I am planning to add a phono to my sound system setup. I currently have a port connected (Digital Out) to an external Analog-to-Digital Converter which then runs to my stereo preamp, then amplifiers, then speakers (of course). In this way, I am avoiding the Port A-to-D, and using my supposedly better fidelity off-board converter. If I were to connect a phono to the port, I assume I would connect to the line in. I have a few questions: I assume the RCAs labeled “Out” on the port are analog outputs? Do I connect the phono pre-amp before the “In” RCAs, or after the “Out” RCAs? I read before the “In” is correct, but does it matter? Would the phono signal be available at the output RCAs, as well as the digital out? Would the output RCAs have been digitized/un-digitized, or would it just be pass-through? In other words, would the line-in source be passed to the “Out” RCAs without going through a A-to-D and then an D-to-A?Obviously, I could just route phono to phono pre-amp, then to stereo preamp, etc and bypass the entire SONOS ecosystem, but I would like to have the rest of the SONOS components work/distribute the music in the other rooms, but maintain the high fidelity in my main listening room. However, I only want to do this if I can reasonably convince myself that the SONOS doesn’t introduce any extra processing on the analog phono signal. What do you guys think? -Radiate88

Contributor I

Answered

Does the Port Line-In force digitization

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
June 27, 2023
24 replies
1248 views

I am planning to add a phono to my sound system setup. I currently have a port connected (Digital Out) to an external Analog-to-Digital Converter which then runs to my stereo preamp, then amplifiers, then speakers (of course). In this way, I am avoiding the Port A-to-D, and using my supposedly better fidelity off-board converter. If I were to connect a phono to the port, I assume I would connect to the line in. I have a few questions:

I assume the RCAs labeled “Out” on the port are analog outputs?
Do I connect the phono pre-amp before the “In” RCAs, or after the “Out” RCAs? I read before the “In” is correct, but does it matter?
Would the phono signal be available at the output RCAs, as well as the digital out?
Would the output RCAs have been digitized/un-digitized, or would it just be pass-through? In other words, would the line-in source be passed to the “Out” RCAs without going through a A-to-D and then an D-to-A?

Obviously, I could just route phono to phono pre-amp, then to stereo preamp, etc and bypass the entire SONOS ecosystem, but I would like to have the rest of the SONOS components work/distribute the music in the other rooms, but maintain the high fidelity in my main listening room. However, I only want to do this if I can reasonably convince myself that the SONOS doesn’t introduce any extra processing on the analog phono signal.

What do you guys think?

-Radiate88

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.

Best answer by buzz

Line-In is just a SONOS network source. Line-Out can play any SONOS network source, there is no direct connection between them. There is a 75ms latency between Line-In and output from a player.

AjTrek1’s scheme is treating PORT as a cassette deck. This would yield the direct path between the turntable and your amplifier that you want. Using the amplifier’s analog output connected to PORT’s Line-In you could play any input to the amplifier through SONOS players. Note that there will be a 75ms latency for all SONOS players. This is not usually an issue for distant players.

Show previous replies

R

Radiate88Author

Contributor I

I am avoiding the Port A-to-D, and using my supposedly better fidelity off-board converter.

“Supposedly” may be in theory based on DAC specs, but audibly in a blind test with sound levels accurately matched? No one has been able to prove that even in a quiet domestic listening environment by picking between the two alternatives in a statistically reliable manner.

Do what is most convenient therefore, without bothering about theoretical differences.

I use a Modwright Signature Level 2 modified Perpetual Technologies Upsampling DAC. Here is an old review of such: https://www.v1.stereotimes.com/acc040201.shtml. I feel confident that this DAC is superior to that of the Port. I haven’t done a comparison using the port DAC as I just received it, having upgraded from the old ZP80. But, I did notice a significant improvement over the ZP80.

But that's not really the point here. When I adopted the SONOS ecosystem (way back around 2006. I even had the CR100 controller), I did so simply to use it as a transport mechanism. I couldn’t keep track of all my CDs, and it was becoming painful loading and reloading my CD changer. I was already into the audiophile hobby, building my own speakers, introducing a tube preamp, etc. At the time, I had no interest going back to analog source due to availability of vinyl, and the ease of use of the CD format. I implemented a NAS to house all my music, a collection of over 1GB of music in FLAC format. I understand both the benefits and limitations of 16bit digital music, and I am fine with it (I’d like to see more support for higher resolution bit streams, but that's another topic). But, the point of my question above is this: if using the phono with the port means taking an analog source, digitizing its output, then converting it back to analog prior to amplification, then that is something that I myself am not interested in. At that point, what would be the sonic benefit of the analog source? In that case I may as well just stick with digital sources and be done with it. My first goal here is to achieve the best sound quality that I can. This means no digitization (quantization) of the analog source at a minimum. And I can guarantee that you could hear the difference in that (at least if you have a sound system capable of relatively high fidelity, which I do).

