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 6 / 41
Userlevel 2
As an otherwise happy Sonos owner all I can presume is that the hardware is seriously flawed with regard to hi-res propagation.
This thread has been going for around three and a half years and, apart from the moderators deeply defending the kit, there has been no response from Sonos (that I am aware of).
In the intervening period many competitors have released products that support 24/96 or 24/192 and Sonos have been left standing still.
As I said in my opening para, all I can presume is that it's a hardware problem. Sonos have been pretty good in releasing software updates and including suggestions made on this forum. For them not to have 'gone hi-res' points to something much more fundamental.
It's such a shame they decline to ever comment on this. I for one, would be first in the queue to buy a 'ZP90HD' should it ever be released, and I don't think I'm alone in this. As more and more content becomes available in hi-res (e.g. Radiohead's new album in 24-bit on 7digital today) so Sonos will find themselves isolated unless they catch up.
COME ON SONOS!
This thread has been going for around three and a half years and, apart from the moderators deeply defending the kit, there has been no response from Sonos (that I am aware of).
In the intervening period many competitors have released products that support 24/96 or 24/192 and Sonos have been left standing still.
As I said in my opening para, all I can presume is that it's a hardware problem. Sonos have been pretty good in releasing software updates and including suggestions made on this forum. For them not to have 'gone hi-res' points to something much more fundamental.
It's such a shame they decline to ever comment on this. I for one, would be first in the queue to buy a 'ZP90HD' should it ever be released, and I don't think I'm alone in this. As more and more content becomes available in hi-res (e.g. Radiohead's new album in 24-bit on 7digital today) so Sonos will find themselves isolated unless they catch up.
COME ON SONOS!
Userlevel 2
See - this is where you get all caught up in agenda. I have no "audiophile hogwash" since I don't really care about audiophile stuff.
I don't sit around reading Scientific Journals - and I would bet you don't either. I also don't have any agenda and simply don't care enough to research it. Although I am willing to bet that you can find many arguments and studies against blind testing on human senses. Heck, we spent a whole week one semester discussing the bias human memory introduces in psychology and more in law.
If you haven't got peer-reviewed science, then it's not science.
That's just an asinine statement. And my background is as a scientist.
The study I have cited has been peer-reviewed and no one, despite all the money Naim and others stand to lose, have stepped up to debunk it in a scientific journal.
Good for them and good for Naim. I sincerely doubt Naim, with any amount of money, could concoct a study that could disprove your study. If for no other reason than the human memory issue I've stated - even if there is a slight difference it would be near impossible to scientifically test it using a human being.
With that said, Naim (whoever they are) should hire me. At the end of the day, trying to prove the subtle sound difference is a losing war. It's far more accurate and far easier to discredit the test. It would not take me much money to design a study that invalidated ABX testing for auditory memory. I doubt I could design a test to prove their stuff actually has a perceptible difference ... but I could poke serious holes in the currently accepted testing methodology.
The problem is that people would assume that I had an audiophile agenda and was coming at it from this perspective. This alone would cause any such study to be ignored by people that accept the current testing methodology.
But again, you really don't hear what I'm saying -- I don't know and don't care if there is a difference between hi-res and non-hi-res. I also don't know or care if $6000000/ft audio cable is the same as a coat hanger. At the end of the day, it makes not one lick of difference to me. I will wake up tomorrow the same as I did today with either truth being absolute.
I am simply saying the methodology currently being used to derive the conclusion is flawed. And to a point, any type of AB (including ABX) testing involving memory is flawed based on our very makeup. This is an immutable truth. But, we are forced to work with what we're given, right? This is why it is accepted by science.
And as far as you agreeing with the tests for gross differences, you also derided a study that showed gross differences between compression techniques using double-blind methods. Forgive me if I find your claims to accept them for non-subtle differences a backslide from your earlier statements.
I was deriding the technique. And I still would. I do not agree that ABX tests are a good measure for human senses. The human mind isn't good at this type of testing.
