Zp 24/96

Sonos isn't for everyone.

Not for the audiophools, certainly. :rolleyes:

Unless you bought it used, just take it back; no need for anyone else to be 'in the market'.

Sonos isn't for everyone.

If I transcode them once, then I need to have two different libraries, which is not easy to manage. It's so strange that they don't support this most basic of features that has been available for more than a decade even in open source.

They don't. You can complain about it like all the other whiners for the last seven years, or you can transcode them and get it over with.

And by the way, Bose, Samsung, and Denon don't support it either.

Now that bandwidth and storage isn't much of a concern...

... you can transcode them once and be done with it.

These are the people who were vocal, but that doesn't mean others don't care and nor does it mean that other potential customers don't care. I'm one more added to the list. The fact is that more and more content comes out each day by new artists and old.

I have albums from Linkin Park, Maroon 5, Mumford and Sons, and others. Now that bandwidth and storage isn't much of a concern, higher bit rate audio is going to be a bigger deal. The very least Sonos could do is recognize that it doesn't support a file and exclude it from the list. As it is now, you just get an error. It's very troubling when all the lower-tier devices support such files.

I for one was thinking of putting out a whole home audio system with sonos, but I can't with this lack of support.

How terrible they aren't willing to listen to the customer. There are about NINE HUNDRED posts on this topic on this thread alone. SONOS says to connect to your NAS but isn't willing to do what's been typical for well more than a decade and can be done open source, simple transcoding.

+1

I'm a new SONOS user and was shocked that these tracks don't work! I've been using 24/96 files with my 2002 v1 SlimDevices Squeezebox with no problems, yet the SONOS just won't play them at all.

I have tons of my music in varying bitrates in Apple Lossless Codec, and whether or not everyone thinks the improvement is worth it, people have the tracks and want to play them. I don't care in this setting if the music is downsampled or played at the proper bit rate, but it needs to play.

I have a big library of music, and it doesn't make sense to clone the tracks, and downsample them so I have duplicates everywhere.

Humans reached the apex of audio technology in 1980!

Not at all. In 1980 the world was just starting out (relatively speaking) into digital media. Since that time considerably advancements have been made in all sorts of areas, including knowledge of recording techniques, better media, and improved implementation of the electronics involved in all stages.

There is no doubt that many of the original digital recordings of the 1980s were... crap.

But the formats chosen back then were chosen for a reason and those reasons still hold. The equipment of the day wasn't always up to properly using these fomats, and it many of the early recordings were clumsily produced in a lot of cases because the recording studio technicians of the time didn't really understand how to use digital media (there are some significant and important differences between digital and analogue recording that still aren't common knowledge today).

But the formats were, contrary to Neil Young's opinion, well chosen (Neil Young, by the way, may be a great musician, but he knows less about digital audio formats than my pet cat).The Engineers of the day knew that one day we would be able to take full advantage of the redbook format, and that day is here, now (and has been for over a decade).

So, digital audio music production has improved significantly in the last 30 years, but has been due to other factors other than the format. If we are still being held back, then it's not the format that is doing it.

Cheers,

Keith

It will allow people that insist on HD music purchases to at least play these in the Sonos environment without affecting the installed base in any way. The HD crowd will then also get the full benefit of any superior mastering used for the HD versions, out of the box.
If existing CPU capability was not a constraint, this could be even done for existing kit with a software update - that would be very cool.
Seems to me that it would be a simpler task than the wifi addition that is on its way - I see a lot of complications there to make it work side by side with Sonosnet.
And both changes would be in the same marketing "check the missing box to stop the noise" category.

What if an audiophile were to say this:
Quote
Listening to music is a subjective personal experience, and I find that mine is enhanced by non auditory aspects as well. Things such as the looks, the interface quality and control flexibility, visible build quality and the like, among others and these would not be captured in a test that is restricted to auditory aspects only.
The associated cost/benefit assessments for these aspects is also very subjective and therefore:
YMMV
Unquote
A possible bridge across the chasm?:)
As one can be built by Sonos for 24/96 too, if they choose to based on their assessment of the business case. Do the downsampling on the fly inside a Sonos HD ready player, and use the down sampled file for all streaming and replay including from that player. Doing this ought to be possible with the same DAC? It will allow people that insist on HD music purchases to at least play these in the Sonos environment without affecting the installed base in any way. The HD crowd will then also get the full benefit of any superior mastering used for the HD versions, out of the box.

tiny quibble with this. The shape of a wine glass can have an important impact on the taste of the wine (in particular the smell, etc., all of which matters in the brain's interpretation of taste).
Of course - it isn't the perfect analogy and some things about the glasses are scientific - as in a flute to minimise bubble dispersion. But the large part appeals to organs other than those of smell or taste, and to the effects of myth and lore. My wine drinking is improved by holding the glass to the light to see the colour of the wine, if it is a red, so I would not drink it in a beer mug - is there something in that and my thinking about the audio subject that is at odds?:)

The Commander, Capt. Dick Winters, replied "We're paratroopers, Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded."
Indeed. BoB of course benefited from the advances in movie making over the decades. I also recall Dick Winters saying somewhere in the book/series about wanting to have nothing to do with war again and spending the rest of his life running a farm, and he did exactly that I think.
On the audiophile subject, I wonder why audiophiles don't just come out and say that the subjective listening experience is more than just the input from the ears. In my case I know that listening to the valve amp was the most pleasurable of all the kit I have had, particularly late at night with six glowing tubes conferring a liquid warmth to the sound. Never mind that a DBT would not have supported it. One reason I sold it is because in a place like India you don't want any more heat creating things in the room than the minimum, and leaving the amp in standby 24/7 was out of the question.
The trouble starts when audiophiles maintain that there is more to it than psychoacoustics. Why be so defensive about this?
There are many other good examples to support them. A good wine deserves a decent wine glass - not because it does anything to how it tastes that will be supported in blind testing. Gourmet food is as much about how it looks as how it tastes - even though the eyes aren't a taste organ.

the scene in the movie Patton when George C. Scott views the oncoming German Afrika Korps through his field binoculars. [/i][/b]
This wasn't on my mind at all, but I know the scene well. I see the movie about once every two years or so even now. My favourite part is the drive to relieve Bastogne.