-Radiate88

jgatie

If you are looking for no digitization of the analog input, Sonos is not the solution. Every Sonos Line-In will digitize the analog input, and there’s no way around it. As to whether it is audible (regardless of the “high fidelity” of your system, which is audiophile speak for “I spent more $$$$ than you, so I can hear things you can’t.”), a couple of guys named Nyquist and Shannon would have a lot to say about that. But that’s another conversation. If digitization in the audio chain is a deal breaker, Sonos is not for you.

K

Kumar

the point of my question above is this: if using the phono with the port means taking an analog source, digitizing its output, then converting it back to analog prior to amplification, then that is something that I myself am not interested in. At that point, what would be the sonic benefit of the analog source?

That is a strange question to ask when the source in question is low fidelity tech like vinyl!

On the other hand, if vinyl is being used for other subjective and valid reasons, sonic benefits should not be in the frame.

R

Radiate88Author

Contributor I

If you are looking for no digitization of the analog input, Sonos is not the solution. Every Sonos Line-In will digitize the analog input, and there’s no way around it. As to whether it is audible (regardless of the “high fidelity” of your system, which is audiophile speak for “I spent more $$$$ than you, so I can hear things you can’t.”), a couple of guys named Nyquist and Shannon would have a lot to say about that. But that’s another conversation. If digitization in the audio chain is a deal breaker, Sonos is not for you.

Seriously? Look at what I wrote. Sonos is valuable to me as a transport mechanism. I also have a 5 in my garage, a 3 in my office, a 1 in my bathroom, a Sonos amp playing outdoor speakers. Sonos is for me, and has been for many years. In the digital domain, it's fine. But, for high fidelity analog source use I do not want digitization. There is loss of information in digitization, regardless of what Nyquist and Shannon say. What resolution is good enough for you? Of course, a CD is 16 bit, so is that it? What about higher resolutions such as SACD? Do you think you could tell the difference between an 16 bit mp3 and a wave file? How about 8 bit mp3?

The point is not that "I can hear things you can't" as you write, though that is the end result due to the fact that a high end system can reproduce sound from information that you are missing due to effects of quantization, as well as other effects, such as induced noise from a power supply etc. Not too mention frequency response capability of the speakers.

It's all good jgatie. I understand that my pursuit is not for everyone. Some folks love to color the sound with equalizers and other processing...more power to them. But I wouldn't chalk it up to someone just throwing money at a stereo for bragging rights. I am just trying to reproduce two channel stereo recorded vinyl as best I can. That's me.

-Radiate88

R

Radiate88Author

Contributor I

the point of my question above is this: if using the phono with the port means taking an analog source, digitizing its output, then converting it back to analog prior to amplification, then that is something that I myself am not interested in. At that point, what would be the sonic benefit of the analog source?

That is a strange question to ask when the source in question is low fidelity tech like vinyl!

On the other hand, if vinyl is being used for other subjective and valid reasons, sonic benefits should not be in the frame.

I get your point, but I certainly dont think that a2d followed by d2a conversion, just for the sake of it, would be preferable to no conversions at all. Do you?

In this case, the concept is that music, and other sound, when created is analog by its very nature. Any conversion to digital, then back to analog (cause we can't hear digital) results in data loss by definition. Are there artifacts that result from vinyl playback? Of course. So I also try to minimize that. There are plenty of people out there that will tell you they can get better Soundstage and imaging from vinyl than they can from a digital source. Sound is subjective. I will continue to play both digital and vinyl. And I will continue to try to create a sound reproduction that, to my ears, is as good as I can get within reason. To me, one thing that means is avoiding conversion of analog source data to the digital domain.

K

Kumar

I get your point, but I certainly dont think that a2d followed by d2a conversion, just for the sake of it, would be preferable to no conversions at all. Do you?

