Zp 24/96

Sorry, but without peer-reviewed studies, this is all audiophile hogwash, meant to cloud the results of accepted science.

See - this is where you get all caught up in agenda. I have no "audiophile hogwash" since I don't really care about audiophile stuff.

I don't sit around reading Scientific Journals - and I would bet you don't either. I also don't have any agenda and simply don't care enough to research it. Although I am willing to bet that you can find many arguments and studies against blind testing on human senses. Heck, we spent a whole week one semester discussing the bias human memory introduces in psychology and more in law.

If you haven't got peer-reviewed science, then it's not science.

That's just an asinine statement. And my background is as a scientist.

The study I have cited has been peer-reviewed and no one, despite all the money Naim and others stand to lose, have stepped up to debunk it in a scientific journal.

Good for them and good for Naim. I sincerely doubt Naim, with any amount of money, could concoct a study that could disprove your study. If for no other reason than the human memory issue I've stated - even if there is a slight difference it would be near impossible to scientifically test it using a human being.

With that said, Naim (whoever they are) should hire me. At the end of the day, trying to prove the subtle sound difference is a losing war. It's far more accurate and far easier to discredit the test. It would not take me much money to design a study that invalidated ABX testing for auditory memory. I doubt I could design a test to prove their stuff actually has a perceptible difference ... but I could poke serious holes in the currently accepted testing methodology.

The problem is that people would assume that I had an audiophile agenda and was coming at it from this perspective. This alone would cause any such study to be ignored by people that accept the current testing methodology.

But again, you really don't hear what I'm saying -- I don't know and don't care if there is a difference between hi-res and non-hi-res. I also don't know or care if $6000000/ft audio cable is the same as a coat hanger. At the end of the day, it makes not one lick of difference to me. I will wake up tomorrow the same as I did today with either truth being absolute.

I am simply saying the methodology currently being used to derive the conclusion is flawed. And to a point, any type of AB (including ABX) testing involving memory is flawed based on our very makeup. This is an immutable truth. But, we are forced to work with what we're given, right? This is why it is accepted by science.

And as far as you agreeing with the tests for gross differences, you also derided a study that showed gross differences between compression techniques using double-blind methods. Forgive me if I find your claims to accept them for non-subtle differences a backslide from your earlier statements.

I was deriding the technique. And I still would. I do not agree that ABX tests are a good measure for human senses. The human mind isn't good at this type of testing.

Oh, and I would appreciate it if you would apologize for saying I or any other proponents of double-blind audio tests implied in any way that negative results proved no differences, which is antithetical to the scientific method. I know I never did, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth in an attempt to state I and others like me are just as bad as the audiophile snakeoil fans.

I'm sorry I misquoted you. It surely seemed that when you call things "snakeoil" and deride them so directly that you have a stated opinion on the accuracy of the results of the tests.

But, again, I am sorry.

Since we are into "appreciating" what the other person can do - I would "appreciate" you dropping the condescension and arrogance.

Let's use the Double Blind ABX test for something we know is different. Take shades of the same primary color group. Test it similar to the ABX audio test with the null hypothesis being "One cannot perceive the difference between shades." I am almost certain, in an ABX situation, the null hypothesis would not be disproven. Yet, we know when the colors are placed touching each other (direct visual comparison), the perceptible difference is there thus proving the null untrue. This would point to a flaw in the methodology.



In shade differentiation, we probably have the case that we can't remember as may shade variations as we can discriminate in direct comparison.

For visual comparisons we must standardize the ambient light. Likewise, in audio testing we should standardize the overall level and the background noise.

Also, in audio testing we cannot run both units simultaneously in order to create a comparison analogous to the side by side color comparison.

For both types of test we should quarantine the viewers and listeners in a standard environment for a while in an effort to prevent recent history, such as a bright flash or loud noise from polluting the human's perception.

I avoid making any critical aural comparisons if I have been driving or using public transportation in the past few hours.

In shade differentiation, we probably have the case that we can't remember as may shade variations as we can discriminate in direct comparison.

Also, in audio testing we cannot run both units simultaneously in order to create a comparison analogous to the side by side color comparison.

