Zp 24/96

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.

So you admit it may be a placebo, but you still wish to spend more on purchasing and storing files, not to mention the equipment it requires to play them? Wow, the advertisers in Audiophile must love you.

The fact is, if hires were "viable," the hires companies would be bending over backwards to publish peer reviewed scientific tests to show exactly how much better their format is. Have you seen 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.

Fair enough. I do have a soundproofed room, but I thought you were referring to speaker equipment and the like. I think there becomes a serious diminishing marginal increase in sound quality when you start expanding your budget. Probably to the level that it becomes a chasing the dragon scenario.

I have a moderately hi-end system, but I am quite happy with it. Nothing ridiculous - I don't buy crazy cable or anything ... just a nice amp, some good speakers and a very solid DAC.

I don't argue that the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit might be marginal, but the fact is there are hardcore audiophiles that hold off on buying Sonos simply due to this. What i have experienced is that high resolution mixes are significantly heartier and smoother than their "lower" resolution cousins... probably more due to the quality and attention to mixing (much as a Steve Hoffman mastered CD sounds better than most others). But, the difference is there and as such, I have some.

Using your argument I could argue that the viability of converting and storing songs in 128k MP3 format to lossless WAV format has increased.

Sure, you could make that argument. I understand where you are going with the thought, but that's truly torturing any sort of logic and losing the actual point in the process. That really isn't an argument you could make with any merit and you know it.

Lossless, in general, has become more accepted with FLAC and ALAC and cheaper/larger storage capacities. Using even basic logic, this extends to higher resolution files. Using movies as an example, when storage was pricey and small - ripping a DVD was a big deal... now people have hundreds of Bluray rips on drives. Storage has gotten to the point that it is no longer restrictive.

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

That's my point. I don't want to get into an argument of theoretical benefits of high resolution audio. Snake oil or not, it is growing slightly in popularity (albeit it'll never be the standard). As such, I think Sonos should make itself open to playing these files as well.

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.

And I completely agree. But, music enthusiasts are a segment of the market that shouldn't be ignored.

So you admit it may be a placebo, but you still wish to spend more on purchasing and storing files, not to mention the equipment it requires to play them? Wow, the advertisers in Audiophile must love you.

Obviously you have some vested interest in not approving of high resolution audio. So, let me preface this with - I do not have an overly strong opinion on it. I do know I have copies of The Rolling Stones in high resolution and I would love to drop my standard copies. I just want to have one copy.

Anyhow, I won't argue, it may also be placebo. It may also be a placebo that I think I can hear the difference between 320kbs and a straight rip. From where I sit in my living room, I may or may not see the difference in 720p and 1080p.

So, if I only want to purchase the item in one format - why would I buy the inferior version when there is a better option for basically the same price? As technology increases and lowers in cost - I want to have the top-quality format to listen to.

The fact is, if hires were "viable," the hires companies would be bending over backwards to publish peer reviewed scientific tests to show exactly how much better their format is. Have you seen one?

Yawn. Again, you have a vested interest in debasing hires. Your thing, not mine. I won't engage in a debate that I have no interest in having especially when your mind is more than made up.

I don't have a "vested interest" in anything but science. The fact is, if there is an audible difference between 16/44 and 24/96, there are ways to prove it to a scientific certainty. Similar to cocobolo wood feet, "oxygen free" copper, "high speed" HDMI cables ( for a signal that doesn't get above 1080p/60), green markers, and power conditioners, all scientific studies done show there is no difference in sound or picture. If the truth is the opposite, why aren't the manufacturers falling over each other to conduct scientific tests to back up their hype?

Simple question, no "vested interest" in anything but the truth. YMMV.

I think there becomes a serious diminishing marginal increase in sound quality when you start expanding your budget. Probably to the level that it becomes a chasing the dragon scenario.

And I think the same applies to resolution: the difference between 128k and 256k MP3 is relatively substantial and easy to hear on even relatively low end equipment. The difference between lossless redbook and hires is very small, perhaps negligible.

I will slightly qualify this because there seem to be some "hidden" benefits in the higher sampling rate which (due to the practical difficulties of constructing sharp anti-aliasing filters for 44.1kHz sample rates) probably brings audible benefits, but this isn't really due to extra information in the file. There are techniques which arguably solve this problem for redbook audio.

but the fact is there are hardcore audiophiles that hold off on buying Sonos simply due to this.

Exactly, although I do wonder if many of them would find some other reason not to buy.

probably more due to the quality and attention to mixing (much as a Steve Hoffman mastered CD sounds better than most others). But, the difference is there and as such, I have some.

Almost certainly due to the mix. When people have taken a hires mix and properly downsampled it, they almost always report they cannot tell the difference. This is from forums of devices like Squeezebox which do have hires format support.

However, as you say, people do have this stuff and it's a pain to have to downconvert. I think it's a real shame that there seems to be this niche market for high-end beautifully mixed and mastered content, typically available only in hires formats, and the rest is all 256k or below MP3. Surely there's a significant and easily addressable market for standard res downloads, and the content is already there?

Sure, you could make that argument. I understand where you are going with the thought, but that's truly torturing any sort of logic and losing the actual point in the process.

My point is doing something that is arguably pointless doesn't make it "viable", and many people do think hires is pointless.

Looking at it the other way, the sort of people who care enough about their music to spend $10k on a dedicated listening room probably aren't going to care about the relatively small additional cost of storage required for their relatively modest hires collection.

