Connect no longer bit-perfect?

Further to the above, the only Sonos statement on this thread on this change is to say:
"We are talking about a minor change to the audio when applying normalisation."
Now, while I have found no audible impact of this in my Connect that is working in variable analog output mode, I have to say that my one improvement wish from ALL Sonos units including play units is that normalisation works much better than what it does even now, and starts working on playlists made from different albums that are played in random shuffle.

Any drop in sound levels that is in excess of just 0.2 dB results in perceived degradation of sound quality, something that can come in the way of listening to music from such playlists, where sound level changes can at times be significantly more than 0.2dB. Along with changes in mastering quality, sound level changes from one album to the next caused at the time of mastering is what results in perceived and therefore distracting sound quality changes in the music being heard. Ironically, this is an issue brought to the fore because of the Sonos feature of easy to use playlists; in the past with CD players playing one disc at a time, one did not give a second thought to moving the volume control on the amp a little if necessary when a new CD started to play.

So it seems that while the change to bit perfect status has rubbed the bit perfect seekers the wrong way, it also hasn't truly addressed the normalisation issue that persists and raises its head in shuffled playlist play.

I have also found that sound levels from Apple Music are always a little lower than those when music is playing from my ripped CDs; easy enough to address when changing sources, but it means that mixed source playlists, played in shuffled mode, are not playable without often getting distracted by the sound level changes from one track to the next. Not an easy fix, I suspect, but one that would be widely useful. This may also be applicable for playlists made from two streaming services.

In my experience, the sound level changes are those that cause an audible degradation in sound quality, even when that isn't really the case as is seen when quality is restored once sound levels are accurately matched, while changes to bit perfect that may cause an objective change, do not do so to the extent that are audible, PROVIDED that all other things, including the all important sound levels to within a 0.2dB range, remains the same. And, as someone has pointed out, not knowing that bits are no longer perfect, helps!

I will object to the statement that it 'can't be heard', though. If it is indeed a 1 DB adjustment in dynamic peaks, it is definitely audible. But then again: how much of a problem is this? What is audible and not audible is a tricky thing. In general, the human ear adapts to what we hear at any given time. Recent blind tests have for example shown that quite a lot of people now prefer low-quality 128 kbs MP3s over CD quality, because that's why they are used to from youtube. Does that mean that 128 kbs mp3 are "better" than CDs, or higher-quality MP3s like 320 kbs? Of course not. But people's preferences, and what may or may not be audible, can be a fickle guide to audio quality.

Therefore, I didn't notice this when the change came. The ear adapts. I only became aware of it when by accident I came to compare directly how some tracks with high dynamic content sounded on my headphones (the Sennheiser 650) and my active monitors when fed by the connect. The difference seemed quite substantial to me. After that, I started to read up, and became aware that the Connect was no longer bit perfect. By now it has biased my listening, and I tend to be aware of it all the time when listening to classical music, which I wasn't before.

Will it be audible to others? It depends.
- First, i haven't used the analog outputs on the connect, only the digital.
- Second, to hear this you need to listen to music with a large dynamic range. That excludes almost all the popular music that is produced today. Classical and some jazz recordings are still made with much dynamics though. It also becomes more audible if one listens to complete albums or compositions where there are both very loud and very low parts. Listening to mixed playlists will not reveal this to the same degree.
- Third, you need to have a system that is capable of reproducing large dynamics without clipping or distortion. When it comes to loudspeakers, that will probably mean either a rather expensive traditional hifi system, or some well-regarded active monitors from the pro world (the cheap JBL LSR 308 are excellent, and will get you a long way).

I would guess that this will not be audible to most people, as most people mainly listen to modern music where dynamics is limited. But for me, who listens a lot to classical and jazz and cares about the dynamic impact of recordings, it is both audible and important.

For what its worth, almost all my listening is to excellently recorded acoustic jazz, and my ears could not pick up any differences in a DBT back in 2011. I also do not think that the JBLs - and I have experience of the 305, as well as Adam active monitors - will add more resolving power than what my 1 pair + Sub does, based on my listening experiences.

As an aside, why do some think that Sonos, in its latest play units that use active tech and room response DSP, have not been able to do all that JBL has done in the LSR range? After all the LSRs are also cheap speakers, so those that deride Sonos because it is cheap ought to look down on the JBL as well!

Of course, as I have written earlier, I don't have golden ears in spite of having over a decade of exposure to high end HiFi kit. So, call me deaf, I have been told that often enough here for it to not matter.

I do notice a distinct and noticeable absence of anyone backing their claims for hearing differences that have sustained themselves in a well constructed and instrument level matched DBT though - of the kind that places like Hydrogen Audio deem necessary for instance - for the many subjective claims on sound quality that are made here as everywhere on the internet, which tend to let me think that I may be deaf, but I am not dumb:-).

