Zp 24/96

I'm another Sonos owner who would love to see support for 24/96 or other higher resolution formats. If there was a new Zone Player that offered higher performance I would certainly buy one for my main system as my outboard DAC can handle it. I would have picked up the recent Tom Petty and Wings releases in hi-res if I could have played them. This feature was the one downside to going with Sonos over Squeezebox but I made that choice because I wanted an easy to use system for the other people in my family and Sonos provided that.

Same here. My main system is high end enough to hear the difference (primare/audio physic). Did the test with my brother's Linn streamer, and was godsmacked. Same recording in 16 bit and 24 bit really made all the difference (both downloads from Linn store).

I am sure Sonos could deliver better quality sound if they choose to. Either Sonos aknowledges the future in streaming, or I will start to save up for the Linn route too.

Same here. My main system is high end enough to hear the difference (primare/audio physic). Did the test with my brother's Linn streamer, and was godsmacked. Same recording in 16 bit and 24 bit really made all the difference (both downloads from Linn store).

So please do another audio test for us... Downsample/convert/transcode the 24bit recording into 16bit and compare the two.

Do you still hear a difference? I lack the equipment to do a proper test (eliminate the variable of differing mastering in 16 vs 24 bit samples) and would like to see some comparisons.

Best of Luck

I'll second this request. If you can find the time, I'd like to know if the downsample is noticeably different.

I'll second this request. If you can find the time, I'd like to know if the downsample is noticeably different.

I've done this with numerous albums, there is certainly a difference. In fact anytime I buy a HiRes album from HD Tracks I make a 16/44 version for the Sonos systems, it's then quite easy to compare the HiRes version to the 16/44 version.

Here's an interesting development on the hi-res discussion as Gilad Tiefenbrun of Linn discusses Apple's decision to open-source the ALAC codec.

He pretty clear that it paves the way to adoption of 24-bit music by the masses.

Is this what will finally prod Sonos in to taking hi-res seriously at last?

He pretty clear that it paves the way to adoption of 24-bit music by the masses.

For a start, he's from Linn who have a vested interest in promoting and hyping hires formats.

Secondly, there's a huge and illogical leap between "hires available on iTunes" and "adoption by the masses".

For a start, the majority of iTunes users don't really care about sound quality. Remember, iTunes is primarily for people who listen on cheap consumer gear. For most iTunes users the change from 128k to 256k MP3 probably wasn't that significant. Its a struggle to get most people to be interested in lossless formats, yet alone hires.

Secondly, most iTunes users simply don't have the equipment to resolve hires files properly. Consider what equipment works with iTunes: iPods, Airports, and a handful of mid-range speaker docks. People who genuinely care about this will already be using WAV or FLAC with something other than iTunes on a high end system. They might now start using iTunes as well, but this isn't going to significantly increase the market demand for hires. Most people won't care and won't want to pay a premium for something they can't take advantage of.

Finally, there isn't any material about in hires formats. The majority of music (99.999%) is produced and mastered for CD. A CD master is 16-bit. Yes it's possible to go back to the original pre-master tapes/files (many of which are in 24 bit or higher) and remaster it for hires, but to do this properly takes a lot of time and money. It's one of the things Linn do and get paid for doing, which is why they are keen to hype it.

And for older pre-digital music where only the masters are available (and not the original unmixed tracks), these are fully resolvable in 16-bit standard res. formats, and there's nothing you can do to increase the resolution of these recordings.

I'm all for better quality music, but most modern music is mastered in such a way that it doesn't take full advantage of even the standard res formats we have in common use today, and I don't see any big outcry from the public about that.

Is this what will finally prod Sonos in to taking hi-res seriously at last?

No. Genuine mass market demand for hires might drive them, but can't this is going to happen for a long time. I can't see hires music market share increasing above 0.01% in the foreseeable future.

Cheers,

Keith

Here's an interesting development on the hi-res discussion as Gilad Tiefenbrun of Linn discusses Apple's decision to open-source the ALAC codec.

He pretty clear that it paves the way to adoption of 24-bit music by the masses.

"Adoption of 24-bit music by the masses" seems to me to be the epitome of an oxymoronic statement. 😉

The "Masses" have spoken, and they are pumping 128kbs mp3s into their ears at eardrum-shattering volumes via low-cost MusicPlayers & earbuds, and are quite content. I'm not even sure that the move by Apple to provide 256kbs AAC files was noticed, or appreciated, by the masses.

I would think that Apple's first step would be standard 16-bit ALAC availability within iTunes. Can't see the reason to jump over that CODEC into 24-bit ALAC other than the Artists/Labels/RIAA do not want a CD equivalent format supplied via iTunes. Possibly the 24-bit CODEC gives the industry another way to re-monetize prior music purchases once again....even before standard ALAC is available for purchase.

