Ability to play 24bit/96 files (like the competition: slimdevices transporter)
Page 7 / 41
Apart from anything else, it's a very hard claim to prove without inside knowledge.
It's easy to prove in the case of CD vs. 24/96. Find a quality downres program, use it on the 24/96, then compare to the CD via software analysis or DB testing. Minor differences may be due to the conversion process, but any huge differences would be due to remastering of one or the other version.
Besides, most of the hires companies brag about the remastering that goes into their versions. It's a marketing point for them.
Yes, but what can you conclude when there aren't any audible differences?
That the listener has poor hearing and/or poor equipment? That the original CD master wasn't substandard? Any or all of these could apply.
In my case, I can't hear the differences that some people perceive when comparing CD with theoretically higher quality formats. To be honest, after the way I've treated my ears over the years and with my mid-range equipment, I wouldn't expect to be able to (leaving aside the controversial question of whether anyone else can).
For me, the most compelling arguments for Sonos to support these formats are:
1. People want them, and it's important from a commercial standpoint to give people what they want.
2. Some music is sold only in higher resolution format and it's a pain in the arse to have to downsample in order to be able to listen to it on the Sonos.
Firstly, a large part of the industry is controlled by a small number of very large giants who have a track record of stiffing their customers and the artists.
Remember CDs? When they were introduced the cost of manufacturing and distributing media dropped significantly, and yet the price to the end-user went UP. This actually went to court in the UK and the record industry won on the basis they were providing "a higher quality product" (something many audiophiles would dispute).
Fast forward a few years and we now have MP3 downloads. These are demonstrably degraded quality compared to CDs, the cost of manufacturing is close to zero, and the cost of media distribution has plummeted, and yet we are paying pretty much the same price as we pay for CDs, or maybe more. Also the competition at the point of sale has been eroded from thousands of retail shops, to a handful of online vendors who are supplied by an even smaller number of distributors. Cartel anyone?
Despite the reduction in the manufacturing and distribution costs and the resulting higher profits, the artists are generally being paid less.
The other thing to consider is how many studios are releasing material in hires? There aren't very many. The ones that do are those that those that seem to have a vested interest in the audiophile market and in promoting hires as a premium format.
Another thing is that a lot of music is very badly produced and mastered these days. Arguably some genres of music don't have audiophiles as their target market (a lot of mainstream music is targeted at portable use and radio play and is mastered accordingly). There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. After all the primary thing that drives the enjoyment of music for most people is not the precision of it's reproduction. I doubt, for instance, we will be seeing hires remasters of the Sex Pistol's "Pretty Vacant" any time soon!
However, some of this practice has spilled over to genres and artists that deserve better treatment to the point where it is often difficult to get decently mastered versions. Maybe I have overstated the case in that these versions are not necessarily deliberately degraded, but simply that the studio did not want to put the effort into mastering them well, or felt that a "more commercial" mastering would sell more.
In that respect, the studios who have taken these original recordings and remastered them with care should be congratulated at least for exposing the potential of the original recordings. However, having gone through this process there is no reason in the world why the remastered version should not be distributed in standard res as well as hi res. This is, generally, not the case. In a lot of cases the remaster is simply not available in standard res. There have been cases where the hires version includes a standard res version which came from a different mastering. For instance, with the 24-bit Beatles reissues the hires version is reported to be 0.2dB louder than the standard res version. This is enough to make it sound "better" in blind tests. This seems very fishy to say the least.
Incidentally people who have downsampled the 24-bit to standard res so that they are come from the same source report that they cannot hear the difference between the two formats.
The objective of these practices seems to be very clear to me: to make the hires format sound better than it is. This helps develop a market for it as a premium product.
And people fall fall it. In the thread I referenced, there are people who insist on comparing hires remasters with standard res issues from a different master and then bragging about the superiority of the hires version. Part of the problem is these people are often "true believers". They have already decided that hires must be better, so any evidence they get which supports their belief system is welcomed without question. When others point out the flaws in their beliefs and challenge them they get defensive and reject any explanation which does not fit their beliefs. This isn't the only thread I have seen like this.
As I have pointed out, many questioning the benefits of hires are people who have systems capable of playing hires files. They have no vendor position to defend. These people are also sceptical of the motives of the studios who release this material.
Cheers,
Keith
Conclude whatever you want. That was not part of my hypothesis.
That the listener has poor hearing and/or poor equipment? That the original CD master wasn't substandard? Any or all of these could apply.