That is precisely the point I am making. Once human memory is involved, the accuracy of our testing ability isn't our sensory capabilities it's our ability of our memory to store and replay accurately. A feat most human's are near incapable of.

That's why I pointed out direct visual comparison, the only fully accurate (and accepted) test of the human senses. It's our inability to run "side-by-side" sense tests for anything other than visual that prevents the reliability in the tests.

Unfortunately, that's as good as it gets for us. But I think ABX tests compound the issue as opposed to actually making a more valid test.

* Caveat - I am not saying an AB test on hi-res vs standard would yield a different result. I'm saying it would probably be a more reliable test for the nuances.

For both types of test we should quarantine the viewers and listeners in a standard environment for a while in an effort to prevent recent history, such as a bright flash or loud noise from polluting the human's perception.

I avoid making any critical aural comparisons if I have been driving or using public transportation in the past few hours.

I agree 100%.

At the end of the day, we can only work with what we have --- and we have to test it in the best environment possible to reduce errors.

See - this is where you get all caught up in agenda. I have no "audiophile hogwash" since I don't really care about audiophile stuff.

Yet you argue about it constantly. :rolleyes:


I don't sit around reading Scientific Journals - and I would bet you don't either.

Actually, I do. It's part of my job.

I also don't have any agenda and simply don't care enough to research it. Although I am willing to bet that you can find many arguments and studies against blind testing on human senses. Heck, we spent a whole week one semester discussing the bias human memory introduces in psychology and more in law.


You make definitive statements on the legitimacy of scientifically accepted, peer-reviewed studies and you don't feel the need to back up those statements with legitimate, peer-reviewed science? And I'm the one who is arrogant?


That's just an asinine statement. And my background is as a scientist.


It's asinine to view random statements with no scientifically acceptable studies to back them up as illegitimate use of the scientific method? Somebody call Galileo.


Good for them and good for Naim. I sincerely doubt Naim, with any amount of money, could concoct a study that could disprove your study. If for no other reason than the human memory issue I've stated - even if there is a slight difference it would be near impossible to scientifically test it using a human being.

With that said, Naim (whoever they are) should hire me. At the end of the day, trying to prove the subtle sound difference is a losing war. It's far more accurate and far easier to discredit the test. It would not take me much money to design a study that invalidated ABX testing for auditory memory. I doubt I could design a test to prove their stuff actually has a perceptible difference ... but I could poke serious holes in the currently accepted testing methodology.


No one has yet. I wonder why?


The problem is that people would assume that I had an audiophile agenda and was coming at it from this perspective. This alone would cause any such study to be ignored by people that accept the current testing methodology.

But again, you really don't hear what I'm saying -- I don't know and don't care if there is a difference between hi-res and non-hi-res. I also don't know or care if $6000000/ft audio cable is the same as a coat hanger. At the end of the day, it makes not one lick of difference to me. I will wake up tomorrow the same as I did today with either truth being absolute.

I am simply saying the methodology currently being used to derive the conclusion is flawed. And to a point, any type of AB (including ABX) testing involving memory is flawed based on our very makeup. This is an immutable truth. But, we are forced to work with what we're given, right? This is why it is accepted by science.



Accepted by science, yet not accepted by you. And again, I'm the arrogant one?



I was deriding the technique. And I still would. I do not agree that ABX tests are a good measure for human senses. The human mind isn't good at this type of testing.



So you accept the results from a technique you deride as not fit for purpose? Or do you accept the technique, but deride it anyway? Or you do not accept the technique or the results, and were just placating Majik by "whole-heartedly" agreeing with his statement above? I'm confused.



I'm sorry I misquoted you. It surely seemed that when you call things "snakeoil" and deride them so directly that you have a stated opinion on the accuracy of the results of the tests.

But, again, I am sorry.

Since we are into "appreciating" what the other person can do - I would "appreciate" you dropping the condescension and arrogance.

You stated I claimed the studies listed showed there were definitively no differences. Which is absurd, given any high school science or logic student knows the "prove a negative" logical fallacy. This is an insult to any scientist. Nothing I have said about audiophile snakeoil or the studies listed ever came close to stating anything except the results showed the differences were imperceptible to human hearing in a DBT. You twisting those words to attempt to label me as like "people that stamp their feet about how much of an audible difference there is between them" was a gross misrepresentation of what I've said in this thread, and was intended only to smear.

