Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
Page 6 / 41
:rolleyes: :D
The competition may support 24/96, but nobody is stomping all over Sonos, sorry. The whole 24/96 market is a bit of a non-starter. In fact, try to get lossless CD-audio online, and you are already in a dead end for most music. Content is king.
I think that qualifies as anecdote, and says nothing about the Hi-Rez market in general.
I appreciate that 24/96 is very very important to the audiophile community, but in the larger picture it is not very significant. In terms of year over year growth since inception, I can't think of any company in the audio industry that comes close to SONOS.
If anything, from an audiophile perspective, the bulk of online music is sounding worse and worse as we add rather nasty compression to make the music sound "better" to the iPod generation. As a result, we are selling more online music than ever.
I don't think that the tumbleweeds are stalking SONOS, they are stalking the regular audio companies that don't understand networks.
---
I wish that the audiophile community could pull more weight, but we are too small -- that's the reality. SONOS has raised more venture capital than the probable lifetime cumulative sales of many audiophile targeted companies. SONOS has big plans and the marketing and technical skills to realize their goal.
Due to the increased bandwidth requirements of 24/96, something needs to change. We'll need to lower our expectation from 32 zones and overall system robustness or move to a different technology that offers wider bandwidth. None of this seems very compatible with current SONOS systems. When SONOS has enough financial and market strength, they can afford to take on 24/96. I think SONOS will get to 24/96 at some point, but for the short term I think that 24/96 would be a distraction.
I wonder how many current SONOS users would replace or augment their current system for 24/96 compared to the number who would move on a SONOS video system. Bean counters want to know.
If anything, from an audiophile perspective, the bulk of online music is sounding worse and worse as we add rather nasty compression to make the music sound "better" to the iPod generation. As a result, we are selling more online music than ever.
I don't think that the tumbleweeds are stalking SONOS, they are stalking the regular audio companies that don't understand networks.
---
I wish that the audiophile community could pull more weight, but we are too small -- that's the reality. SONOS has raised more venture capital than the probable lifetime cumulative sales of many audiophile targeted companies. SONOS has big plans and the marketing and technical skills to realize their goal.
Due to the increased bandwidth requirements of 24/96, something needs to change. We'll need to lower our expectation from 32 zones and overall system robustness or move to a different technology that offers wider bandwidth. None of this seems very compatible with current SONOS systems. When SONOS has enough financial and market strength, they can afford to take on 24/96. I think SONOS will get to 24/96 at some point, but for the short term I think that 24/96 would be a distraction.
I wonder how many current SONOS users would replace or augment their current system for 24/96 compared to the number who would move on a SONOS video system. Bean counters want to know.
I augmented my Sonos with a PS Audio PerfectWave Dac with the new Bridge.. I can now stream my Hi Rez files, and control everything with my Ipod Touch.. And Hi Rez just blows redbook away.. I would have really liked to have spent the not insignificant money on a Sonos player that would have done Hi Rez but...FYI the Bridge also sounds better than my Cullen modified ZP90... Frankly I don't think high end audio is where Sonos wants to be, and that's really not a bad thing since it's a very small part of the market.
Since Sonos has a new contest on facebook, I decided to start a 24/96 Sonos topic on facebook. Hopefully we can demonstrate a larger community.
For completeness: No hi-Rez please: develop more useful functionality
I love Sonos, but if they don't let us know soon whether they're going hi-rez, I'm gone. It's frustrating to download hi-rez music and then have to make a lo-rez copy to play on Sonos. If only they would just announce publicly what they plan to do, it would be nice. A lady on their phone line told me that they "might" eventually do it if the market demands it, but that is simply anecdotal. Just let us know, Sonos!
Unless the answer is a definitive "yes we have something in active development", then there is no sensible answer to give.
I'll point out that it's crazy to suggest that they should give an answer under any other circumstances, as any other answer would be subject to change, and would be pretty meaningless.
The answer you got from that lady sounds like a very sensible answer to me, and is about the best you can reasonably expect to get until such time as they develop this capability (if they ever do).
Cheers,
Keith
Erik. I'm real interested in what you have done here with the PS Audio Perfect Wave Dac.