Again, conclude what you wish.
In my case, I can't hear the differences that some
people perceive when comparing CD with
theoretically higher quality formats. To be honest,
after the way I've treated my ears over the years
and with my mid-range equipment, I wouldn't
expect to be able to (leaving aside the
controversial question of whether anyone else can).
You will never be able to hear hires benefits, yet you call for implementing it with the religious fervor shown here? Wow, and they call me a fanboy?
For me, the most compelling arguments for Sonos
to support these formats are:
1. People want them, and it's important from a commercial standpoint to give people what they
want.
A minority of a minority want them.
2. Some music is sold only in higher resolution
format and it's a pain in the arse to have to
downsample in order to be able to listen to it on
the Sonos.
You can't be serious. It takes less time to downsample than it does to download the files in the first place. I spend more time embedding artwork.
Unfortunately, this is a real issue. None of the meaningful testing methodologies can actually prove definitively that hires is totally inaudible to humans. What they can do is show that in controlled conditions none of the test subjects has definitively shown the ability to detect the differences. It can also show that across a representative population of people that the majority of the test subjects cannot tell the difference.
That does not mean that there are not some people, somewhere, who can hear these differences.
To be honest, after the way I've treated my ears over the years and with my mid-range equipment, I wouldn't expect to be able to (leaving aside the controversial question of whether anyone else can).
Ditto. And, in reality, the same applies to most people as after the age of around 20 human hearing response drops off quite rapidly, especially in the upper frequency ranges.
For me, the most compelling arguments for Sonos to support these formats are:
1. People want them, and it's important from a commercial standpoint to give people what they want.
2. Some music is sold only in higher resolution format and it's a pain in the arse to have to downsample in order to be able to listen to it on the Sonos.
Yes, I agree with these too. My only concern is whether these are important enough for the majority of Sonos's target market. I did some brief research a while back (not very scientifically conducted, I should add), and I struggled to find anyone outside of forums like this which naturally attract audiophiles who had even heard of hires. I honestly think that if you look at the population in general, hires is a non-issue. I would be surprised if more than one or two people in every ten thousand of the population desire this.
Of course there is the argument that Sonos should support every format possible, but I don't think this is feasible. There's plenty of non-hires formats Sonos doesn't support.
Cheers,
Keith
Keith et al... You are being paranoid to the extreme
If studios have the original recording on analog tape, then redo the a->d step using a state of the art piece of gear like the metric halo, are you honestly trying to tell us that the 16 bit version will sound as good as the 24 bit version?
"remastering" In this instence refers to JUST this process. Retransfer from the original ANALOG tapes. Not rejigging the digital file.
Same goes for new recordings. Are you honestly telling us studios like Linn records, or even new acts that do their own, record in 16 bit, then rejig to 24Bit? Why would the do that? Why would they spend all the time and effort getting the tune right....just to record the 'final' take on inferior 16 bit.
There is another group of users you seem to have also forgotten. Those that are moving all their music from their OWN analog sources. Those that have vinyl. Why would those users go to all the trouble and time to do their own a->d transferring in 16 bit, when there are perfectly good a->d convertors out there for 24 bit?
You guys have to accept there are alot of users out there who have original a->d transfers done straight into 24 bit, who want to then play these files straight back at 24 bit. NOT waste time and effort down converting to 16 bit.
You stance, logic and now obstinence on this issue is now silly.....
If studios have the original recording on analog tape, then redo the a->d step using a state of the art piece of gear like the metric halo, are you honestly trying to tell us that the 16 bit version will sound as good as the 24 bit version?
"remastering" In this instence refers to JUST this process. Retransfer from the original ANALOG tapes. Not rejigging the digital file.
Same goes for new recordings. Are you honestly telling us studios like Linn records, or even new acts that do their own, record in 16 bit, then rejig to 24Bit? Why would the do that? Why would they spend all the time and effort getting the tune right....just to record the 'final' take on inferior 16 bit.
There is another group of users you seem to have also forgotten. Those that are moving all their music from their OWN analog sources. Those that have vinyl. Why would those users go to all the trouble and time to do their own a->d transferring in 16 bit, when there are perfectly good a->d convertors out there for 24 bit?
You guys have to accept there are alot of users out there who have original a->d transfers done straight into 24 bit, who want to then play these files straight back at 24 bit. NOT waste time and effort down converting to 16 bit.
You stance, logic and now obstinence on this issue is now silly.....
The man who admits he will never hear a difference, yet is on an almost religious crusade for this implementation is calling us silly?
