Zp 24/96

In terms of hardware, the converters are in place, however, I doubt if there is enough processor power and network bandwidth to handle the data throughput.

It may be possible to support a limited number of 24/96 zones as far as network bandwidth is concerned, but we are still stuck with the possibility that the on-board processing power is not there.

From a support standpoint, I'm not sure how SONOS support could face a user who had a perfectly functional larger system, say 10+ zones, but was required to shut down some zones whenever a 24/96 zone is active.

A middle ground might be to introduce a new player with enhanced processor power and require this player to be wired to the music source. This player could render the 24/96 stream locally, re-sample the music file, and pass through a 16 bit stream to the other players. Of course, the requirement of wiring this player to the music source would tarnish the "wirelessly play music everywhere" part of the value proposition.

Keep in mind that Sonos hardware is about 7 years old.. When it was introduced it didn't even support Apple Lossless.. and it still doesn't completely/seemlessly support Aiff.. as much as I crave Sonos supporting HiRes playback I've come to accept that it won't, it's not Sonos's market and I just don't think they really care, HiRes is a very small market. I've made the commitment to PS Audio's PWD/Bridge for playing back HiRes in my main system and using Sonos around the house in less critical applications.

And no question that HiRes material sounds better than similar 16/44 material but the system and room needs to be of sufficient quality to appreciate the difference, no way would one be able to tell the difference on a play 5 or a ZP120 hooked up to moderately prices speakers, stuffed into bookcases or hooked up to a pair of in walls, and lets be real most folks using Sonos are not audiophiles and SQ takes a back seat to convenience almost exclusively..

For what Sonos is and does it's the best.. for what it doesn't do.. it doesn't do 🙂

Keep in mind that Sonos hardware is about 7 years old.. When it was introduced it didn't even support Apple Lossless.. and it still doesn't completely/seemlessly support Aiff....

For what Sonos is and does it's the best.. for what it doesn't do.. it doesn't do :-)

I agree with most and possibly all of that. But the question must be does the fact that Sonos hardware has a certain vintage imply that Sonos products will be forever locked into specific limitations. NB the same goes for features such as supporting more Tag data (eg Star ratings) or data such as recently added tracks etc; where these features require more memory in (each) Sonos device. There will surely come a point where backwards compatibility is more of a burden than a benefit. This happens with all technology...

Greater processor power and more memory would presumably come pretty cheaply these days, so new products could solve this problem at the expense of reduced backwards compatibility.

I would support HiRez support. But it may come about for other unrelated reasons, eg the need to support more demanding online services or full DLNA support or some other new technology...

A middle ground might be to introduce a new player with enhanced processor power and require this player to be wired to the music source. This player could render the 24/96 stream locally, re-sample the music file, and pass through a 16 bit stream to the other players. Of course, the requirement of wiring this player to the music source would tarnish the "wirelessly play music everywhere" part of the value proposition.

That is exactly what I want - a new player that can play (via wired connection) 24/96 files. I'd jump up & down like a kid on Christmas morning if you figured out how to pass through a 16 bit streamed version to the old players.

I only care about 24/192 (or 24/96) quality at ONE source. The rest of my Sonos systems are for casual listening, and 16 bit is fine for those.

Point being - an updated ZP is expected, and wired is OK for hi-res... at least as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think??

That is exactly what I want - a new player that can play (via wired connection) 24/96 files. I'd jump up & down like a kid on Christmas morning if you figured out how to pass through a 16 bit streamed version to the old players.

I only care about 24/192 (or 24/96) quality at ONE source. The rest of my Sonos systems are for casual listening, and 16 bit is fine for those.

Point being - an updated ZP is expected, and wired is OK for hi-res... at least as far as I am concerned. What do the rest of you think??

I think if you want hi-res at only one source, then a stand alone hi-res player is what you you should purchase. There are dozens of them on the market, go nuts. IMHO, creating a stand alone player, that must be wired, and does not sync with other players for use with a multi-room, wireless music system that perfectly syncs is diluting the brand for a very, very small minority of users, and for a "benefit" that is questionable at best. I'd rather they spend their deveopment budget on something else. YMMV.

Couldn't agree more with jgatie. Let's get some of the countless Sound Ideas actioned, especially those that could significantly enhance operability. The Sonos concept as it stands delivers what it set out to do, but its ease of use eg playlist management, and its ancient Desktop Controller GUI could be easily brought up to date IMHO. And please fix the delay issue with external DAC processing! Much more important than pandering to a tiny minority.

