Zp 24/96

at least one study has been listed and quoted
http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?p=120881#post120881

Just to contend some of Keith's points:

"Firstly a key fact:
Developing this capability will take time and cost money and will take development resources away from other feature developments."

Fact? You seriously expect me to believe that Sonos develops and produces sound chips and DACs from scratch, bespoke? I find that very unlikely and uneconomical if they do. Surely they just buy them off the shelf like all the other manufacturers of streamers do? In which case, the development is simply a matter of: "Yes, I'll take that one, the one with the hires capability please."

Of course they do. The chipsets in the Sonos equipment are, and always have been, standard components, and they are 24-bit capable.

The lines of code required to make the OS recognise and handle hires files would not be a massive undertaking.

This is where you are wrong. The work here is not trivial. In fact the majority of the work here is in decoding the 24-bit formats and turning this into a format suitable for being sent to the DAC. This may involve native code and DSP logic. Even if this is, nominally, only a man week or two of coding by the time you factor in basic testing, debugging and documentation it becomes at least a man-month of effort across multiple departments, and probably more. That's consuming resource that would otherwise be used for other developments.

The reality is, it's all about priority. Every change to the system consumes development and testing resources. Development teams will prioritise their efforts based on factors like how long they think it will take, how complex the development is and, most importantly, by what the company thinks gives the best reward for the least effort.

Even if it only took 1 day... if it's more beneficial for Sonos to use that day of development resource on something more important, then it's not going to happen!

"The small, but vocal, group of hires true believers think that there is no other feature more beneficial, popular, or obvious than hires and that it should be developed as a priority."

I said the exact opposite to that: I stated that I embraced the variety of user requests, even those I have no interest in, and supported them; just as I hoped others would support our request for hires file support.

Then you aren't one of the people I'm talking about. There are those that fit my description above, those who almost consider lack of hires support as a serious "bug" than as a missing feature.

Quote and reference the "scientific studies" please, or I can't comment. I will believe that a lot of people can't hear the difference as it would in large part depend on the quality of the systems they are playing their music through. I would simply ask that people try this themselves. If you play music through cheap PC speakers or $5 headphones, then don't bother, hires won't sound any better.

Others have quoted studies. I would also turn it around and say "how me a scientific study which supports the assertion that hires is audible". As far as I know there aren't any, even though, if it were true, it should be an easy thing to prove. An interesting point is that there has been debate about the audibility of hires on the Squeezebox forums, with the general concensus being that it isn't audible.

As far as listening on low quality kit, I agree, but that's part of my point: if the differences in hires are audible, they are only audible on very high-end setups (not just equipment but environment) under critical listening conditions. This sort of setup is the domain of the hardcore audiophile which is probably less than 0.1% of the population.

"The people who believe that also believe that the money, time, and other resources required to develop it would be better spent on other more beneficial and/or mainstream capabilities. This is a perfectly valid and rational argument."

Yes it is, as is my viewpoint. As I said previously, and again above, I don't argue against others wishes for "more beneficial" capabilities. Sonos should be perfectly capable of developing solutions for all users.

Yes, but only within reason. That argument, taken too literally, leads to the view that there is no reason why Sonos shouldn't develop every possible feature, all at the same time. Clearly that's nonsense. As I indicated above, developments cost money and use resources and even companies like Microsoft don't have these in infinite supply. The reality is developments have to be prioritised and scheduled.

Cheers,

Keith

Just to contend some of Keith's points:

"Firstly a key fact:
Developing this capability will take time and cost money and will take development resources away from other feature developments."

Fact? You seriously expect me to believe that Sonos develops and produces sound chips and DACs from scratch, bespoke? I find that very unlikely and uneconomical if they do. Surely they just buy them off the shelf like all the other manufacturers of streamers do? In which case, the development is simply a matter of: "Yes, I'll take that one, the one with the hires capability please."

Of course they do. The chipsets in the Sonos equipment are, and always have been, standard components, and they are 24-bit capable.

The lines of code required to make the OS recognise and handle hires files would not be a massive undertaking.

This is where you are wrong. The work here is not trivial. In fact the majority of the work here is in decoding the 24-bit formats and turning this into a format suitable for being send to the DAC. This may involve native code and DSP logic. Even if this is, nominally, only a man week or two of coding by the time you factor in basic testing, debugging and documentation it becomes at least a man-month of effort across multiple departments, and probably more. That's consuming resource that would otherwise be used for other developments.