You offer vinyl to digital enthusiasts as a market driving force and call us silly?
Me dies! :rolleyes:
You offer vinyl to digital enthusiasts as a market driving force and call us silly?
Me dies! :rolleyes:
You offer vinyl to digital enthusiasts as a market driving force and call us silly?
Me dies! :rolleyes:
And Sonos markets zoneplayers as capable of connection into the Dac of your choice...via digital out.....yet its nigh on impossible now to buy a DAC now WITHOUT 24 bit capability.
Go figure
In DAC world, 24 BIT has become the standard. Thats it. There is no turning back. You can go on denying it as long as you like, but that's the reality.
I'm done now trying to figure out this anti 24 Bit rhetoric....oh and go keep enjoying your 2 megapixel digital camera as well :)
...Lifes too short to drink cheap wine....
Religious fervour? Where did I exhibit that?
I said:
For me, the most compelling arguments for Sonos to support these formats are:
1. People want them, and it's important from a commercial standpoint to give people what they want.
2. Some music is sold only in higher resolution format and it's a pain in the arse to have to downsample in order to be able to listen to it on the Sonos.
Trust me, if I really cared about this issue, I'd exhibit more fervour than is in evidence above.
I personally don't really care about reason #1, because I don't work for Sonos and don't own shares in the company. It's purely a commercial consideration for them. If people start to buy a competitor's hardware instead of buying Sonos, it doesn't matter whether the reason is valid or bogus, it's still a serious business issue. As someone who owns a lot of Sonos gear, I'd actually like to see them stay in business, for all the obvious reasons.
That leaves just the downsampling issue, about which you say:
You can't be serious. It takes less time to downsample than it does to download the files in the first place. I spend more time embedding artwork.
That it takes less time to downsample the files than it does to download them is utterly irrelevant and completely misses the point. The point is that it takes any time at all, because the whole step ought not to be necessary.
Time is a precious and finite commodity. The quicker chores are done, the better. Bad enough that I should have to spend time ripping CDs or downloading music -- necessary evils -- without having to then perform further maintenance.
If you went to a restaurant and were kept waiting for your starter, would you then be content to also be kept waiting for your main meal, as long as the second delay was shorter than the first?
Very true.
Remember CDs? When they were introduced the cost of manufacturing and distributing media dropped significantly, and yet the price to the end-user went UP. This actually went to court in the UK and the record industry won on the basis they were providing "a higher quality product" (something many audiophiles would dispute).
Yes, I'm old enough to remember that, but not so old that I'd forgotten about it again.
Fast forward a few years and we now have MP3 downloads. These are demonstrably degraded quality compared to CDs, the cost of manufacturing is close to zero, and the cost of media distribution has plummeted, and yet we are paying pretty much the same price as we pay for CDs, or maybe more.
That's why I won't buy MP3s unless it's the only way to purchase a given release. I still prefer CDs, followed by FLAC downloads. MP3 is an absolute last resort for me.
The other thing to consider is how many studios are releasing material in hires? There aren't very many. The ones that do are those that those that seem to have a vested interest in the audiophile market and in promoting hires as a premium format.
In my case, it's just one or two artists that I care about, who are self-releasing in higher resolution formats. 24/48 is probably the maximum I've purchased, but the Sonos can't handle that, never mind 24/96.
Another thing is that a lot of music is very badly produced and mastered these days.
I know. I've loaded a few of the loudest CDs from the last couple of years into a sound editor to look at the wave form. They're clipped to hell by the excessive amplification and dynamic compression.
That's just the way that many people like it to sound now. They need to be able to hear it through tinny, poorly isolating ear-buds in the middle of a traffic-congested city. The volume knob seems to have gone out of fashion.
Maybe I have overstated the case in that these versions are not necessarily deliberately degraded, but simply that the studio did not want to put the effort into mastering them well, or felt that a "more commercial" mastering would sell more.
Well, that's an entirely different kettle of fish and I agree that remasters, in particular, often don't get the loving treatment they deserve.
Of course, not every product is as commercially viable as the Beatles' back catalogue. The work done on those is absolutely stunning, and I'm not even what you'd call a fan of the band.
In that respect, the studios who have taken these original recordings and remastered them with care should be congratulated at least for exposing the potential of the original recordings. However, having gone through this process there is no reason in the world why the remastered version should not be distributed in standard res as well as hi res.
I agree. You'd think there was more money to be made by offering both, too.