And for those who think that Sonos, that makes the current model 5 units, and also a set up with the sound quality of a well placed 1 pair + Sub, both of which can further be room response optimised with Trueplay, does not make serious HiFi kit only because the Connect isn't bit perfect, there is little to be said. Those with the conviction behind this thinking will sell their Sonos kit and move on, and good luck to them! My choice for quality sound now is room response optimised play units/Sub for home audio, over worrying about things like bit perfect which isn't something my ears are able to hear anyway. I also no longer bother about, for example, what kind of power supply module delivers the best "quality" power for getting the best sound quality; something that I admittedly also dabbled with in my audiophile days. PSUs, DACs, ICs are now all cheap commodity componentry, and I trust Sonos to have done all the hard work in choosing what delivers the best sound for the price point, which finally is all I am interested in, because the days of being an equipment hobbyist are behind me. It took a couple of serious tests at home when I still had my high end kit to realise that it wasn't necessary to remain a hobbyist to obtain music of excellent quality at home via Sonos. A significant reduction in both the investment as well as footprint reduction and cable clutter elimination was a very welcome by product, but not a driver of the change.

I remain curious to have a Sonos response to this subject of course, but for the normalisation subject that is far more important to me from a consistent sound quality perspective, I have opened a new thread.

Interesting comment, Kumar. I'm a very rational-minded audiophile, and have never bought into the thing about magic cables or power conditioners. But there are substantial and audible differences between speakers, speaker drivers and speaker technologies. This is also something that can easily be shown in measurements as well.

The thing is: I don't trust listening tests. I don't trust sighted listening (when we know what gear we're listening to), but I don't trust simple blind tests either. It is very easy to get negative results even when there are in fact objective difference that can be audible. Here's a thread on that on that on another audio forum: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/
In your case, for example, your listening to Sonos will be biased by the fact that you think they make excellent products, and by your conviction that traditional audiophoolery is a waste of money and that sonos is just as good. Others will be biased in their listening by the very opposite convictions.

And I agree that sonos makes excellent gear. A pair of play:1s together with a sub will easily outplay most traditional passive systems in the price range (my subjective opinion is that two play:1 + sub is a better-sounding option than a pair of the new play:5s). But the JBL 305/308s, for example, are superior. When I say that, it is not only based on my own listening. After all, your listening experiences may be different from mine. When I say that, it is based on objective parameters that have been shown to correlate with listener satisfaction in psychoacoustic studies: Frequency response, dispersion pattern, polar response, response in the time domain, the ability to play loud without distortion, etc. On all of these parameters, the JBL 305s/308s perform better than a pair of Sonos play:1 with sub.

But two play:1s with sub does sound very good. Not just "good for the price", it sounds good. But this was a detour, though. The point is there are measurable differences in audio quality. At what point these differences become marginal, that's something one can discuss. But the differences are there. To limit dynamic range IS something that affects objective audio quality in a negative way, and it is within the range we KNOW to be objectively audible. How important this is to us subjectively, is - well - a subjective thing. I really can't see why we can't just leave it at that.

Therefore, I didn't notice this when the change came. The ear adapts. I only became aware of it when by accident I came to compare directly how some tracks with high dynamic content sounded on my headphones (the Sennheiser 650) and my active monitors when fed by the connect. The difference seemed quite substantial to me. After that, I started to read up, and became aware that the Connect was no longer bit perfect. By now it has biased my listening, and I tend to be aware of it all the time when listening to classical music, which I wasn't before.

These words beg two questions:
1. Why is not possible that the same difference would have been heard - between the headphones and the active speakers - before the change? I realise that this isn't a question that can be easily answered, but it remains a valid one even so. And as I am sure you know, it is very difficult to obtain the same sound quality that a good headphone can deliver, from speakers that have to overcome all the challenges of room responses and ambient noise levels even in a very quiet room. The closest comparison can only come from a speaker set up that is optimised for near field listening, but even that is disadvantaged compared to quality headphones. Comparing sound quality between headphones and speakers is apples v oranges.
2. And to complete your own line of thinking in the second part - why can't it be said that what you are now aware of is just the result of Expectation Bias and not any change in the Connect?

Therefore, I didn't notice this when the change came. The ear adapts. I only became aware of it when by accident I came to compare directly how some tracks with high dynamic content sounded on my headphones (the Sennheiser 650) and my active monitors when fed by the connect. The difference seemed quite substantial to me. After that, I started to read up, and became aware that the Connect was no longer bit perfect. By now it has biased my listening, and I tend to be aware of it all the time when listening to classical music, which I wasn't before.


These words beg two questions:
1. Why is not possible that the same difference would have been heard - between the headphones and the active speakers - before the change? I realise that this isn't a question that can be easily answered, but it remains a valid one even so. And as I am sure you know, it is very difficult to obtain the same sound quality that a good headphone can deliver, from speakers that have to overcome all the challenges of room responses and ambient noise levels even in a very quiet room. The closest comparison can only come from a speaker set up that is optimised for near field listening, but even that is disadvantaged compared to quality headphones. Comparing sound quality between headphones and speakers is apples v oranges.
2. And to complete your own line of thinking in the second part - why can't it be said that what you are now aware of is just the result of Expectation Bias and not any change in the Connect?