The reality is, it's all about priority. Every change to the system consumes development and testing resources. Development teams will prioritise their efforts based on factors like how long they think it will take, how complex the development is and, most importantly, by what the company thinks gives the best reward for the least effort.

Even if it only took 1 day... if it's more beneficial for Sonos to use that day of development resource on something more important, then it's not going to happen!

"The small, but vocal, group of hires true believers think that there is no other feature more beneficial, popular, or obvious than hires and that it should be developed as a priority."

I said the exact opposite to that: I stated that I embraced the variety of user requests, even those I have no interest in, and supported them; just as I hoped others would support our request for hires file support.

Then you aren't one of the people I'm talking about. There are those that fit my description above, those who almost consider lack of hires support as a serious "bug" than as a missing feature.

Quote and reference the "scientific studies" please, or I can't comment. I will believe that a lot of people can't hear the difference as it would in large part depend on the quality of the systems they are playing their music through. I would simply ask that people try this themselves. If you play music through cheap PC speakers or $5 headphones, then don't bother, hires won't sound any better.

Others have quoted studies. I would also turn it around and say "how me a scientific study which supports the assertion that hires is audible". As far as I know there aren't any, even though, if it were true, it should be an easy thing to prove. An interesting point is that there has been debate about the audibility of hires on the Squeezebox forums, with the general concensus being that it isn't audible.

As far as listening on low quality kit, I agree, but that's part of my point: if the differences in hires are audible, they are only audible on very high-end setups (not just equipment but environment) under critical listening conditions. This sort of setup is the domain of the hardcore audiophile which is probably less than 0.1% of the population.

"The people who believe that also believe that the money, time, and other resources required to develop it would be better spent on other more beneficial and/or mainstream capabilities. This is a perfectly valid and rational argument."

Yes it is, as is my viewpoint. As I said previously, and again above, I don't argue against others wishes for "more beneficial" capabilities. Sonos should be perfectly capable of developing solutions for all users.

Yes, but only within reason. That argument, taken too literally, leads to the view that there is no reason why Sonos shouldn't develop every possible feature, all at the same time. Clearly that's nonsense. As I indicated above, developments cost money and use resources and even companies like Microsoft don't have these in infinite supply. The reality is developments have to be prioritised and scheduled.

I'm sorry some of you are having problems playing hires files above. My, very old, Squeezebox plays them fine

And yet many Squeezebox devices do a dreadful job of decoding standard MP3 files, to the point they are very clearly audibly degraded. This impacts far more people than lack of hires.

Cheers,

Keith

With regards the 'research' cited above then I might point those interested in the direction of Robert Harley's criticism here;
http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1

Or, the discussions in these papers;
http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf
and
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue52/ultrasonic.htm

Surprisingly little evidence-based research exists in this area, but that is not a major problem. All that matters, is whether you can perceive a difference in hires and standard (or, compressed) audio, or not, and which you prefer. It is very easy to download the same music in both formats to listen and compare yourself. Which I would encourage all to do.

Of course, there is a world of difference between streaming music to a portable unit with an in-built speaker (or worse), and routing it through a quality hi-fi and possibly even a third-party DAC (that goes for Squeezebox too). But, I wouldn't discount a reasonable proportion of Sonos owners using a hi-fi in some part of their set-up. After all, Sonos users are already paying a premium compared to many streaming solutions. This would suggest these buyers are discerning of the quality of music playback and invest accordingly, not only for useability functions.

Why can't implementation costs be incorporated in a premium unit for additional cost? Those interested in hires, myself included, will probably pay extra for the facility, because we value sound quality.

Simon

MODERATOR NOTE: The following dozen or so posts were moved from the [thread=16896]Community votes for requested Sonos enhancements - progress so far.[/thread] thread as they were veering off topic.


I'm surprised that so many people have $10,000+ dedicated listening room setups with full acoustic treatment and the ultra-high end kit needed for listening to hires sources.