You're quite probably right, and those people are no doubt Sonos's target market, but they're not the niche market that Sonos currently sells to.
Amongst the kind of people who currently find themselves considering Sonos as an option, the number would be much higher and increasing disproportionately fast.
So, you either cater to the market you find yourself in, or you find a way to drill into a new segment of the population, the mainstream.
Ultimately, though, consumers are always wooed by higher numbers. More is better. In that regard, high definition audio will be an easy sell from a marketing perspective.
Amongst the kind of people who currently find themselves considering Sonos as an option, the number would be much higher and increasing disproportionately fast.
So, you either cater to the market you find yourself in, or you find a way to drill into a new segment of the population, the mainstream.
Ultimately, though, consumers are always wooed by higher numbers. More is better. In that regard, high definition audio will be an easy sell from a marketing perspective.
You and I are broadly in agreement, which is why I'm not completely against (and actually, to a degree, in favour of) Sonos building hires support.
My main argument here is that some are treating this with "religious fervour" (as jgatie puts it, although I would not personally count you amongst those) and I think we need a bit of reasonable perspective on this. However desirable this is for some, and I think it's OK for people to state that, they really should understand that their personal needs and desires do not map to the majority of other users and their blind faith in hires formats is not shared by most others.
When they overstate how "vital" this is, gloss over the technical challenges, and resort to overhyping both the benefits and the market for it, take pot-shots at Sonos, and make bold and unjustified claims about the damage Sonos is doing to it's future prospects then they look ridiculous. If anything they are damaging their case as the supporters of this capability start to come across as "crazed fanatics" rather than reasonable advocates.
Cheers,
Keith
Well, clearly some people believe that the desire for support of hi-res formats is much more widespread amongst Sonos users. I don't know what, if anything, that belief is based on, but it's plain that some people don't believe it's a niche desire any more.
Given that people who want something are always noisier than people who don't care, it's hard to gauge the actual interest without proper research, something with a bit more weight than a forum poll.
When they overstate how "vital" this is, gloss over the technical challenges, and resort to overhyping both the benefits and the market for it, take pot-shots at Sonos, and make bold and unjustified claims about the damage Sonos is doing to it's future prospects then they look ridiculous. If anything they are damaging their case as the supporters of this capability start to come across as "crazed fanatics" rather than reasonable advocates.
Again, the problem, as it appears to me, is that neither the people who argue for it nor the people who say it's a waste of time can prove that they, in fact, speak for the majority of users.
One can only hope that Sonos have a foolproof way of determining the commercial importance of this feature, be it overwhelming, non-existent or somewhere in-between.
Given that people who want something are always noisier than people who don't care, it's hard to gauge the actual interest without proper research, something with a bit more weight than a forum poll.
Again, the problem, as it appears to me, is that neither the people who argue for it nor the people who say it's a waste of time can prove that they, in fact, speak for the majority of users.
One can only hope that Sonos have a foolproof way of determining the commercial importance of this feature, be it overwhelming, non-existent or somewhere in-between.
That is the problem at its heart. But I take the view that, regardless of how many people want this, it's just another feature request. It's when people trying to make out it is more important than that, when people complain about it as if it was a major software bug that Sonos has not fixed that I have a problem.
(And just to pre-empt someone claiming that they consider it a bug in an attempt to hype their desire for this feature, it is not. I will personally consider anyone who claims they believe it is a bug to be either a liar or a moron of the highest order. It is not a bug. it is a feature that Sonos don't currently support.)
I will point out that I have done some unscientific market research of my own both online and in real life which suggests even the awareness of hires formats amongst the general population is extremely low, and those who knew of hires didn't seem that interested in it. Of course there are always hotbeds of activity where the interest levels are much higher than is typical (such as audiophile forums), and these are often quoted as "evidence" of the level of support. There might be some validity in this if Sonos was specifically targeting the audiophile market. I so no evidence they are. Outside of audio interest groups like this, I see negligible levels of desire or even awareness. Even within groups such as these forums (or even the Squeezebox forums), the interest seems to be confined to a mostly very noisy dozen or so people out of a community of several thousand. Hardly compelling!
If enough of the Sonos user base (or target user base) wants it, Sonos will have a better idea than us
Ultimately, that's my view. If there is a compelling market for this (or any other feature) Sonos will know about it. Sonos have proved themselves to be surprisingly canny when it comes to understanding and addressing their market (they have surprised me a few times in the past when I thought they were taking a wrong turn), and I have no reason to think they are doing the wrong thing in this case.