Oh, and I would appreciate it if you would apologize for saying I or any other proponents of double-blind audio tests implied in any way that negative results proved no differences, which is antithetical to the scientific method. I know I never did, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth in an attempt to state I and others like me are just as bad as the audiophile snakeoil fans.
I'm sorry I misquoted you. It surely seemed that when you call things "snakeoil" and deride them so directly that you have a stated opinion on the accuracy of the results of the tests.
But, again, I am sorry.
Since we are into "appreciating" what the other person can do - I would "appreciate" you dropping the condescension and arrogance.
See http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html for an evidence based (well ... presuming the sources are legit) view on the matter. Suggested conclusion: don't bother about hires .. it's all in the hands of the guys who do the final mix.
Hard disk space, yes. For internet usage, especially when you have to pay for it over mobile, bandwidth still matters for most folks.
+8
Oh please don't get me started. I think the bottom line is that the system as configured can't support hirez material. Also, and this is a huge part of the Sonos business model, is compatibility. If the older units can't support HiRez and Sonos brought out a unit that could then the whole house compatibility model, to some degree goes poof.. Unfortunately the only solutions right now are to use a different product for hirez play back. I'm 100% sure Sonos is looking at a solution, it's just how to implement it and keep the seamlessness of a Sonos system intact, and to not obsolete older units. I'm not sure that's possible, I think a compromise is the only way to get it to work. Maybe as mentioned before a HiRez zone player that will play all formats, 24/96 and better. A customer going in would know that this unit would be the only one that could play Hirez, the others in the house couldn't. Those that didn't care about Hirez playback wouldn't need to get the new player thay could just stick with what they have or if adding zones could just buy standard def versions. Heck this could be a new source of revenue I think a bunch of folks would upgrade at least one of their ZP's to the new higher performance versions , those that either don't care or don't want to wouldn't have to. I just wish Sonos would let us know, ie yes we are working on it, or no it'll never happen. Of course I doubt that'll happen. And lastly and I've had this argument before and with my new found spirit of moderation I'll just add that I think that HiRez support should not be looked at as a feature, but as an improvement in functionality, just as when Sonos first came out it couldn't play ALAC files. ie cross fading is a feature, hirez play back is a function.
Let's use the Double Blind ABX test for something we know is different. Take shades of the same primary color group. Test it similar to the ABX audio test with the null hypothesis being "One cannot perceive the difference between shades." I am almost certain, in an ABX situation, the null hypothesis would not be disproven. Yet, we know when the colors are placed touching each other (direct visual comparison), the perceptible difference is there thus proving the null untrue. This would point to a flaw in the methodology.
In shade differentiation, we probably have the case that we can't remember as may shade variations as we can discriminate in direct comparison.
For visual comparisons we must standardize the ambient light. Likewise, in audio testing we should standardize the overall level and the background noise.
Also, in audio testing we cannot run both units simultaneously in order to create a comparison analogous to the side by side color comparison.
For both types of test we should quarantine the viewers and listeners in a standard environment for a while in an effort to prevent recent history, such as a bright flash or loud noise from polluting the human's perception.
I avoid making any critical aural comparisons if I have been driving or using public transportation in the past few hours.
Surely the point of hi-res isn't just the higher frequencies, but rather the perceived overall increase in 'resolution' achieved by the higher sampling rates?
Because to my ears and brain the missing information is irrelevant, and I for one am glad that this is the case. YMMV.
After reading this Thread several times and doing a bit of "research" (see: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded ) I come to the following conclusions:
1) Do it if it doesn't take resources away from other high priority projects. I am not convinced that Hi-Res files really can be discerned by most/all ears.
2) Certainly, the ability to play their Hi-Res files via Sonos without a conversion is a benefit to some...
It's hard to fathom the veiled (and not so veiled) threats of some here to abandon their Sonos system if this feature is not implemented. It's still the best whole house, multi-zone music player at any price.
