Zp 24/96

In the following months, I am going to embark in ripping my full vinyl collection. I don't plan on doing this often, so I will rip them @ 192/24, slightly process them through WaveArts plugins, and then save the result in 96/24, in ALAC. I have also recorded many shows @ 192/24, which I plan on keeping at that resolution.

I can transfer them safely to my iPhone, since I have the 128Kbps option enabled, so it effectively converts them to a supported resolution.

However, the only point that's stopping me from keeping these in high resolution is Sonos.

I read most of the thread, and I agree to a few potential solutions.

For me, the key resides in the bridge actually understanding there's a high resolution file, and reducing its quality prior to sending it to the other Sonos. I would be perfectly happy to have my files reduced to a 44/48-16 for the whole Sonos environment, as long as I can at least play my files.

As for playing 96/24 for real, if it's supported by D/A-D/D hardware of course, like there's an option to automatically recompress files sent through the Sonos mesh or not, there could very well be a "play at native resolution" choice that would play the sound up to 96/24 (and linear-stepdown anything higher).

In essence, if the user chooses to keep files in HD for some of the devices, they would be kept optionally, at the user's risk.

On my side, my good playback environment is fully wired, and is of high resolution enough to see a striking difference between uncompressed and 320Kbps MP3/256Kbps M4A. I objectively blindly listened to 44 and 96 and could readily tell the difference. Which doesn't mean it's not excellent at 44/16/uncomp, but I do see a difference.


So ... to resume my long mail ...
- At least have higher res being step down to 44/16 so they can be played.
- At best have the optional-with-caveats-with-potential-limitations to support 96/24.
- Yes I would be pissed off if the system couldn't reduce 192/24 files so they couldn't be played, but I would understand.
- No I wouldn't be pissed off, I'd seriously understand if you couldn't play my 2L recordings files @ 352800Hz/24bits 🙂 I'd be impressed if you'd do it though 🙂 http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

When the first CDs were produced in the early 80s, as was said earlier, the mastering engineers didn't have a good grasp of the new format and that made for some pretty poor CDs. I'd imagine that the vinyl lovers back then found it very easy to dismiss the CD. But fast forward almost 30 years and I think we'd all agree that CDs have moved on a long way and although there is still a lot of guff out there, there are some superbly mastered CD available, especially when you stumble across the artists that really take pride in producing quality music. So do you think fast forwarding another period, if the 24bit formats were allowed to grow in usability, engineers would use it more, get familiar and learn how to push the new boundaries and the step up could be better realised?

Right now we've got companies like HDtracks who are under suspicion of upscaling redbook and selling it off at a premium. And that is awful, and should be policed. Similar things were being offered by market stall holders in the 80s selling knock off CDs. But it shouldn't be a reason for the format not to take off, there's always been conmen exploiting the illinformed.

I suppose my point is, the difference between 16 and 24bit may be zero, negligable or even in some cases worse right now, but 24bit has more potential to go further and hopefully will better reach its potential in the years to come.

I admit, I've not yet had the chance to do a proper test of 16/44 vs 24/96 yet, but I will after xmas now that my friend has a Linn Superuniti. I'd like to do some blind taste tests to really see if my own ears can tell a difference as there's strong opinions on both sides here. In the interests of trying to make the fairest test possible, if I use Society of Sound to download a 16bit and a 24bit version of the same album to test, can i assume its the from the same master? I think all their albums are new recordings specifically for their site.

In the interests of trying to make the fairest test possible, if I use Society of Sound to download a 16bit and a 24bit version of the same album to test, can i assume its the from the same master? I think all their albums are new recordings specifically for their site.

The safest thing is to get a 24-bit file and make your own 16-bit copy. It's the only easy and reliable way to know for sure that it's from the same source. SOX is a good tool for this.

Also, if you can, connect a decent PC sound card to the Linn and use something like the ABX test plugin in Foobar2000 to do at least some of the testing. This eliminates expectation bias.

Note that one of the claims about ABX is that it places undue stress on the tester and isn't a "natural" listening environment, and that this stress can mask the differences. Some people claim that the differences only start to show through after prolonged listening in a comfortable "known" environment (basically in your own home). I have previously done listening tests in a high-spec audio listening room with the nearest I have heard to "pristine" acoustics and audio equipment in my life, but apparently this isn't good enough.

I mention this because you plan to do testing in your friend's home, rather than your own and, according to some, your results may be affected because of this.

Cheers,

Keith

Note that one of the claims about ABX is that it places undue stress on the tester and isn't a "natural" listening environment, and that this stress can mask the differences. Some people claim that the differences only start to show through after prolonged listening in a comfortable "known" environment (basically in your own home). I have previously done listening tests in a high-spec audio listening room with the nearest I have heard to "pristine" acoustics and audio equipment in my life, but apparently this isn't good enough.



