed 24-bit version.
Sorry for going on, I'll sum up my findings:
1. If you want to experiment with HiRes audio, build yourself a dedicated renderer and allow it to co-exist with your Sonos system.
2. Don't get hung up on the format (sample-rate or bit-depth). Mastering quality is far more audible.
3. Dynamic range is one clue (not a guarantee) that a particular release has been sympathetically mastered.
Lastly, a request: Does anybody know of a website or database which rates different masterings? There's lots of information on the Steve Hoffman site, but it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Page 4 / 41
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.