Userlevel 2
Also, in audio testing we cannot run both units simultaneously in order to create a comparison analogous to the side by side color comparison.
That is precisely the point I am making. Once human memory is involved, the accuracy of our testing ability isn't our sensory capabilities it's our ability of our memory to store and replay accurately. A feat most human's are near incapable of.
That's why I pointed out direct visual comparison, the only fully accurate (and accepted) test of the human senses. It's our inability to run "side-by-side" sense tests for anything other than visual that prevents the reliability in the tests.
Unfortunately, that's as good as it gets for us. But I think ABX tests compound the issue as opposed to actually making a more valid test.
* Caveat - I am not saying an AB test on hi-res vs standard would yield a different result. I'm saying it would probably be a more reliable test for the nuances.
For both types of test we should quarantine the viewers and listeners in a standard environment for a while in an effort to prevent recent history, such as a bright flash or loud noise from polluting the human's perception.
I avoid making any critical aural comparisons if I have been driving or using public transportation in the past few hours.
I agree 100%.
At the end of the day, we can only work with what we have --- and we have to test it in the best environment possible to reduce errors.
Not saying for one minute that I support the 'hires' argument, but it disturbs me that every time this comes up, everyone points to this one article, as if one persons views should be taken as gospel over all others...
Yaaaaay! The quarterly resurrection of the legendary 24/96 thread !! 🙂
This thread has been going for around three and a half years and, apart from the moderators deeply defending the kit, there has been no response from Sonos (that I am aware of).
Wrong!
Firstly, all of the user moderators on here are users first. Any opinion they give is as users. There opinion is worth no more or less than any other users in that respect. Also, there have been just as many users who are NOT moderators arguing against hires support.
Secondly, those who actually read and understand the posts properly will realise that the moderators who have posted are not against hires. At least 3 out of the 4 of us have actually stated on at least one occasion that they would like Sonos to support hires.
Anyone who interprets this differently either hasn't read all of the posts properly, or is blinded by their own biases and indignation.
What myself and some of the other people have defended Sonos for is that there are very good commercial reasons to support why they've not done this yet. These reasons are often ignored or even denied by those clamouring for this feature.
We have also defended Sonos against unreaslistic views and expectations including the view that this feature should be considered as more important than any other (without any useful evidence to suggest why) and the expectation that Sonos should make a specific comment about this feature request, when they have a policy of not commenting on future developments (a practice shared with most other vendors).
It's such a shame they decline to ever comment on this.
Thirdly, They have already commented. They have, in the past, acknowledged the feature request and said that it has been pushed into their Product Management. I believe I have even seen statements that there are no immediate plans (but that was some time ago).
Realistically, what more can they say? They can say, at any point in time, whether there are currently plans or not, but that's about it, and that information becomes outdated within a few months.
Basically until they are actively developing this, Sonos themselves won't know. Until this happens you will not get a definitive response one way or another. That's simple common sense.
It's simply unrealistic to expect a vendor, any vendor, to make definitive statements on potential future feature enhancements.
Which, in reality, is indistinguishable from "a feature".
Cheers,
Keith
Yet you argue about it constantly. :rolleyes:
I don't sit around reading Scientific Journals - and I would bet you don't either.
Actually, I do. It's part of my job.
You make definitive statements on the legitimacy of scientifically accepted, peer-reviewed studies and you don't feel the need to back up those statements with legitimate, peer-reviewed science? And I'm the one who is arrogant?
That's just an asinine statement. And my background is as a scientist.
It's asinine to view random statements with no scientifically acceptable studies to back them up as illegitimate use of the scientific method? Somebody call Galileo.
Good for them and good for Naim. I sincerely doubt Naim, with any amount of money, could concoct a study that could disprove your study. If for no other reason than the human memory issue I've stated - even if there is a slight difference it would be near impossible to scientifically test it using a human being.