Note also that these are the same folks who claim to hear "night and day", "huge" and "unquestionable"" differences when not heard in an ABX test. 😉

This is exactly what I've done.. and yes the 24/96 (or higher) sound better.. I will say that it's not always a HUGE difference and absolutely the system has to be up to it. But given a Good system, well setup in a good room there's no question the higher resolution files are audibly better. At least to my ears and everyone I've done a demo for.


The safest thing is to get a 24-bit file and make your own 16-bit copy. It's the only easy and reliable way to know for sure that it's from the same source. SOX is a good tool for this.

Also, if you can, connect a decent PC sound card to the Linn and use something like the ABX test plugin in Foobar2000 to do at least some of the testing. This eliminates expectation bias.

Note that one of the claims about ABX is that it places undue stress on the tester and isn't a "natural" listening environment, and that this stress can mask the differences. Some people claim that the differences only start to show through after prolonged listening in a comfortable "known" environment (basically in your own home). I have previously done listening tests in a high-spec audio listening room with the nearest I have heard to "pristine" acoustics and audio equipment in my life, but apparently this isn't good enough.

I mention this because you plan to do testing in your friend's home, rather than your own and, according to some, your results may be affected because of this.

Cheers,

Keith

Worst culprit is usually not the frequency and resolution.
- Loudness war is HORRIBLE, and I usually prefer vinyl releases because they usually don't have a reason to do loudness war there.
- Transcoding from one digital resolution to the other is not a good thing. Especially 50KHz (old 80's format) and 48KHz, when they are sent back to 44.1KHz. I also once got a 32KHz Minidisc "master".
- Multiple DAC/ADC in the chain. Or multiple frequency adaptation. Or "we have plugins let's use them" syndrome. Or people who don't know what the crap they are doing.
- People who don't know how to use proper dithering for end CDs.
- People who don't do things @ 2x (IE: you record at least @ 88.2/24 for 44.1/16; you record at least @ 192/24 for 96/24; you process everything @ 32 bits float, or even better in doubles)

Remove these, and we'd have very potent 44KHz 16 bits CDs.

On a great product, I have not found a major difference between 16 bits and 24 bits, to be frank. However, I have seen a very notable difference between 44KHz and 96KHz, like I see a potent difference between quantized 44KHz and discrete 22KHz (putting analog pass-low at that frequency -- and yes 22KHz is much better).


Seriously, and without being condescending, I don't believe Sonos is a maniacal audiophile product nor it should be. I believe it caters to the "good enough" part of us. It's convenient, it's good, it works well, it has very good quality, it plays very correctly, but that's not the equivalent to some 5K+$ source (or amp, speakers for the Play/Amp versions). It does have a really great resolution, little distortion (before/after 3.6 😉 ). It's no wonder I got them in most of my house rooms. :)

I also use Sonos on my main amp, but only with the fixed digital out, and leave the decoding to another DAC. I don't believe any digital hype about digital wires being better than the other, or digital sources being better than the other (with one caveat: a Realtek sound card I used that had a DAC, and then a ADC for the optical out connector!), as long as they are doing proper data passing, and not applying filters. So for me, the original CD and the ALAC versions are the same, as long as Sonos merely decodes the audio bits, and sends out the uncompressed version to the coax.

But like I wrote in my last text, not being audiophile doesn't mean I don't want it to handle my 96/24 files 🙂 Just downsample them 🙂

I think that Sonos should lisent to this thread, it is still alive after such a long time.

Sonos We want 24/96 you know that in the future, it's going to get here! So the question will you be here too! 🙂 please be with us, because otherwhise it's a very cool product and it's working well

I'm the owner of a modified sonos zp90 the sound is sweet, jitter is gone music is left, but it has only increased my wish for 24/96-192. I'm hooked on it and it wont let me go. I've got a resampler which can do the job, but it's far from always that it is a good solution

I think that Sonos should lisent to this thread, it is still alive after such a long time.

Sonos We want 24/96 you know that in the future, it's going to get here! So the question will you be here too! 🙂 please be with us, because otherwhise it's a very cool product and it's working well

I'm the owner of a modified sonos zp90 the sound is sweet, jitter is gone music is left, but it has only increased my wish for 24/96-192. I'm hooked on it and it wont let me go. I've got a resampler which can do the job, but it's far from always that it is a good solution

I agree ! - 24bit 96khz would be very nice !

btw - I was just wondering....

Is it actually technically possible for the ZP90 to playback 24bit / 96khz files ?

ie so whats needed here is a software update ?

Just wondering.... 😉

I don't believe that the software or Sonosnet can do it.. Even the hardware may not be up to it.. I think if it was doable with the current hardware/software Sonos would have done it, no reason not to.