Zp 24/96

I don't believe that the inclusion of this feature will be settled - at least not for a LONG time...
I've voiced my support for this feature but I love how this product works as a whole - I'm not going to continuously whine about it and it's certainly not a 'deal-breaker' to suddenly make me want to drop the product and switch to a competitor.

Many good points have been raised on both sides though having checked in from time to time to catch up, sadly I feel there's been a hell of a lot of unnecessary b****ing too.

Personally I have had to broaden my formerly selfish views and see that this product is primarily designed as a multiroom audio system that is simple to set up and use with good reliability. Barring a few hiccups, I’m sure most users would or should agree with this.

Unlike companies such as Linn, I don’t believe Sonos have ever promoted their products to be replacements for existing kit residing in your system (ie CD player/ZP90) and there to be worthwhile additions to enhance our lives and listening pleasure.

The argument has been made that to incorporate higher bitrate music that the hardware of the Sonos units would require an overhaul and that the multiroom ability of being able to play the same music simultaneously may be compromised. I’m not a technical expert but I’m quite happy to believe the idea.
Now, I’m currently only using this product as a single zone system (ZP90) in a high end HiFi so personally I have no need for the multiroom aspect (yet...) so the loss of such a service isn’t of great importance to me. To a lot of others however I’m sure a good sync is. I’m not really wanting the quality of the system to be compromised for the sake of one feature or another and would therefore want any new services to be pretty much bullet proof and have Sonos continue to have their reputation for a reliable product.

I’m always looking at what can be done to improve the performance of my system and hires is steadily being promoted more and more with hardware and catalogues of material growing, it is now worth considering as an aspect of part of your system requirements (putting aside the other debate of whether the difference is actually audible or not). I’m sure there are lots of other users in a similar position.

However, we have to realise that we are very much a minority WITHIN a minority. The mainstream majority will not have made as much of an investment in mid to high end HiFi equipment. On top of that, people interested or even knowing about hires music is relatively small (DVDA and SACD both dead after a very short life).
The combination of the two makes for a very niche market (...for now at least). Not to mention the amount of people actually interested in a ‘decent’ streaming system replacing CD itself as a viable source. These points alone go against what (I believe) Sonos are trying to achieve with their product.

It isn't high fidelity in today's world if it cannot play high resolution.

So how far do you want to take this? If Sonos suddenly decided to give us 24bit playback, how long would it be before you or others start demanding 32bit support.

Even if 24bit was incorporated for the audiophile community, how long would it be before we start asking about improving jitter performance this, need better power supply that? Yes there after market mods but surely customers shouldn’t have to rely on 3rd party suppliers...

So how far do you want to take this? If Sonos suddenly decided to give us 24bit playback, how long would it be before you or others start demanding 32bit support.

That's a pretty weak argument against progress.

I mean, why work on steam technology - we have horses? Why work on gas powered engines - we have steam? Why work on alternative energy vehicles - we have gas?

I mean, seriously, you could use this argument to counter any forward progress in any area of technology ... ever.

Even if 24bit was incorporated for the audiophile community, how long would it be before we start asking about improving jitter performance this, need better power supply that? Yes there after market mods but surely customers shouldn’t have to rely on 3rd party suppliers...

This is going in a completely nebulous direction. Maybe they would - and maybe it would be right of SONOS to offer a product that handles it?

But that's not the item in question - high resolution audio is currently the highest quality you can get recorded music in. It would be nice to be able to own one copy of any one album for any future proofing and that's always the stance I'll maintain.

The overall audio quality increase isn't my primary concern - it's owning one copy of the music and being future proofed.

That's a pretty weak argument against progress.

I mean, why work on steam technology - we have horses? Why work on gas powered engines - we have steam? Why work on alternative energy vehicles - we have gas?

I mean, seriously, you could use this argument to counter any forward progress in any area of technology ... ever.



This is going in a completely nebulous direction. Maybe they would - and maybe it would be right of SONOS to offer a product that handles it?

But that's not the item in question - high resolution audio is currently the highest quality you can get recorded music in. It would be nice to be able to own one copy of any one album for any future proofing and that's always the stance I'll maintain.

The overall audio quality increase isn't my primary concern - it's owning one copy of the music and being future proofed.

Arguing that just because it was beneficial to develop gas powered engines means that it would be beneficial for every company to develop every new technology possible is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum. You might as well ask why Ford doesn't develop jet powered cars because jets are the most powerful engine technology available, why Apple shouldn't develop multi-Teraflops capable super computers, because multi-Teraflops are the fastest speeds available, or why McDonalds shouldn't develop fine French cuisine because it is the best tasting food available.

Again, the market is what the market is. Science may drive what technology gets created, but the market drives what technology gets sold (and last I heard, Sonos wants to sell technology, not just create it).

I'd love if Sonos supported HiRez music.. unfortunately I don't think it will, I won't say never cause never is a really long time, but for the foreseeable future I don't expect it. Why, because what I've been able to glean from a few talks with Sonos people, is that Sonos in it's current state of development simply can't support it. By it I mean especially older units ZP80 and ZP100 of which there are plenty, also it maybe that even the newer hardware won't support it and it's also possible that Sonosnet can't handle it. It's very much part of the Sonos design parameters that older products aren't obsoleted.. So unless Sonos does a ground up revamping of everything the system as it currently is will not support HiRez.. and that's without even taking into account syncing zones and everything else. Sonos as a simple, inexpensive, decent sounding multi room, multi user system is great, I think probably the best. But it's not a Hi End music playback system it wasn't designed to be, and that was never it's design goal.

Arguing that just because it was beneficial to develop gas powered engines means that it would be beneficial for every company to develop every new technology possible is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum.