With that said, Naim (whoever they are) should hire me. At the end of the day, trying to prove the subtle sound difference is a losing war. It's far more accurate and far easier to discredit the test. It would not take me much money to design a study that invalidated ABX testing for auditory memory. I doubt I could design a test to prove their stuff actually has a perceptible difference ... but I could poke serious holes in the currently accepted testing methodology.
No one has yet. I wonder why?
The problem is that people would assume that I had an audiophile agenda and was coming at it from this perspective. This alone would cause any such study to be ignored by people that accept the current testing methodology.
But again, you really don't hear what I'm saying -- I don't know and don't care if there is a difference between hi-res and non-hi-res. I also don't know or care if $6000000/ft audio cable is the same as a coat hanger. At the end of the day, it makes not one lick of difference to me. I will wake up tomorrow the same as I did today with either truth being absolute.
I am simply saying the methodology currently being used to derive the conclusion is flawed. And to a point, any type of AB (including ABX) testing involving memory is flawed based on our very makeup. This is an immutable truth. But, we are forced to work with what we're given, right? This is why it is accepted by science.
Accepted by science, yet not accepted by you. And again, I'm the arrogant one?
I was deriding the technique. And I still would. I do not agree that ABX tests are a good measure for human senses. The human mind isn't good at this type of testing.
So you accept the results from a technique you deride as not fit for purpose? Or do you accept the technique, but deride it anyway? Or you do not accept the technique or the results, and were just placating Majik by "whole-heartedly" agreeing with his statement above? I'm confused.
I'm sorry I misquoted you. It surely seemed that when you call things "snakeoil" and deride them so directly that you have a stated opinion on the accuracy of the results of the tests.
But, again, I am sorry.
Since we are into "appreciating" what the other person can do - I would "appreciate" you dropping the condescension and arrogance.
You stated I claimed the studies listed showed there were definitively no differences. Which is absurd, given any high school science or logic student knows the "prove a negative" logical fallacy. This is an insult to any scientist. Nothing I have said about audiophile snakeoil or the studies listed ever came close to stating anything except the results showed the differences were imperceptible to human hearing in a DBT. You twisting those words to attempt to label me as like "people that stamp their feet about how much of an audible difference there is between them" was a gross misrepresentation of what I've said in this thread, and was intended only to smear.
A 44.1kHz sample rate can fully capture all of the frequencies in 20kHz+ audio signal.
Fully!
It's not like there are any intermediate frequencies that aren't represented. Any frequency, from 0Hz to 20kHz (plus a bit) that you can name, is fully captured within a 44.1kHz sample rate. Within the frequency domain, and within those ranges, there is no additional "resolution" to be had. In fact the concept of "resolution" does not apply to frequency in digital audio.
The only thing a higher sample rate does is capture higher frequencies.
Cheers,
Keith
Right! I could think of no better place to post the Pone assessment link and do the two birds with one stone thing:D.
Userlevel 2
Well said ErikM. My sentiments exactly.
I think Sonos have an excellent offering (and business model), but as an owner I'm concerned that it's not going anywhere.
Beugie, I'm not sure that I agree with you, but I don't think we're far apart on this.
Majik...Take no prisoners!! It's this kind of tone that I am referring to. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I take umbrage at the way you say it. I HAVE read the posts, I DO understand, and I am NOT blinded by my own indignation.
Sonos have a business model, and customers who buy into their ethos can rightly expect product development and enhancement.
I think the ipod dock was a complete waste of development time, because *I* don't have an ipod, but I don't go on about how it shouldn't have been done. I just don't need it, but I respect that others may.
I would like hi-res though...
I think Sonos have an excellent offering (and business model), but as an owner I'm concerned that it's not going anywhere.
Beugie, I'm not sure that I agree with you, but I don't think we're far apart on this.
Majik...Take no prisoners!! It's this kind of tone that I am referring to. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I take umbrage at the way you say it. I HAVE read the posts, I DO understand, and I am NOT blinded by my own indignation.
