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

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.

Don't be silly. I don’t disagree with Nyquist, but you cannot argue that a signal bounded at 22050 Hz is equivalent to a source information that exceeded that frequency. You can argue that it is not audible, but I believe that to not be the complete picture, and I am trying to reproduce the original signal to the best of my ability. Not really sure why this seems to upset you so much. Is it that I am suggesting that my separates implementation is superior to your all digital sonos system implementation, and this angers you? Do you feel like I am some kind of guy with a superiority complex that brags about his hardware and feels you are beneath him? I really am curious...I’m truly not trying to upset anyone.

I am actually a digital engineer with 30 years experience. I have been around A/D and D/A converters forever. Do you understand that, in real life, various things can happen to the conversions (in both directions) regardless of Nyquist? Conversion is partly based on reference voltages...do you think that voltage reference can vary in real life? Perhaps a little ripple is present? How good is the signal conditioning prior to the A/D? How about A/D and D/A accuracy? Do you believe that every component is created equal? What about noise induced into the analog signal due to a power supply, or radiated emissions? That noise can enter the digital domain when presented to the A/D input. Have you ever seen what a bad ground can do to these devices? These are real world issues I encounter often when trying to approximate analog waveforms in my line of work. Listen, I hope you love your SONOS, and you can digitize your analog audio signals to your hearts content. I love SONOS for digital source stuff, and have a ton of their components to prove it. I even updated so I could go to the S2 software. All I wanted to know was how the port architecture with regard to the analog input was laid out so that I could make a decision that satisfies my personal music listening desires. Your previous statement “So “by definition” there is NO data loss at all, not the other way around.” completely ignores real world conditions.

As for your self proclaimed golden eared audiophiles, I think this says all I need to know. You don't like to pile on...lol. C'mon Man. You don’t believe in it...apparently for you there is no such thing as better than Sonos when it comes to sound reproduction. And there are aspects I don’t believe in. I am not going to buy a $1000 cable. But, I will invest in things I believe can create a superior sonic reproduction of the original source.

We have long ago established that if I don't want digitization of my analog source, then don't route through Sonos, have we not?

I am done here. Enjoy the music.

-Radiate88

K

Kumar

This isn’t for the OP, but for other interested that may chance on this thread in future. I do not write here often now because I have not moved on to S2; I find that I get the features and sound quality I need from other solutions that are cheaper than Sonos - and by sound quality, I mean the same quality that Sonos offers, not better quality.

In my audiophile days, I used to listen to Miles Davis and others on 180g vinyl on a well set up Rega table. I also listened via CDs played on a high end SACD player. And now I listen to this music on an Echo Dot wired to a Sonos amp, via Spotify. Much of my listening is late evenings, when the ambient is quiet, but even there, I have heard no difference in the music across these three versions. Convenience is of course much more now, I don’t need to leave the couch to change tracks/albums.

The reason for this? Because I am using the same excellent Quad speakers since 2003. The speakers and how they are placed in the room drives upwards of 95% of the heard sound quality and much of what remains is lost in the ambient noise floor of a typical room in the home.

My audiophile decade was pre digital music and in the analog domain I have done similar playing with every component in the signal chain - and imagined I was getting better results.

But the chances of getting better results were higher then - digital audio has been a great leveller upwards to a high quality standard for home audio, for bargain basement prices. Other than on the speaker side, there isn’t any real need to experiment now. And even on the speaker side, passive speakers are more similar sounding than one would expect, after about the USD 1500 a pair price point.

For Sonos users of the line in feature, the message is that from a sound quality point, this is as good as it needs to be while also allowing for the feature of playing the line in source in perfect sync across Sonos zones/rooms. That this involves digitisation of an analog source is irrelevant to the heard sound quality.

Human nature of course is a funny thing. A recent example - when Apple Music released lossless streaming, the head of that Apple division said that there is no audible difference between that and Apple lossy 256k streams. But people still twist themselves into hoops to try to get the higher data dense streams from Apple in a hunt for better sound quality.

buzz

The early generations of CD players were designed by digital engineers with no analog experience or analog engineers with no digital experience. Each group made some rather basic design errors in the unfamiliar domain. The result was some rather offensive sounding early CD players. Another very significant issue was the use of master tapes, intended to be used for LP mastering, being used for CD mastering. The idea was, in the interest of “purity”, to transfer the LP master tape directly to the CD master. (this also avoided some intellectual property licensing spats) Since there are some high frequency losses incurred with record production, one way or another the master tapes boosted the highs to compensate for the losses. This could be done with explicit equalization or clever choice of microphone and microphone placement. The result was some rather shrill sounding CD’s. Unfortunately, the audiophile community, with its analog roots and no understanding of “digital”, blamed “digital” for this mess. We are past these design issues now, but the folklore lingers.

Another dimension is the draconian compression used during modern retail music release. Compression was dialed up at about the same time CD’s were introduced. The resulting “lifeless” sound is blamed on “digital”. Earlier LP’s lacked this compression. “HD” releases sometimes avoid this compression and sound better on good systems. This improvement has no relation to the sample rate and word width.

K

Kumar

There is also another thing about vinyl - if the distortion is mild, that may well end up becoming a user preference and a more accurate digital render may sound sterile. Nothing wrong with such a subjective preference of course, but it should be understood to be such - and the Sonos line in process will not take away this mild distortion either.

PS: I forgot to mention a fourth source that also sounds no different - via lossless rips of CDs to a local NAS and played wirelessly via Sonos. I hardly ever use this now because internet streams are now reliable and I prefer the Spotify interface to that of Sonos. And of course, since I no longer buy music, there is much on Spotify that isn’t there on my NAS. The NAS is kept serviceable, as a back up.

Sign up

Login to the community