In this case, the concept is that music, and other sound, when created is analog by its very nature. Any conversion to digital, then back to analog (cause we can't hear digital) results in data loss by definition.

To the first - there is a feature driven reason why Sonos does this - it is not just for the sake of it. And if this two step thing has no audible impact, what’s the beef?!

The second is a similar thing - if the data loss is not audible how does it matter? Assuming that your claim of “by definition” is correct in the first place for this specific instance, but for this argument, I am granting that it is.

I do get that the audiophile pursuit often is in domains that are not audible, which is why the hobby is not one that music lovers have to pursue to fully enjoy their music listening experience.

jgatie

Actually, Nyquist-Shannon is mathematical proof that there is no data loss whatsoever within the bounds of the sample rate. The analog wave is recreated perfectly. No loss of fidelity, no jaggies, no stairsteps, just a perfect representation of the incoming waveform. So “by definition” there is NO data loss at all, not the other way around.

R

Radiate88Author

Contributor I

To the first - there is a feature driven reason why Sonos does this - it is not just for the sake of it. And if this two step thing has no audible impact, what’s the beef?!

The second is a similar thing - if the data loss is not audible how does it matter? Assuming that your claim of “by definition” is correct in the first place for this specific instance, but for this argument, I am granting that it is.

I do get that the audiophile pursuit often is in domains that are not audible, which is why the hobby is not one that music lovers have to pursue to fully enjoy their music listening experience.

Why would you say there would be no audio impact? I believe it is indeed audible on a capable system. In fact, I know it is. As for the audiophile pursuit being in non-audible domains, well, thats just odd. I dont know about that. I am pursuing better audio. And if you need to “take for granted” that digitization results in data loss, than you do not understand it. And thats OK.

Your last line encapsulates all of it though. Audiophile pursuits are not required for music enthusiasts to fully enjoy their listening experience. Of that, there is no doubt. However, there are limitations to quality sound reproduction imposed by many things, such as resolution of the digital bit stream, CODECs being used, induced electrical noise, compression used for satellite music (Sirius XM), Bluetooth transfers (if used), etc.

We are way beyond the intended topic, though, so I am going to stop here. Frankly, some people just don’t get it. No problem...as you say, you can still fully enjoy the listening experience. And I can pursue my interest as well. I don’t intend to insinuate that the SONOS is not a great product. It is. I am just saying that I don’t want it in line with my analog source.

-Radiate88

R

Radiate88Author

Contributor I

Actually, Nyquist-Shannon is mathematical proof that there is no data loss whatsoever within the bounds of the sample rate. The analog wave is recreated perfectly. No loss of fidelity, no jaggies, no stairsteps, just a perfect representation of the incoming waveform. So “by definition” there is NO data loss at all, not the other way around.

I disagree with your premise, and you are free to disagree with mine. If you are interested, you can look here (see link below). Again, far beyond the intent of my original post. Suffice it to say, I believe that you are wrong due to the actual implementation of music reproduction. YMMV.

https://todayamerican.medium.com/audiophiles-rejoice-why-the-nyquist-shannon-sampling-theorem-actually-proves-high-res-audio-is-33ec158de5af

-Radiate88

jgatie

I disagree with your premise, and you are free to disagree with mine. If you are interested, you can look here (see link below). Again, far beyond the intent of my original post. Suffice it to say, I believe that you are wrong due to the actual implementation of music reproduction. YMMV.

https://todayamerican.medium.com/audiophiles-rejoice-why-the-nyquist-shannon-sampling-theorem-actually-proves-high-res-audio-is-33ec158de5af

-Radiate88

You disagree with mathematically proven fact? Good luck with that. And that article is more audio hogwash, dressed up with engineer speak. It’s trying to say the signal above audibility is something which is missing from the data, as if inaudible sound affects the audible spectrum. Which is nonsense, and has never been proven to be anything but nonsense by countless A/B/X tests.

I’m inclined to bring up the test where the majority of self-proclaimed golden ears audiophiles missed a glaringly obvious band of distortion when they were listening in their preferred method (hint: it wasn’t A/B/X), whereas the “listening on trash gear with trash ears” objective types heard it immediately through an A/B/X test. But I don’t like to pile on.

Anyway, I digress. If you don’t want digitization of your analog sources, having Sonos in the signal chain is not a viable solution.

Show more replies

Sign up

Login to the community