Sonos have a business model, and customers who buy into their ethos can rightly expect product development and enhancement.
I think the ipod dock was a complete waste of development time, because *I* don't have an ipod, but I don't go on about how it shouldn't have been done. I just don't need it, but I respect that others may.
I would like hi-res though...
Gents, can we please stick with playing the ball, not the man? Thanks.
It's not exactly any old person's view. Xiph.org are the custodians of codecs such as FLAC and Vorbis.
Userlevel 2
Please, 24/96 is a must nowadays.
+1 here!🆒
+1 here!🆒
Majik...Take no prisoners!! It's this kind of tone that I am referring to.
I responded in the same "tone" as you posted. Are you suggesting that you are allowed to adaopt such a tone and I am not.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I take umbrage at the way you say it.
And I took umbrage at the way you levelled accusations at specific users, accusations which were unnecessary and untrue.
I HAVE read the posts, I DO understand, and I am NOT blinded by my own indignation.
Explain, then, why you felt the need to single us out in your criticism.
You started this argument, not me.
Actually don't bother trying to explain as I am going to end this before the usual gang of troublemakers escalates this into a bigger argument just so they can start taking pot-shots at me. Please don't bother to continue this pointless argument as I will not respond.
Let's get back to the topic at hand:
Sonos have a business model, and customers who buy into their ethos can rightly expect product development and enhancement.
Even if that is true, there is no reasonable expectation of a specific feature request.
Like almost all commercial companies, Sonos has a limited resources for development and develops features
based on priority. Part of this priority will be driven by market demand. If they think a specific feature will drive significant sales of more equipment then you can be sure it will be given priority.
I could point at half a dozen features that Sonos doesn't yet have and glibly say that "Sonos is being left behind" because of them, but that doesn't make it true.
There's a number of people who, very reasonably would like Hires support. I have stated that I am one of them and I will repeat it again. However, I don't feel that I have the right to expect Sonos to develop this, or any other feature as a priority, if at all.
And, as ErikM says, I think there is a very real problem in creating a hires player in that the majority of people would expect to be compatible with the other components in some way (and commercial success is built on what the majority of your market wants).
I already suggested one way in which they might do this earlier in this thread. It's a way which is pragmatic, doesn't leave existing customers out in the cold, and which fits with their reported product development strategy. But if Sonos do develop something like this, don't expect them to tell you about it until they have something close to launch.
Cheers,
Keith
Userlevel 2
I wish there was a smilie here eating popcorn.
Ah, there is:
[img]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif[/img]
Ah, there is:
[img]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif[/img]
One reason it's quoted is because the authors are renowned experts on digital audio. They are the brains behind a number of lossy and lossless audio codecs, including the one most commonly used for Hires formats.
The other reason is that they explain, very well, why most of the reasons given by supporters for hires are actually based on a misunderstanding of how digital audio works. He provides explanations and evidence to support these explanations.
I have also yet to see any meaningful counter-argument which points out any flaw in his article. To date it is the best, most accurate, description of the benefits (or lack of) of hires.
It bears repeating that these guys are some of the leading experts in the world on this subject. THAT is why we all should be reading this article and taking it's claims seriously.
Put it this way, if you were involved in a complex legal case, you wouldn't take the legal advice given by your mates down the pub over that given by one of the top lawyers in the country, would you?
Cheers,
Keith
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
I think its kind of funny that the #2 posted topic here is not of interest to the manufacturer. In any case, if you gotta have hi rez, just go Squeezebox Touch or Olive. They both have Apple Apps now. Hell, my $69 media player connected to my TV will do 24/96. There are plenty of other options people! I gave up on this topic long ago, no love here. Just move on to something else.
Enjoy that new crossfader boys. Whee.....
😛
Enjoy that new crossfader boys. Whee.....
😛
Page 6 / 41
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.