I think if you want hi-res at only one source, then a stand alone hi-res player is what you you should purchase. There are dozens of them on the market, go nuts. IMHO, creating a stand alone player, that must be wired, and does not sync with other players for use with a multi-room, wireless music system that perfectly syncs is diluting the brand for a very, very small minority of users, and for a "benefit" that is questionable at best. I'd rather they spend their deveopment budget on something else. YMMV.

The challenge for Sonos will be that without a defined hi-res upgrade path, the product will slide in perception to more of a mid-fi lifestyle product than a serious hi-fi contender (which may well be Sonos' plan). It is not clear that anyone selling cutting edge hi-fi makes any money, so perhaps Sonos is smart in this approach. It will however be harder for the custom install brigade to push Sonos for high $$ applications when the competition can all handle hi-res.

The elephant in the room is of course the Touch, which now Squeeze seem to have addressed the software reliability issues (and with Sonos' recent software stumbles with 3.6) must be seen as serious competition. With full hi-res capability and available for as little as £135 (if you wait for a special), perhaps Sonos' users who want hi-res could buy a Touch for their main listening room to sit alongside their Sonos installation.

The challenge for Sonos will be that without a defined hi-res upgrade path, the product will slide in perception to more of a mid-fi lifestyle product than a serious hi-fi contender (which may well be Sonos' plan). It is not clear that anyone selling cutting edge hi-fi makes any money, so perhaps Sonos is smart in this approach. It will however be harder for the custom install brigade to push Sonos for high $$ applications when the competition can all handle hi-res.



I think it is pretty obvious by now which market Sonos is aiming for.


The elephant in the room is of course the Touch, which now Squeeze seem to have addressed the software reliability issues (and with Sonos' recent software stumbles with 3.6) must be seen as serious competition. With full hi-res capability and available for as little as £135 (if you wait for a special), perhaps Sonos' users who want hi-res could buy a Touch for their main listening room to sit alongside their Sonos installation.


Better check the forums for that "elephant in the room." I believe the "Is Logitech going to abandon the Squeezebox line" posts have finally outnumbered the problems with install, maintainance and usage posts. Seriously, a company that is discontinuing products and lowering customer service at the rate Logitech is for the Squeezebox line is not an "elephant in the room."

I have, personally, thought about getting Squeezebox for the high resolution possibilities. I have dozens of vinyl rips at 24/96 and would like to play them without compromising the audio quality (whether or not folks believe it is different or not).

But at the end of the day - the functionality and prior investment in Sonos has me waiting.

I keep hoping that one day they will realize that all tech becomes obsolete and upgrade their units.

As it stands now - there are so many concerns that can be addressed by upgrading from track count to sorting capabilities to track information to high resolution audio. And the upgrade should function within any current infrastructure.

I just don't see why Sonos would continue to run nearly a decade old hardware. Is it so that the Sonos-apologists have a built in excuse as to why stuff can't be done? Even Apple upgrades.

I just don't see why Sonos would continue to run nearly a decade old hardware.

Because the system was designed to be a long lasting system, not a disposable one, and that's why people bought it. Most people would be deeply upset, having splashed out potentially thousands of dollars on units around their home, if the system was then obsoleted and new hardware didn't function well (or at all) with the old.

Of course it will have to happen eventually, but I suspect it will have to be done gradually with new hardware forming a bridge between the old systems and the new one, but there has to be some compelling reasons to do this. I see no commercial sense in doing so unless it's for a feature that is wanted by and will benefit a significant portion of the market. The best way for this to happen would be if the new kit has a substantially different role, rather than being a complete across-the-board replacement. Sonos have previously made noises about home theater audio, and that might provide a way to create a parallel but interoperable new range without completely obsoleting the old stuff overnight.

Is it so that the Sonos-apologists have a built in excuse as to why stuff can't be done?

That's such a purile comment I won't bother to address it.

Even Apple upgrades.

Yes but this is an exceptionally bad example. I really don't know why you used the word "even" as it's totally inappropriate: Apple specifically aim to be on the leading edge with disposable consumer devices that people want to upgrade, as this means more Sales.

Obsoleting kit after 18 months in in Apple's DNA. In this respect Apple's strategy is completely the opposite of Sonos's.

My daughter changes the decorative cover on her mobile phone every few weeks, as the covers are cheap and disposable, but it would be crazy to suggest that, based on this, one should contemplate redecorating the house every few weeks!

Cheers,

Keith