Cheers,

Keith

What the heck, I'll throw this out there. Although Sonos is clearly more concerned about hardware innovation than software improvements it still amazes me that, for a system that touts the ability to have 32 zones, the software tools for zone management are so anemic. When they decide to give me some real tools for zone management I will expand further, until then I will simply stick with what I have.

I guess lowering the hardware entry price to gain new customers is more profitable than enticing existing owners to expand.

I'm surprised that so many people have $10,000+ dedicated listening room setups with full acoustic treatment and the ultra-high end kit needed for listening to hires sources.


Keith,

I don't have a $10k set up, nor do I think you need one. Maybe it is placebo, but I like to know that I am listening to as close to pristine as I can get.

Besides, it shouldn't matter. As storage space costs shrink - the viability of high resolution increases.

This is something I believe Sonos should offer.

Keith,

I don't have a $10k set up, nor do I think you need one.

I would argue you do. Consider that the differences between 16-bit and 24-bit can be more subtle than the difference you would get by moving your head by several inches. In most homes they are so far down in the natural background noise that you are unlikely to resolve them. Most homes need serious soundproofing and other acoustic treatment to get to the point where the subtle differences should be resolvable by the human ear/brain. My $10k budget includes $4-5k of acoustic treatment before you even buy any electronics or cables.

Besides, it shouldn't matter. As storage space costs shrink - the viability of high resolution increases.

I don't see why.The viability is not about how much it costs to store but whether there is significant benefit in doing so.

Using your argument I could argue that the viability of converting and storing songs in 128k MP3 format to lossless WAV format has increased. It would be a stupid thing to do and even the most hardened audiophile would agree there is absolutely no benefit to doing so.

So I contend that just because it is possible to do something, that doesn't make it "viable".

This is something I believe Sonos should offer.

Actually I do too, but primarily because of the marketing aspect, secondarily because of the convenience for people who have music in these formats.

In any case, my point here is that, in the real world, hires is a minority interest, which is one explanation as to why Sonos haven't developed it yet. When it suddenly gets a spike in votes which doesn't correlate with longer term activity, I get suspicious, especially as previous polls on hires have been "gamed" by what appears to have been an organised campaign to bring in "ringers" to artificially boost the support.

I'm picking on hires here specifically, but this could apply to any of the more "popular" items.

Cheers,

Keith

This may be a bit of a sideways approach to come at some of the discussion in this thread but I thought I'd share my experience here.

For years, I was as much of an obsessive audiophile as I could afford to be, changing equipment frequently in pursuit of ever more hi fidelity sound. After waiting to find out the winner of the DVD-Audio vs SACD wars, I was surprised, disappointed and confused to find out that the winner was ultimately, the crusty, crappy mp3.

I think the lesson here is a classic case of Porter's five forces model of competition or perhaps the more contemporary version of disruptive innovation. In the audio realm, companies automatically thought after the CD that consumers simply wanted further refinements in sound quality (and would pay for it). This relentless obsession, unfortunately, left them blind to consumers who wanted cheaper, more mobile and more accessible music and would gladly trade sound quality for it.

Audiophiles then and now forget that though their systems and listening ears may very well represent the apotheosis of music appreciation, to the vast majority of 'the market', audiophile obsessions whether over cables or bitrates, are irrelevant esoterica. Those of us who obsess over music listening to the extent that we pore over every detail of our audio systems and agonize in these forums must recognize that we are a tiny vocal minority and Sonos can hardly be faulted for focusing finite resources on the needs of the majority.

Personally, I think Sonos has bigger fish to fry than the 65,000 track limit, for example. Not only do most people not have 65,000 tracks but given the advent of streaming music services, they never will. Sonos has an uphill battle in showing how the combination of wireless, multiroom listening controlled using multiple, free applications combined with streaming music services - will fundamentally alter the music appreciation experience. They have to woo people who not only don't pay that much attention to their 'stereo' or their 'computer' but who probably will default to an Apple Airplay solution just because they already have an most of the equipment.

I would say the mere presence of these forums is a great sign of how Sonos honors its userbase, even if we participants are a tiny and sometimes ungrateful minority of their overall market. I hope they are successful and to that end, I really hope I can figure out a way to help Sonos convert some of my friends who are ideal candidates for Sonos installs but simply don't know it yet. I don't think, for the record, most people care about the icon.

jeremyandalison,

Great post!

Cheers,

Keith