I never said that they should develop every technology available. You did in your post, but I did not. I simply said that the reverse argument was poor as we could apply it anywhere.

You might as well ask why Ford doesn't develop jet powered cars because jets are the most powerful engine technology available, why Apple shouldn't develop multi-Teraflops capable super computers, because multi-Teraflops are the fastest speeds available, or why McDonalds shouldn't develop fine French cuisine because it is the best tasting food available.

Well, since we decided to be absurd -
1) Jet engines may be more powerful, but the legal limitations on speed and power restrict the market. Furthermore, the cost of jet fuel and the ridiculous flammability of it would prohibit safe transport.
2) I would assume there is a technological limitation to teraflop computers at present considering the size required. Apple will eventually develop multi-Teraflops if technology continues to progress. Since Apple doesn't manufacture it's own motherboard chips, I think the question loses value.
3) McDonald's ... subjective.

What any of those examples have to do with the anything, I don't know.

Again, the market is what the market is. Science may drive what technology gets created, but the market drives what technology gets sold (and last I heard, Sonos wants to sell technology, not just create it).

And?

I guess you lost me on that one, since I don't think anyone argued this point. So, umm... you win?

That's a pretty weak argument against progress.

If you read at the start of my post, I AM a proponent of 24bit. I'm not arguing against progress in the slightest. All I'm saying is that if it is to happen then it should be done properly and not at the potential detriment of other more sellable – and probably more widely used - features.

Maybe they would - and maybe it would be right of SONOS to offer a product that handles it?

And I would be first in line to buy one. But the audiophile market is (sadly for me) not what they’re aiming for...

But that's not the item in question - high resolution audio is currently the highest quality you can get recorded music in. It would be nice to be able to own one copy of any one album for any future proofing and that's always the stance I'll maintain.

My main concern with the material that has been made available is where it has come from and how it has been treated. Some people have looked in to the content and found that rather than a nicely polished and purposefully mastered hires album, they have found that several examples taken are just the original 16/44 and upsampled! Kinda defeats the purpose in my eyes if you ask me – so not better, just different... You don’t buy a Bluray player to continue watching DVDs upscaled – you want to look at the prettier pictures.

The overall audio quality increase isn't my primary concern - it's owning one copy of the music and being future proofed.

Ummm... I thought the whole point of hires was the (supposed) increase in quality. If the extra data whose whole purpose of being there is not going to be taken advantage of, then what’s the point in having it there at all?
Having made considerable financial investment in my Hifi and digital storage, quality and playback ARE of paramount importance to me (along with the enjoyment of music of course...). However, I also like to collect music in various forms. As much as files stored on a HDD and controlled via as something as great a product like Sonos, I still buy CD and vinyl...
As for being ‘future proofed’ – that’s just not possible. Something bigger, better and shinier is always going to come along and we’ll have to look at upgrading.

I never said that they should develop every technology available. You did in your post, but I did not. I simply said that the reverse argument was poor as we could apply it anywhere.


What reverse argument? The poster argued that developing for increasingly smaller and esoteric markets is both costly and futile, because there is always an increasingly smaller portion who wants more. As an example, if Sonos ever offers 24/96, how many posts into the announcement will someone complain
"What!!?? No 24/192!!??" My over/under is 6 posts.

Well, since we decided to be absurd -
1) Jet engines may be more powerful, but the legal limitations on speed and power restrict the market. Furthermore, the cost of jet fuel and the ridiculous flammability of it would prohibit safe transport.
2) I would assume there is a technological limitation to teraflop computers at present considering the size required. Apple will
eventually develop multi-Teraflops if technology continues to progress. Since Apple doesn't manufacture it's own motherboard chips, I think the question loses value.
3) McDonald's ... subjective.

So, feasibility, safety and available technology drives the market. Whoda thunk it?

What any of those examples have to do with the anything, I don't know.

About the same as horses, steam and gas engines.

And?

I guess you lost me on that one, since I
don't think anyone argued this point. So,
umm... you win?

Actually, I think you did argue for developing technology that the market won't bear. You've argued that Sonos should pursue the utmost in sonic fidelity, which may or may not end with 24/96 (or 24/192 ;)).

Actually, you guys are behind the times. 24/192 is sooo last year.

The state of the art is now 24/384. So Sonos, when's it gonna happen? ;)

Cheers,

Keith

P.S. I have a copy of Bob Katz's "Mastering Audio" on order. Bob Katz is a well respected and highly experienced multiple Grammy winning recording studio Engineer and is best known for producing superior quality versions of Jazz and Classical music. Bob is the authority on recording and mastering and I'm told his book is a must read for anyone interested in this subject, including the subject of hires recordings.

You've interpreted this as "any format on earth" which I think is a misinterpretation.

I can take any music and play it on Sonos. I may have to convert it to a different file format to do so, but I can play any music on earth.


You may as well claim that two baked bean cans and a length of string can play any music on earth, then. The source material just needs to be converted first.

"All music on earth" means just that unless qualified. The reader's interpretation is correct. It's the statement itself that is inaccurate.

In fact, the Sonos system is capable of playing a relatively small subset of all the music on earth: 65,000 tracks, to be be precise, if one is using the local library.

Add to that the further restrictions of codec, sample rate and bit depth and you arrive at something much less palatable to a marketing department's glib platitudes.

Need more than 65,000 tracks? Better run a WMP (proxy) server or stream from a lossy on-line service.

No on-line services where you live? You must not live on the right patch of earth. Your chosen album geographically restricted? See previous answer.

Sonos: a good system that plays a lot of music. See small print for restrictions.

The truth is always less catchy.

You've interpreted this as "any format on earth"

Yes and he's not the only one because that's what it means. If it's not supposed to mean that they should have used a different phrase.