I use iTunes to rip our CD collection into ALAC for Sonos (and 256kbs VBR for iDevices) Have done this since 2005. Other than the weekly "free music" from iTunes, I have purchased only 15 tracks from Apple. This is 15 out of over 10,000 total tracks in my Library - and I have another 300+ CDs remaining to rip from our collection. Unless the song/album is impossible or impractical to obtain in a Lossless format, I will not purchase any music in a Lossy format from any vendor.

Should Apple provide ALAC music downloads via iTunes I would probably stop buying CDs. Perhaps this is what the music industry fears? Just spit-balling here. But I would certainly welcome the ability to purchase Lossless music via iTunes.

Is this what will finally prod Sonos in to taking hi-res seriously at last?

You can hope, but I doubt it. There are enough cogent posts here that give compelling marketing reasons as to why Hi-Res music may still be a small subset of the Sonos target market. Then there is the debate whether 24-bit music is any better than 16-bit (with identical mastering).

I was agnostic towards Hi-Res music, but I now can see where Sonos would befit from supporting the format (or at least passing it to an external DAC).

I do think that if Sonos could have accommodated Hi-Res music playback in some manner, they would have by now. Therefore, I believe that incorporating Hi-Res into the current Sonos platform is not as technically easy as those may wish it to be (as a concept).

One can still down-sample a Hi-Res file into 16-bit CD quality format that Sonos will play. Inconvenient, but there is enough supporting evidence that audio quality does not suffer. Others may disagree. More importantly, Sonos cannot implement Hi-Res transport without maintaining its primary feature/function: whole-house sync'd music from 1 or more zones.

Whether or not the "check-box for Hi-Res" argument has any actual sales validity is a marketing question for Sonos.

Certainly eliminating the wailing of the small-but-vocal Hi-Res community may reduce the frustrations of many on theses Forums (from both camps). But then, what next will the heated debates be about, if not HD music???

Time Will Tell

Best of Luck

Finally, there isn't any material about in hires formats. The majority of music (99.999%) is produced and mastered for CD. A CD master is 16-bit. Yes it's possible to go back to the original pre-master tapes/files (many of which are in 24 bit or higher) and remaster it for hires, but to do this properly takes a lot of time and money. It's one of the things Linn do and get paid for doing, which is why they are keen to hype it.

And for older pre-digital music where only the masters are available (and not the original unmixed tracks), these are fully resolvable in 16-bit standard res. formats, and there's nothing you can do to increase the resolution of these recordings.

I'm all for better quality music, but most modern music is mastered in such a way that it doesn't take full advantage of even the standard res formats we have in common use today, and I don't see any big outcry from the public about that.




Keith


https://www.hdtracks.com/ Lots of Hi RES Stuff and some of the very best sounding ones are originally analog recordings, so I don't quite get your point. You aren't saying that a 16/44 digital file (CD quality) sounds as good as a Analog Studio Master that was originally done at say 30 ips on half inch tape??? You're kidding right????

You aren't saying that a 16/44 digital file (CD quality) sounds as good as a Analog Studio Master that was originally done at say 30 ips on half inch tape??? You're kidding right????

No I'm not kidding.

A studio master tape (assuming it's not degraded with age) has a dynamic range of 80dB max assuming they use Dolby-A noise reduction. Standard res audio has a dynamic range of around 95dB, so the full dynamic range of studio tapes is fully realisable with CD Redbook.

Standard res also has a wider audio bandwidth and lower noise floor. With careful dithering, 16-bit audio can resolve sounds at -110 dB. This is below the threshold of human hearing at normal listening levels.

A carefully transferred tape master should sound identical to the original in standard res or, perhaps, even better with some work.

I don't doubt, on the other hand, that there are some dreadfully transferred tapes which have resulted in poor sounding CD versions. As with any mastering/remastering to do it properly requires a skilled mastering Engineer with the right equipment and time. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of current CD remasters haven't had the benefit of such expert and careful treatment.

Bear in mind, also, that if the studio has access to the original multi-track tapes (in other words, the source material before mixing and mastering) then it is fully possible to digitise the individual tracks and remix them. In this case it's fully possible to achieve a much higher quality result than the original tape master.

Cheers,

Keith

So dynamic range is the only parameter that effects sound quality?

This is a pretty through piece on the inherent advantages of Hi Res music files. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a-prima-donna-pc,544-4.html

Of course there's always ways to out reason, reason.. Me I like my music to sound as good as it can.. I wonder if the same folks that seem to diss higher bit rate audio also argued against all the other improvements that have made hifi better and better over the years..anyway no skin off my nose, think I'll go listen to some music .. Running on Empty 24/192 sounds great, maybe with a wee dram of the good stuff :-)

And in case anyone who's not biased is reading this remember CD's or 16/44 is what we have because in the SEVENTIES when the CD format was developed 16 bit audio was state of the art..I think technology has improve a little since then 🙂