So my questions to you Eric
1/ How much better is the sound than the modded Cullen C ZP90? (I have one of these as well)
2/ Are you streaming straight from the itunes library? This is where I store all my tracks, because as you'all know Sonos works so well with scanning itunes libraries (well the 16/44 tracks that is :rolleyes:)
3/ What bit rate and freq files have you tried? Any up to 24/192?
4/ Do you use "Native" mode when streaming these hidef files? If so is this theoretically better and why?
5/ Do you still run your CC ZP90 into the PS Audio DAC, or have you ditched it in that room as a music source?
6/ Since The PS bridge is uPnP. Is there any way of linking in the PSAudio DAC to actually make it a true Sonos Zone? That is through the tagnplay app? I know you can link what is playing on the PS Audio bridge to a Sonos Zone, but can you go the other way...that is "throw" a track you have been playing in another Sonos zone onto the PS bridge? And just how seamless do these two platforms work together?
I know various moderators (Buzz and Majik) may not be too keen on me asking these questions. But guy's..please accept this post. I've been a real "salesman" for the Sonos product! Trust me dozens of my friends have gone out and bought your gear since they have seen my 9 zone setup. I praise the product on other forums, till everyone is sick to death of me. I continue to "add" Sonos gear to my house. Only last month I bought the ipod doc (for a party) and gee did that thing make the party!!! I'll probaly get a Sonos portable player soon. And if there were some Sonos "headphones" I'd buy some in a flash. I Luvvvv Sonos!
But a high rez player? It's my missing link. It's not that Sonos has had enough time already since my OP to get 24/96 happening! (and I filled out their online Q/market research....when was that? Heck must have been well over 18 months now...)
I've been real patient. My OP was OVER 3 YEARS ago now!
I mean sodd it. It really is about time they did at LEAST 24/96 🙂
Keith et al this is crp. It's now getting embarrassing, and you know it! You guys can no longer justify Sonos's approach to this...
It's about time you and other respected members of this forum acknowledged this is a big deficit in their product lineup right now.
Airplay now supports 24/96 into the new B/W Zepplin. Real Hi fi is coming (See new Classe preamp product which supports airplay)Squeezbox now has a new touch zone player with 24/96
Linn, Naim, PS audio, Cambridge Audio, Arcam..the list now goes on and on, and on....and is growing EVERY day..
Come on Sonos! Cut the stalling crp. Surely there are quite a few high net worth multizone Sonos customers out there (demonstrating a desire to up the spend on audio) with at least ONE decent hifi zone which would benefit from a 24/96 zone player..
I'm about to blow 4K on a Linn DS in shear frustration. That give you some idea of the money I'm prepared to fork out for this function?
Lack of 24/96 support for loyal Sonos customers is now outrageous IMHO. Sonos owe's it to their loyal customers to tell them what the heck is going on....
If somebody wants to email me privately that's fine. I won't blab. Anything to stop me spending 4K with another competitors product 🙂
It's about time you and other respected members of this forum acknowledged this is a big deficit in their product lineup right now.
Airplay now supports 24/96 into the new B/W Zepplin. Real Hi fi is coming (See new Classe preamp product which supports airplay)Squeezbox now has a new touch zone player with 24/96
Linn, Naim, PS audio, Cambridge Audio, Arcam..the list now goes on and on, and on....and is growing EVERY day..
Come on Sonos! Cut the stalling crp. Surely there are quite a few high net worth multizone Sonos customers out there (demonstrating a desire to up the spend on audio) with at least ONE decent hifi zone which would benefit from a 24/96 zone player..
I'm about to blow 4K on a Linn DS in shear frustration. That give you some idea of the money I'm prepared to fork out for this function?
Lack of 24/96 support for loyal Sonos customers is now outrageous IMHO. Sonos owe's it to their loyal customers to tell them what the heck is going on....
If somebody wants to email me privately that's fine. I won't blab. Anything to stop me spending 4K with another competitors product 🙂
It's about time you and other respected members of this forum acknowledged this is a big deficit in their product lineup right now.
What is embarrassing is the continual bleating on about this particular feature from some people. What is embarrassing is the claim that this is a mainstream requirement amongst consumers. I have news for you: it's not!