Good questions. I'll try to brief:
1) My monitors of choice are quite excellent, and I listen to them in the near-field together with a subwoofer. It's the DM10s from the small English manufacturer AVI. Outstanding value for money. They are more revealing than the Sennheiser 650s, probably on a par with the Sennheiser 800s. But the room can obviously mess things up. That's why I listen to them in the near-field. EDIT/clarification: So ordinarily, my near-field setup with speakers provides better clarity and better dynamics than my headphones. But you are completely right that headphones usually outplay speakers in those regards.

2) You are obviously right. I don't see my own listening impressions to be the final word on anything. I'm as prone to expectation bias as everybody else. That's why I try to find out whether there are measurements and objective facts which back up my listening impressions. In this case, I believe that there is.

But the JBL 305/308s, for example, are superior. When I say that, it is not only based on my own listening. After all, your listening experiences may be different from mine. When I say that, it is based on objective parameters that have been shown to correlate with listener satisfaction in psychoacoustic studies: Frequency response, dispersion pattern, polar response, response in the time domain, the ability to play loud without distortion, etc. On all of these parameters, the JBL 305s/308s perform better than a pair of Sonos play:1 with sub.

Digressing from the thread, but this is a very interesting point.
I would argue that not all measured differences will result in audible differences, and of those that do, not all will be preferred.
For something like a speaker, all that matters is which one I prefer to listen to. Not what you do, or not what has been "shown" to correlate with listener satisfaction in studies, although I grant that the odds in that case are skewed to that speaker ending up to be preferred more often than not. And some things that aren't measured, like looks, will also influence the preference.
Which is why it is never a good idea to buy a speaker only based on its reported measurements. For instance, I may prefer the way the 1 pair + hidden Sub looks, compared to the industrial looks of the JBL, and that may drive my preference for the Sonos set up. Or not.
So for speakers, the only use of measurements is to make a short list; ideally before buying, they should be heard at home, sighted, with preferred music, from the usual source, and the ones that then sound best for the budget should be the ones to buy.
And although this is a digression, it does underline the irrelevance of the bit perfect thing, except to meet psychological needs. That said, I get that those that are influenced by these needs will not be happy with the Connect as it is stated to be these days.
By the way - when you say the 305/308 perform better than the 1 pair + Sub, you also need to say whether this is the case with today's Connect, or the one before the change was made, and also based on what kind of inputs are given to the JBL pair...:) Which makes things complicated and just an example of why a listening test at home of the kind I described trumps all measurements for electro mechanical devices like speakers.
Does Sonos care about this state of affairs for the Connect? For them to say, so let's see if any response is forthcoming.

Digressing from the thread, but this is a very interesting point.
I would argue that not all measured differences will result in audible differences, and of those that do, not all will be preferred.
For something like a speaker, all that matters is which one I prefer to listen to. Not what you do, or not what has been "shown" to correlate with listener satisfaction in studies, although I grant that the odds in that case are skewed to that speaker ending up to be preferred more often than not. And some things that aren't measured, like looks, will also influence the preference.
Which is why it is never a good idea to buy a speaker only based on its reported measurements. For instance, I may prefer the way the 1 pair + hidden Sub looks, compared to the industrial looks of the JBL, and that may drive my preference for the Sonos set up. Or not.
So for speakers, the only use of measurements is to make a short list; ideally before buying, they should be heard at home, sighted, with preferred music, from the usual source, and the ones that then sound best for the budget should be the ones to buy.
And although this is a digression, it does underline the irrelevance of the bit perfect thing, except to meet psychological needs. That said, I get that those that are influenced by these needs will not be happy with the Connect as it is stated to be these days.
By the way - when you say the 305/308 perform better than the 1 pair + Sub, you also need to say whether this is the case with today's Connect, or the one before the change was made, and also based on what kind of inputs are given to the JBL pair...:) Which makes things complicated and just an example of why a listening test at home of the kind I described trumps all measurements for electro mechanical devices like speakers.
Does Sonos care about this state of affairs for the Connect? For them to say, so let's see if any response is forthcoming.

Good points. Agreed.

1) My monitors of choice are quite excellent, and I listen to them in the near-field together with a subwoofer. It's the DM10s from the small English manufacturer AVI. Outstanding value for money.
Excellent speakers those; I also know that ratty, who is one of the true wise heads here, has a Connect driven AVI active set up, so maybe he will find his way here some time soon and shed some light on any thing different he finds with the sound quality he now obtains.

I also know that ratty, who is one of the true wise heads here, has a Connect driven AVI active set up
Not any more. That room has a pair of PLAY:5 Gen2 plus a SUB. Trueplay tuned of course, smoothing out what would otherwise be a very lumpy room response starting with a major peak at 30Hz.

In any case, it wasn't a CONNECT it was a 2007 ZP80. Now doing service driving a combo DAC/headphone amp into Sennheiser HD599s for late night listening.