People seem to forget that Sonos do actually have a Marketing department. If the market was as obviously pro-hires formats as some seem to maintain, Sonos would know about it. They aren't so stupid that they wouldn't have addressed it by now.
Cheers,
Keith
I recently bought some HD and Master recordings online. I can't play them with Sonos.
I think since this buying online is the future and if the listener want good quality Sonos should be able to play such recordings. Does anyone agree with me?
I think since this buying online is the future and if the listener want good quality Sonos should be able to play such recordings. Does anyone agree with me?
[Mod note: Wiebele, I've moved your post to one of the more recent threads on this topic.]
I think at the end of the day it may simply be that the current Sonos system ( hardware and software) is incapable of playing Hi Rez formats without a complete redesign that might obsolete all the current products. That would so totally piss everyone off that it's not in Sonos interest to do it. It's really a shame since Sonos is by far, truly by far, the best streaming media system out there, or rather has the best interface, this side of the much more expensive Sooloos system. What I think will happen whether in a week or a month or a year is that someone will do a system that is as slick as Sonos but with HiRez abilities.. I just hope Sonos is looking to the future and figuring a way to do it. There's an awful lot of dead business that thought they were the s--t and that they didn't need to innovate.
So is there a solution? I believe there is. I think Sonos could leverage their existing client base and engineering into a separate higher end system that would do Hi Rez.. why not have a higher end product line up that would address the demands of Hi Rez audio..and the more upscale buyer? if nothing else it could create an entirely new revenue stream. The existing products and price points would be maintained for the more price sensitive and those looking for better would also be served .. there are certainly plenty of very successful businesses modeled on that concept.
I'll wait now for the reasons why not..
So is there a solution? I believe there is. I think Sonos could leverage their existing client base and engineering into a separate higher end system that would do Hi Rez.. why not have a higher end product line up that would address the demands of Hi Rez audio..and the more upscale buyer? if nothing else it could create an entirely new revenue stream. The existing products and price points would be maintained for the more price sensitive and those looking for better would also be served .. there are certainly plenty of very successful businesses modeled on that concept.
I'll wait now for the reasons why not..
Squeezebox did the high end unit thing with the Transporter. It was discontinued last year. Supposedly it never sold enough to justify its existence.
There are well reported rumours that Sonos are looking into Home Theater products. What this means in practice (outside of Sonos), is anyone's guess. Here's mine:
A range of products which incorporate Sonos technology into a Home theatre receiver capability. As wireless is one of Sonos's strengths I would see some options for the speakers to be wireless (perhaps these are linked zones using different channels, similar to paired S5s).
Why am I going off on this tangent? Because a primary requirement for any such product is multichannel support. This alone would make it stand apart from the current stereo platform. If it's going to be different, then putting hires in wouldn't be a stretch. In fact I would say it would be foolish not to. If the platform has the resources to decode multichannel audio, it's certainly capable of decoding hires stereo.
Will it support video? It will probably have to support video switching at least, if not some form of transport (although this would need to be for wired players, wifi isn't capable of supporting streams of HD video with any meaningful reliability). Some form of native video encoding/transport would remove the need to worry about codecs and would provide full support to existing video sources. There's always room for a separate "Google TV" type box which links in for seamless streaming support.
There's also room for compatibility with the current zoneplayers by streaming a stereo/standard-res only version of audio soundtracks to legacy players. The slightly tricky bit could be making the interface between the two as transparent as possible, but the UI for such a device will need to be far richer than the existing UI. My feeling is this can only be supported using a "two-tier" approach where the current Zoneplayers and any new "Home Theatre" devices are mostly independent, but with some functional bridge between them. A simple solution would be to expose the new system's audio channels as a new music source on the existing system's menu, allowing these channels to be streamed (and synced) to the existing zoneplayers, a bit like Internet radio.
I honestly don't think there's room in the range for a player which is only different because of hires capability: it would be practically identical to the current range but wouldn't be fully compatible with existing zoneplayers. I also think it would sell far fewer than you expect.
This is what I heard too.
Home Theater gives a proper, mainstream, and easily marketable reason to have a new platform which operates in a different way because it is fundamentally addressing a different capability. If such a platform should appear in the future, it would be natural in my view that it would support hires.
This is, of course, all speculation, and any new range is at least a development cycle or two away (probably 18 months to 2 years). I also don't see it completely replacing the current range, at least not for a few years.
Cheers,
Keith
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.