We understand you want this. You've made that perfectly clear, but there are other capabilities out there that people want, and some of them are more requested and are useful to more people than this. An example is the 65k track limit which potentially impacts far more people than hires.
Hires music is still only applicable or useful to a very small subset of consumers (albiet a noisy and demanding one). The number of places you can purchase hires music is tiny, the amount of good material in the format is minuscule, and the number of consumers who have equipment and environment to be able to resolve the (at best) subtle differences between formats is negligible.
What else is embarrassing is that you seem to think that airplay into a B&W Zep will resolve the differences in hires files and make them audible.
I have said many times I am in favour of hires for a number of reasons: mainly it's a good marketing feature (even though it's probably irrelevant to the majority of users). It also would allow users access to the normally vastly superior mastering that is on the hires versions without having to downsample to standard resolution.
It is, however, niche as a market and of dubious merit in practice (there is little real evidence that it is beneficial even amongst "golden eared" audiophiles with high-end systems). These are good enough reasons for a Product Development Director to de-prioritise it compared to other features.
This has all been explained before. And, yes, it embarrassing is that you don't seem to understand these simple concepts that have been explained to you many times.
Cheers,
Keith
The only trouble I have with this statement is that it kind of implies that Sonos can only work on one thing at once. I know that isn't what you were saying Keith but it does kind of give that impression. It certainly shouldn't be the case as far as these two features are concerned. I'd expect the 65k limit to be a software issue, whereas I'd imagine 24-bit support would be largely a hardware development and therefore the two should handled by different departments in Sonos' development team.
As usual whenever I say anything here though I expect I'll be proven entirely wrong! :D
For the record though I do have 24-bit music sitting on my laptop and it's frustrating that I can't play it through my Sonos system. I haven't yet bought anything else to handle it (I might end up with a USB equipped DAC to plug the laptop into, which I can also use with my ZP90) but I won't wait forever and frankly I don't really care whether my system can resolve the finest details of the recording or not, I just want to listen to the music!
So use Media Monkey and convert it. Problem solved. :rolleyes:
Certainly not one thing at once, but they will have limited resources available for development (as is the case for every IT development house, including giants like Google and Microsoft).
It certainly shouldn't be the case as far as these two features are concerned. I'd expect the 65k limit to be a software issue, whereas I'd imagine 24-bit support would be largely a hardware development and therefore the two should handled by different departments in Sonos' development team.
I don't think it's as simple as that. i would actually suggest the 65K limit might not be solved entirely by software (depending, of course, on the solution). It seems the main limitation is caused by the size of the RAM in the Sonos zoneplayers. One possible solution could be a hardware addon which acts as an indexer.
And, arguably, the current Sonos hardware is already 24-bit capable. This is speaking nominally of course. There are likely to be system constraints we aren't aware of which may dictate new hardware. In any case, a lot of the work will be software support in the form of codec development.
In general any hardware developments require some sort of software activity. Even "hidden" changes like changing some internal components can require software support.
For the record though I do have 24-bit music sitting on my laptop and it's frustrating that I can't play it through my Sonos system.
... I don't really care whether my system can resolve the finest details of the recording or not, I just want to listen to the music!
As suggested by jgatie, use sox or dbPoweramp or something to downconvert it to standard res.
The evidence is that the main benefits of the hires files are almost wholly down to the better care taken in mastering the hires versions. There are studies which show that, for the majority of people, if hires files are properly converted to standard res, the audible differences between them range from negligible to undetectable.
This thread from the slimdevice forums may prove interesting. Note that some of the SB range supports hires natively and the owners of this system have every reason to extol the virtues of the format as a differentiator over Sonos. Despite this many of the more experienced and knowledgeable members (including at least one who has a professional recording studio background) dismiss many of the benefits. In most of the cases where people claim to hear a difference, it's down to the fact they are comparing versions which have been mastered differently.
So, my advice is to convert the music to standard res using a good conversion tool, and enjoy the enhanced quality that the better master gives you. If your system isn't that resolving then it will sound identical to the hires version. Unless you have a super-high-end system, the chances are you couldn't tell the difference between the hires and standard format.
Cheers,
Keith
Hi Keith.
Nobody is suggesting someone like me with 9 zones, wants to go out and replace EVERY zone with a 24/96 player.