Gents, can we please stick with playing the ball, not the man? Thanks.

I wish there was a smilie here eating popcorn.

Ah, there is:
[img]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif[/img]

I've owned my Sonos system for several years. I'm not active on the forums, but every few months I catch up on this thread to see if Sonos are finally going to support HiRes. I've always been happy with my Sonos system from day one - HiRes support is the only upgrade I have been waiting for.
I have recommended Sonos to a lot of friends. They are impressed when they see my system in operation, they are convinced by the obvious benefits of wireless music streaming, but ultimately they don't buy Sonos.
I know someone who has tried a Project Streambox but found it a bit buggy. He is now exploring the dedicated silent PC route.
Another went for the Transporter.
But nowadays, they mostly are buying the Touch. When I ask them why, they say its because of support for HiRes. They have seen the HiRes files available for download, they are interested in sound quality, and they want to try them. Also in several cases they have digitised their vinyl at 24/96 and want to access those files. They really couldn't give a flying fig about ABX testing or double-blind testing. When they bought their amps and their speakers, the salesman didn't insist that they should perform DBT before allowing them to spend their money on what they wanted.
Of course they grumble about the software updates, having to roll back to the previous version, and re-scan the data-base, which apparently takes hours.
I know I could never live with that hassle. But they don't ever re-consider. For them the Sonos is simply missing a feature that is on their checklist, so it is discounted.

I don't know what plans Sonos has for HiRes support. But I think it is lucky that no serious competitor has emerged. If the Touch gets sorted out, or a new product comes along with Sonos features plus HiRes support, it will be hard for Sonos to compete.

OK, so my sample of friends, acquaintances, people I know through forums is small and unscientific. But it is my experience that lack of HiRes support is costing Sonos sales.

Its a funny thing when people discuss on such forums with great intensity. I think it should be of note that the adding of 24/96 or 24/192 will increase compatabilty to what is now being offered in the realm of playback. You cant say it isnt better and you cant say it is. The reason is the same for cd. Some cd's are recorded badly some very well, this plays on the sound quality and so doesnt make sense to be argued. This is just one point of many i can make that each individual music track album fluctuates in quality. If science offers this understanding with blind test/ double blond tests currently in regards to peer review this is what is current with science as best as we know. It doesnt mean it is an absolute truth it can also not be dismissed frivously. For a company if it is inline with selling more units and meeting demands then it should be a consideration. why dont sonos poll it? Obviously sonos is a multiroom streaming service that has incredible software and control, there is no other system like it. Is there no way the software could be sold to be customised to computers and the like to be upgraded to devices that can handle 24/96-192 respectively? without yhe implication for its units to do so?
This would mean you satisfy both markets without confusion and unit misunderstanding if its software based. Sell it on cd for x units and im sure you will get sales. Still keeping the sonos units as they are now. Does that make sense? or is someone going to shout at me. Not having a solution will be a deciding factor for more and more people at a consumer level i hear this a lot. Thanks

The use of computers as substitutes for Sonos players has been discussed at length before. The general consensus is a PC is incapable of synchronized streaming due to limitations in the onboard timing. So Sonos is not just software, it also needs some pretty specialized hardware in order to do what it does.

See this thread for more:

PC or Mac Based Software Zone Player


PS - You also mentioned a poll. There is a poll here:

Hires support (take 2)

Basically what happened is audiophiles recruited non-Sonos owning hi-Rez fans to register and vote, thus skewing the results. Notice all the usernames with a single post (or worse yet, no posts at all) in the poll. I'm quite sure Sonos has done more accurate market research on the number of 24/96 users, and so far the results seem to be that they are not losing enough customers to be concerned. Of course that could change if the market changes.

If it is problem in hardware, make a new player, and we will buy it.
Have sonos 3 years, and i was very close to put it out from my system. Now I have mac mini for hires, so sonos is staying. But, i would love to have hires suport in Sonos.