Zp 24/96


  • Anonymous
  • 0 replies
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.

1012 replies

Reading further on the hydrogenaudio site, it seems there is more than a bit of cherry picking and biases going into the meta-analysis. Also some pointed out the author of the paper and AES in general have a passing interest in (you guessed it!) Meridien Audio, and this analysis was published not long after an "award-winning" paper and subsequent follow-up release of new technology by Meridian.

I am shocked! Shocked, I say!! 😃 Anyway, good read. Especially this part:

Audio purists and industry should welcome these findings -- our study finds high resolution audio has a small but important advantage in its quality of reproduction over standard audio content.


The analysis showed something small, but it is by no means shown to be "important" or an "advantage". Could he be any more transparent?
Ha! Well it was about time this thread had its regular revival. Popcorn duly ordered.

(FWIW links from notification emails to this thread seem broken; maybe the system can't handle it any more.)
Userlevel 2
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.


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.
Badge +8
I don't believe that the software or Sonosnet can do it.. Even the hardware may not be up to it.. I think if it was doable with the current hardware/software Sonos would have done it, no reason not to.
Who cares about "can you hear a difference" or "what is better or not" and let's just look at the simple fact that a lot of people have a lot of 24/96 (or higher res) files that we want to play over our Sonos. So, just support the damn files already.

The fact is, Sonos has formerly announced they are not going to support 24/96. Period. If you don't care about "can you hear a difference" or "what is better or not" then I suggest you resample the files to 16/44.1 and be done with it. You can very easily do this via any number of free programs. If resampling your files is too much of a chore, I suggest you take their announcement that they are not going to support 24/96 as gospel and begin your search for a replacement system which supports 24/96. Good luck finding one with the quality, reliability, and support of Sonos . . . all because of the stubborn refusal to resample the few files you have.

In any case if you're still around, the new-ish Bluesound system will do Hi Res.. It's very stable, and has gotten great reviews. http://www.bluesound.com


@schalliol since you say you are already using a Squeezebox you could easily upgrade your system with this: https://sites.google.com/site/picoreplayer/home

Minimal investment of a pi+hifiberry.
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.


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
In terms of hardware, the converters are in place, however, I doubt if there is enough processor power and network bandwidth to handle the data throughput.

It may be possible to support a limited number of 24/96 zones as far as network bandwidth is concerned, but we are still stuck with the possibility that the on-board processing power is not there.

From a support standpoint, I'm not sure how SONOS support could face a user who had a perfectly functional larger system, say 10+ zones, but was required to shut down some zones whenever a 24/96 zone is active.

A middle ground might be to introduce a new player with enhanced processor power and require this player to be wired to the music source. This player could render the 24/96 stream locally, re-sample the music file, and pass through a 16 bit stream to the other players. Of course, the requirement of wiring this player to the music source would tarnish the "wirelessly play music everywhere" part of the value proposition.
Userlevel 1
Badge
The few files I' have? Glad you know what I have and don't have. And glad you're happy passing the buck onto the customer rather than supporting what a lot of people are asking for.

Arrogance at its best. Because that's exactly what it is. To make the argument that "oh, it's easy to convert some files". You're right, it is... but that doesn't mean we should have to.

And, just to clarify, I can hear a difference. The fact that you can't doesn't make it so. I'd happily invite you to my home to listen and hear the clear difference.
Here's a blind test for the true believers. Neil Young in 16-bit vs 8-bit. So much of today's pop music is so severly dynamic range limited, that 8 bits are sufficient to capture it all.

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit_NeilYoung.php


I scored 6 out of 10, using studio quality headphones through a premium soundcard. I challenge any else to truthfully post their results.
Yes, but what can you conclude when there aren't any audible differences?


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.
Badge +8
Keep in mind that Sonos hardware is about 7 years old.. When it was introduced it didn't even support Apple Lossless.. and it still doesn't completely/seemlessly support Aiff.. as much as I crave Sonos supporting HiRes playback I've come to accept that it won't, it's not Sonos's market and I just don't think they really care, HiRes is a very small market. I've made the commitment to PS Audio's PWD/Bridge for playing back HiRes in my main system and using Sonos around the house in less critical applications.

And no question that HiRes material sounds better than similar 16/44 material but the system and room needs to be of sufficient quality to appreciate the difference, no way would one be able to tell the difference on a play 5 or a ZP120 hooked up to moderately prices speakers, stuffed into bookcases or hooked up to a pair of in walls, and lets be real most folks using Sonos are not audiophiles and SQ takes a back seat to convenience almost exclusively..

For what Sonos is and does it's the best.. for what it doesn't do.. it doesn't do 🙂
The few files I' have? Glad you know what I have and don't have. And glad you're happy passing the buck onto the customer rather than supporting what a lot of people are asking for.

Arrogance at its best. Because that's exactly what it is. To make the argument that "oh, it's easy to convert some files". You're right, it is... but that doesn't mean we should have to.

And, just to clarify, I can hear a difference. The fact that you can't doesn't make it so. I'd happily invite you to my home to listen and hear the clear difference.


A carefully crafted, peer-reviewed study also proved that people cannot hear the difference between 24/96 files and their resampled 16/44.1 versions. I'll take peer-reviewed studies over placebo induced anecdotal claims of "golden ear" types any day. Oh, and one who claims to hear things that scientific studies have proven impossible to hear should take a moment to consider the irony of calling other people "arrogant."
Badge +8
@chicks

Putting aside your snarky comments, and staying objective let me pose a question:

What circumstances or tests or whatever would convince you or others that HiRes files can sound better than 16/44?