Therefore I can't see how the extra bandwidth or other restraints to get 24/96 files playing is an issue.
I really can't
But I have good gear in one or two rooms. THAT is where I want a better zone player.
I put it to you that the majority of customers who have spent near on 10K on a Sonos system and associated bits are going to have ONE or TWO Zones with some reasonable listening gear in them.
And these customers would buy a 24/96 player. And even if only 10% of customers would fit in this category, that is STILL a lot of customers. Customers who don't have to be "sold" the Sonos way. It's a bloody no brainer.
It's ALSO a no brainer that a good company looks after it's best customer's IST . Lesson ONE, TWO and THREE. Even if it is to stop churn to other products. Because these customers were the first to jump on board the product and will be the first to leave.
As for the argument that nobody cares about better quality downloads, this is also crp
There are now several 24/96 vendors now, with large labels behind them. More will come.
Sonos is sold in HIFI shops for goodness sake. NOT in the Best Buy's of this world
It's a HIFI product. And continuing to argue against improving it's sonic capabilities is nigh on ridiculous.
People can HAVE there 65K crappy mp3 tracks/ 100K crappy tracks. Who gives a....since when was quantity better than quality?
When was this EVER an issue in ANY products other than McDonalds, or Coke.
If Sonos wants to be a "Mcdonalds" they are doomed to failure. Other tech companies (we all know who they are) will kill them off. Sonos is a NICHE product and therefore it is in their best interest to look after people who want to buy NICHE products.
I'm doing my head in if people can't see this argument
Now the final test would be for people like you Keith. Can you honestly tell me if there was a 24/96 capable Sonos player in your local shop. Sitting there. That you wouldn't be tempted to buy it and give it ago. Even if it's price margin was a bit more?
Yeh....there you go. 🙂
Nobody is suggesting someone like me with 9 zones, wants to go out and replace EVERY zone with a 24/96 player.
Therefore I can't see how the extra bandwidth or other restraints to get 24/96 files playing is an issue.
I really can't
But I have good gear in one or two rooms. THAT is where I want a better zone player.
I put it to you that the majority of customers who have spent near on 10K on a Sonos system and associated bits are going to have ONE or TWO Zones with some reasonable listening gear in them.
And these customers would buy a 24/96 player. And even if only 10% of customers would fit in this category, that is STILL a lot of customers. Customers who don't have to be "sold" the Sonos way. It's a bloody no brainer.
It's ALSO a no brainer that a good company looks after it's best customer's IST . Lesson ONE, TWO and THREE. Even if it is to stop churn to other products. Because these customers were the first to jump on board the product and will be the first to leave.
As for the argument that nobody cares about better quality downloads, this is also crp
There are now several 24/96 vendors now, with large labels behind them. More will come.
Sonos is sold in HIFI shops for goodness sake. NOT in the Best Buy's of this world
It's a HIFI product. And continuing to argue against improving it's sonic capabilities is nigh on ridiculous.
People can HAVE there 65K crappy mp3 tracks/ 100K crappy tracks. Who gives a....since when was quantity better than quality?
When was this EVER an issue in ANY products other than McDonalds, or Coke.
If Sonos wants to be a "Mcdonalds" they are doomed to failure. Other tech companies (we all know who they are) will kill them off. Sonos is a NICHE product and therefore it is in their best interest to look after people who want to buy NICHE products.
I'm doing my head in if people can't see this argument
Now the final test would be for people like you Keith. Can you honestly tell me if there was a 24/96 capable Sonos player in your local shop. Sitting there. That you wouldn't be tempted to buy it and give it ago. Even if it's price margin was a bit more?
Yeh....there you go. 🙂
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&id=pcat17071&type=page&ks=960&st=Sonos_Products&sc=Global&cp=1&sp=&qp=crootcategoryid~~cabcat0200000~~ncabcat0202000&list=y&usc=All+Categories&nrp=15&searchresults=1&searchterm=Sonos
http://www.bestbuy.co.uk/Catalog/Browse.aspx?Path=ccatdepartments_-1_-1~~ccataud_0_1tb~~ccataud011_0_m~~nf146--536f6e6f73&SearchKeyword=&ResultPageNumber=0&CategoryId=&SortBy=&SearchType=AttributeFacet&SearchResultsLayout=ListLayout&NumberOfResultsPerPage=12
Silly me
I should have known!!!!!