And I don't see the industry moving towards higher res (or, unfortunately, even standard res) as a download format beyond niche stores. The cost of storage for them has been negligible for probably 5 years. I suspect their reasons for limiting file size are nothing to do with storage. After all, even a large online music catalogue (say 8 million tracks, which is typical) could be stored in something like 200TBs even in lossless format. For a cloud-based solution, 200TB has been affordable for several years already.

My point is I don't see how the cost of storage impacts this in any practical way.

That's my point. I don't want to get into an argument of theoretical benefits of high resolution audio. Snake oil or not, it is growing slightly in popularity (albeit it'll never be the standard). As such, I think Sonos should make itself open to playing these files as well.

And I think that ultimately we agree more than we disagree. The problem is Sonos are a commercial company who needs to continue to make money to survive. That largely means their development is driven by commercial priorities. None of us know what those are, but the fact that they haven't rushed to produce a hires offering makes me suspect they cannot justify the cost of developing this against what they consider to be the commercial benefit.

And, to be brutally honest, Sonos don't owe us customers anything beyond what they promise in the product sheets. and they deleiver that and more. It's unfortunate when customers occasionally buy a product based on an assumption and get bitten by it, but really that's not Sonos's fault. Ultimately customers pay their money and take their choice. If hires was a significant enough issue they would be losing a significant number of their target market to other platforms. I see the occasional idle threat on these forums (and perhaps some actually carry them out) but I don't see much real evidence of this.

In fact I see the opposite: Sonos seems to have expanded its sales and its markets. That's pretty impressive when you could consider Sonos to be a non-essential premium "lifestyle" product, and given the present economic conditions.

And I completely agree. But, music enthusiasts are a segment of the market that shouldn't be ignored.

I think we are all "music enthusiasts" here.

If you are referring to the high-end equipment enthusiasts or "audiophiles" or (probably more accurately) "AV geeks", if they are a niche, and a potentially difficult one to sell to, and if it's going to require significant cost to develop something that will appeal to them, why not ignore them? Clearly they aren't your target market.

Cheers,

Keith

Exactly, although I do wonder if many of them would find some other reason not to buy.


Within this very forum we have had people insist the suggested Sonos HR200 (PLAY:HIRES???) be at least $1000 or it wouldn't be popular with the audiophile set. The fact is, the 24/96 market is a niche (24/96) of a niche (Lossless codecs). On top of that, it is a highly subjective, hard to please, quick to scorn, exteme fad following and fickle niche of a niche. IMHO, a target audience like that is in the sights of the $10,000 cables and $50,000 transport manufacturers, who can offset the fickleness with a 5000% profit margin. It's most defintely not for items in the same line as the $299 Play:3, no matter what the price is on the Sonos hires offering.

Again, you are repeating things which have already been in the thread. That link was discussed previously, along with the Swedish codec "study," and the criticism put forth is quite frankly, pure unadulterated bunk. His entire premise says because double blind tests do not show differences that he himself hears, then they are useless. That is not only illogical, it is antithetical to the scientific method. If he submitted this "criticism" to an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal (like the authors of the original study did, which right there debunks his bias claims), he'd be laughed off the pages. But of course he didn't submit his critique to peer-review, because he's not interested in truth, he's interested in furthering the snake oil sales.

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.

Yes, but the vast majority of these people have mid-range equipment in standard untreated rooms, often sub optimally placed due to practical issues... all of which results in a setup which isn't suitable for getting the subtle-at-best benefits of hires.

In reality there are very few people who have the sort of truly "high-end" system that's needed to resolve these differences.

Of course, there's bound to be a bigger number that believe they can hear the differences, and that's partly due to the "belief system" of audiophilia combined with clever marketing of high-end audio companies.

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.

Probably because it doesn't make business sense. I'm sure Sonos know their market and if there was a significant opportunity for a hires unit then a company like Sonos who are appears to be growing and developing would surely have been all over this.

Of course if you add the cost of development to a subset of units, then depending on the market size for that unit it's entirely possible the per-unit cost becomes prohibitive. It also then becomes a fragmented and largely incompatible part of the family.

Ultimately, my statements above about resource and prioritisation are an immutable truth which still applies however many "why don't they just..." suggestions people come up with (and they've all been suggested before).

Fundamentally Sonos will do hires when they feel there is a significant benefit to the company or product line. It may be next week or it may be never, but neither you nor I, nor anyone outside of Sonos Product Development can predict when it will make commercial sense.

Cheers,

Keith

Wouldn't a good first step be to downsample 24-bit, 96/192 files so that they can at least be played instead of detecting the format and giving the user an error message?

Wouldn't a good first step be to downsample 24-bit, 96/192 files so that they can at least be played instead of detecting the format and giving the user an error message?

Downsampling on the fly takes horsepower, and there is a question as to whether the ZP units are capable of it. The Squeezebox Server must downsample and/or decode some codecs (ALAC is one) on the fly, and it struggles to keep sync because of it. That's a server on a full fledged PC/Mac. I doubt a ZP has as much resources as a PC/Mac.

Downsampling on the fly takes horsepower, and there is a question as to whether the ZP units are capable of it.

True, but if it's possible, it's still a decent short term solution to allow people to play hi-res files from a server or NAS while Sonos decides whether or not hardware support is warranted.