Lets for the sake of discussion take the mastering or mixing out of the equation.. I think it's a given that a well produced, recorded, mixed and mastered album at 16/44 will sound better than a poorly done recording presented in a HiRes format.

So all things being equal what would it take to personally convince you (or others) that HiRes sounds better..

And if ones answer to this simple question is "There is nothing that can convince me, my mind is totally closed to even the possibility, because my rigorous training and experience says it can't, and I won't even consider the possibility" Than please don't bother answering.
Yes, but what can you conclude when there aren't any audible differences?

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
Userlevel 1
Keep in mind that Sonos hardware is about 7 years old.. When it was introduced it didn't even support Apple Lossless.. and it still doesn't completely/seemlessly support Aiff....

For what Sonos is and does it's the best.. for what it doesn't do.. it doesn't do :-)


I agree with most and possibly all of that. But the question must be does the fact that Sonos hardware has a certain vintage imply that Sonos products will be forever locked into specific limitations. NB the same goes for features such as supporting more Tag data (eg Star ratings) or data such as recently added tracks etc; where these features require more memory in (each) Sonos device. There will surely come a point where backwards compatibility is more of a burden than a benefit. This happens with all technology...

Greater processor power and more memory would presumably come pretty cheaply these days, so new products could solve this problem at the expense of reduced backwards compatibility.

I would support HiRez support. But it may come about for other unrelated reasons, eg the need to support more demanding online services or full DLNA support or some other new technology...
The few files I' have? Glad you know what I have and don't have. And glad you're happy passing the buck onto the customer rather than supporting what a lot of people are asking for.

Arrogance at its best. Because that's exactly what it is. To make the argument that "oh, it's easy to convert some files". You're right, it is... but that doesn't mean we should have to.

And, just to clarify, I can hear a difference. The fact that you can't doesn't make it so. I'd happily invite you to my home to listen and hear the clear difference.

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether the difference is audible (and those in the know maintain it either isn't or could even sound worse), it's not just a question of magically turning on hi-res decode in the Players. Stream bandwidth would increase by a factor of 3 (or 6 in the case of 24/192), and SonosNet isn't going to cope with that while continuing to support 32 Players. Sure, one could wire everywhere, but it hardly fits with "The Wireless HiFi System".
I have no doubt that an up close recording of an Apollo spacecraft launch would benefit from the greater dynamic range afforded by 24 bits. I'd need a lot more power and bigger speakers, but wouldn't risk the damage to my eardrums.

If I were still 18, I might notice some minor benefit of the > 22khz captured range of hi-rez, but doubt it. At 60, I'm absolutely certain I won't hear a difference.

Understanding the science behind digital audio is hardly being closed minded; just the opposite, rather.

Listening to the marketing of "high end" audio makers and their proxies in the audiophile press, while ignoring the facts, is.
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.....
Userlevel 2
Badge

A middle ground might be to introduce a new player with enhanced processor power and require this player to be wired to the music source. This player could render the 24/96 stream locally, re-sample the music file, and pass through a 16 bit stream to the other players. Of course, the requirement of wiring this player to the music source would tarnish the "wirelessly play music everywhere" part of the value proposition.


That is exactly what I want - a new player that can play (via wired connection) 24/96 files. I'd jump up & down like a kid on Christmas morning if you figured out how to pass through a 16 bit streamed version to the old players.

I only care about 24/192 (or 24/96) quality at ONE source. The rest of my Sonos systems are for casual listening, and 16 bit is fine for those.

Point being - an updated ZP is expected, and wired is OK for hi-res... at least as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think??
Userlevel 1
Badge
A carefully crafted, peer-reviewed study also proved that people cannot hear the difference between 24/96 files and their resampled 16/44.1 versions. I'll take peer-reviewed studies over placebo induced anecdotal claims of "golden ear" types any day. Oh, and one who claims to hear things that scientific studies have proven impossible to hear should take a moment to consider the irony of calling other people "arrogant."

First you tell me how few files I have then you tell me what I can and can't hear.

Doesn't sound like arrogance at all.
What circumstances or tests or whatever would convince you or others that HiRes files can sound better than 16/44?

Lets for the sake of discussion take the mastering or mixing out of the equation.. I think it's a given that a well produced, recorded, mixed and mastered album at 16/44 will sound better than a poorly done recording presented in a HiRes format.

So all things being equal what would it take to personally convince you (or others) that HiRes sounds better..


I would settle for a test that definitively refutes the results of the '16/44 bottleneck' paper. To me, that bottleneck is the most damning of all, because the test uses the same source, so mastering differences are not a factor.
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:
That is exactly what I want - a new player that can play (via wired connection) 24/96 files. I'd jump up & down like a kid on Christmas morning if you figured out how to pass through a 16 bit streamed version to the old players.

I only care about 24/192 (or 24/96) quality at ONE source. The rest of my Sonos systems are for casual listening, and 16 bit is fine for those.

Point being - an updated ZP is expected, and wired is OK for hi-res... at least as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think??


I think if you want hi-res at only one source, then a stand alone hi-res player is what you you should purchase. There are dozens of them on the market, go nuts. IMHO, creating a stand alone player, that must be wired, and does not sync with other players for use with a multi-room, wireless music system that perfectly syncs is diluting the brand for a very, very small minority of users, and for a "benefit" that is questionable at best. I'd rather they spend their deveopment budget on something else. YMMV.
Userlevel 1
Badge
Stream bandwidth would increase.

Yes... it's too bad wifi speeds have topped out and faster wifi will never come along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11

But, why be ready.