Go for it Sonos. Dumb your product down....
Classic retailing mistake.
Lots of low margin sales...
Yippee! You beauty.
Go try fight against all the other electronic rubbish that lasts 2 weeks and people don't actually need...
See where that gets you in the long run...
I should have known!!!!!
Go for it Sonos. Dumb your product down....
Classic retailing mistake.
Lots of low margin sales...
Yippee! You beauty.
Go try fight against all the other electronic rubbish that lasts 2 weeks and people don't actually need...
See where that gets you in the long run...
Can't speak for Keith, but I wouldn't buy one. I also don't buy Monster cables, cocobolo wood isolators or special green markers.
Come on. This is a nonsense statement. Comparing A->D conversion of the original master recording at 16/44 vs 24/96, to 'Monster cable' or 'snake oil' or other hifi witchcraft or whatever is just plain silly.
Not at all. In my eyes it's the same sort of snake oil (and the fact that you see hires into a B&W Zeppelin as something Sonos should compete aginst shows you've bought it hook-line-and sinker).
The primary reason hires sound better than standard res releases of the main material is because they come from better masters. When people listen to hires releases and compare them with the CD quality releases, they are being conned. They are not equivalent. The industry is feeding gullible audiophiles so much snake oil that it's difficult to see the reality of the situation.
If you believe in facts and reality, the reasons to go hires start to fade away.
If you believe in the power of marketing and how easily people with a particular belief system can be misled by stoking that belief, there's good reasons for Sonos to consider hires. The problem is the industry is driven largely by con-men (aka. marketeers) who will quite happily artificially degrade music and then sell you a "premium" priced version claiming that the difference is the additional resolution when the reality is the difference is the version they sold you before isn't as good as it could be.
This is no different from Intel selling Pentium processors off the same production line at different prices because they've deliberately clocked the cheaper processors down to make them slower, in order to create a price premium for the faster processors. The same thing happens in music.
The trouble is we are missing the middle ground which is where the real benefits lie but which is where the music industry hasn't worked out how to milk us: lossless downloads at standard res. The problem is the world has got used to CD and then MP3. People will pay for MP3 (and equiv) lossy downloads for the convenience of it, but won't pay a premium for the CD lossless version as a download because it looks uncompetitive against the CD (because, fundamentally, it is), so the music industry needs a "premiium" product they can sell which is better than iTunes downloads, but is also better than CD, so they can charge a premium for it. As there are mugs who will buy and enjoy music almost wholly based on the technical characteristics of the product than the actually quality of the product, why not target products at them.
Luckily these people are a niche simply because there is a price point entry to this. Any audiophile worth the name (even the stupendously gullible ones) doesn't generally believe hires files can be resolved on everyday hifi systems, such as the B&W Zepellin. But these poeple are "true believers" and are willing to buy stuff if you are willing to put the right technical labels on it. so why not market to them.
The vast majority of the market really doesn't care about hires. They've never heard of it.
That doesn't make Sonos the McDonalds. It makes them the reasonably priced gem of a restaurant your friends recommend. Meanwhile the snobs eat at the high priced restaurants even if the food is actually no better, but they belief that the experience must be better because of the high price, fancy writing on the menu and the accents that the waiters put on.
Cheers,
Keith
The primary reason hires sound better than standard res releases of the main material is because they come from better masters. When people listen to hires releases and compare them with the CD quality releases, they are being conned. They are not equivalent. The industry is feeding gullible audiophiles so much snake oil that it's difficult to see the reality of the situation.
If you believe in facts and reality, the reasons to go hires start to fade away.
If you believe in the power of marketing and how easily people with a particular belief system can be misled by stoking that belief, there's good reasons for Sonos to consider hires. The problem is the industry is driven largely by con-men (aka. marketeers) who will quite happily artificially degrade music and then sell you a "premium" priced version claiming that the difference is the additional resolution when the reality is the difference is the version they sold you before isn't as good as it could be.
This is no different from Intel selling Pentium processors off the same production line at different prices because they've deliberately clocked the cheaper processors down to make them slower, in order to create a price premium for the faster processors. The same thing happens in music.
The trouble is we are missing the middle ground which is where the real benefits lie but which is where the music industry hasn't worked out how to milk us: lossless downloads at standard res. The problem is the world has got used to CD and then MP3. People will pay for MP3 (and equiv) lossy downloads for the convenience of it, but won't pay a premium for the CD lossless version as a download because it looks uncompetitive against the CD (because, fundamentally, it is), so the music industry needs a "premiium" product they can sell which is better than iTunes downloads, but is also better than CD, so they can charge a premium for it. As there are mugs who will buy and enjoy music almost wholly based on the technical characteristics of the product than the actually quality of the product, why not target products at them.
Luckily these people are a niche simply because there is a price point entry to this. Any audiophile worth the name (even the stupendously gullible ones) doesn't generally believe hires files can be resolved on everyday hifi systems, such as the B&W Zepellin. But these poeple are "true believers" and are willing to buy stuff if you are willing to put the right technical labels on it. so why not market to them.
The vast majority of the market really doesn't care about hires. They've never heard of it.
That doesn't make Sonos the McDonalds. It makes them the reasonably priced gem of a restaurant your friends recommend. Meanwhile the snobs eat at the high priced restaurants even if the food is actually no better, but they belief that the experience must be better because of the high price, fancy writing on the menu and the accents that the waiters put on.
Cheers,
Keith
Hey Keith. No hard feelings!
It just occurred to me where you got your Majik login ID from : Co-incidence? 🙂 :)
Listening to the beautiful sound from one right now :)
If in your heart of hearts, you truly believe all this rhetoric. Then fine. What can I do? Go ahead and live a life with the glass half empty.
You'll probably be relieved I've moved on... Just don't expect to hang onto the "ashes" too long 🙂
I think there's another link to this somewhere else on the forums, but here's the AES test:
http://www.aes.org/journal/online/comment/?ID=14195
The full report is behind a paywall. Someone may have a link.
Also this commentary: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
http://www.aes.org/journal/online/comment/?ID=14195
[Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels.
The full report is behind a paywall. Someone may have a link.
Also this commentary: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
The primary reason hires sound better than standard res releases of the main material is because they come from better masters.
I'm sorry but this just doesn't make any sense to me. Leaving aside any consideration about whether people can hear any difference and so forth, why would there be different masters for a recording based on the bit-rate of the release format?
Take something like the Linn Records website, where they offer new recordings (so we're not talking about "re-mastered" old stuff, where even different CD releases may not have been taken from the same source) of albums, in a variety of different formats, typically (and it varies depending on the label) "Studio Master" versions which are 24-bit and anywhere from 44.1kHz up to 192kHz, in both FLAC and WMA format, "CD Quality" which is, as you'd expect, 16-bit 44.1kHz, again in FLAC and WMA and also 320kbps MP3.
Now, are you telling me that for the different formats (ie 24-bit and 16-bit) the recording studio produced two different Masters of differing quality, rather than just converting to whichever format and bit-rate was required?
If you can tell me they have, or show me some other evidence to prove that I've misunderstood or something then fair enough, I like to know these things and I admit I don't really know that much about the studio recording process but it seems rather odd to me that a studio would duplicate things in this way, rather than just producing one high-quality master and then converting it to the format of choice.
I'm sorry but this just doesn't make any sense to me. Leaving aside any consideration about whether people can hear any difference and so forth, why would there be different masters for a recording based on the bit-rate of the release format?
I think Keith made it very clear. The reason there are different masters is to make the 24/96 version sound better, thus justifying the premium price and feeding into the audiophile market. It's similar to the DTS vs. DD mixes on most of Speilberg's DVD releases. Speilberg was heavily invested in DTS, and it was confirmed that the DTS soundtracks on his films were mastered to be sonically superior to the DD tracks.
It's absurd to suggest that the entire recording industry uses underhand tactics to create artificial differences in sound quality between CDs and higher resolution formats. This may apply to some studios and labels, but it certainly doesn't apply to every studio and label on the planet. There are still some people out there with integrity.
Apart from anything else, it's a very hard claim to prove without inside knowledge.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.