Zp 24/96

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.

Read the thread. It's not as simple as making a new player. Since Sonos is first and foremost a multi-room audio system, you have to consider what it will take to sync the new player with older players that cannot do hi-rez. Otherwise, you might as well just buy a standalone player, such as your Mac or any of a dozen others.

One idea would be to have a "Sonos Server" running, just like Logitech have with the Squeezebox, however the Sonos system would have to be switched (advanced settings) to the "Sonos Server" if the user needed it features.

With a system of current hardware the Server would not be required, but also in a new system consisting of just Sonos hi-res devices.

The server could then transcode music so it plays on all equipment or a straight passthrough for a Sonos hi-res device. During development the "Sonos Server" would also be specified to handle very large music collections greater than 65k 😉

One idea would be to have a "Sonos Server" running

Given all Sonos devices act as a Media Service (in the UPnP sense) anyway, then there's actually no technical reason why this functionality couldn't be extended to support an external UPnP Media server. This could either be server software provided by Sonos (and which tightly coupled into the ecosystem) or nominated third-party apps, like Twonky.

Personally I'm in favour of such an approach to deal with extended local libraries and (perhaps) extended tag support and indexing options.

Transcoding is also an option (although a potentially complex one) within such a system, and this could provide a way to dynamically transcode material to a format the current systems could play. This, alone, could satisfy many people. Note that Henkelis's Python server emulates a WMP server and, I believe, has options to support transcoding, so it's definitely possible.

However, streaming hires to a different player from the server is a completely different architecture to how Sonos works. The problem is sync. Sonos deals with sync by taking a single stream and coordinating distribution of the stream and sync between players. This design is partly responsible for Sonos's superior sync capability. Such a system can only deal with one resolution of stream at any time.

Other systems (like Squeezebox) which have used a server with separate streams to each player have struggled to get close to Sonos in sync capabilities. It literally took Squeezbox about 4 years to get anything close to decent sync, and it still not as slick or reliable as Sonos. It's a totally different architecture, and not a very good one for multi-room support. It would require a ground-up change from Sonos to do this. I can't see that happening.

There are also technical challenges with wireless networks and the volumes of data, which will probably mandate that hires support can only be achieved on wired players. Not a great selling point for a "wireless" music system.

The important thing to consider is that any of the developments being proposed will consume considerable development and testing time and money. There are many possibilities. the big question is whether the market demand for hires is enough to convince Sonos to invest heavily in developments to achieve it, especially if in doing so they detract from or dilute the main product significantly.

Cheers,

Keith

Keith, how many sonos devices you have?:p:)

Other systems (like Squeezebox) which have used a server with separate streams to each player have struggled to get close to Sonos in sync capabilities. It literally took Squeezbox about 4 years to get anything close to decent sync, and it still not as slick or reliable as Sonos. It's a totally different architecture, and not a very good one for multi-room support. It would require a ground-up change from Sonos to do this. I can't see that happening.

Cheers,

Keith

Keith,

I can only speak for myself, but the 7 squeeze devices I have work just fine when synced together, with no noticable delay or timing issues.

Syncing is easy, just select the players you want to sync on the menu and they sync. Select unsync and they unsync. Multi room could hardly be easier. Not sure how you would make this slicker?

I thought we agreed some pages back that squeeze now use a single stream for synced players? So I am not sure about the architecture issues you refer to.

I can think of many reasons to prefer Sonos over Squeeze, and thats just fine, but lets not keep harping on about a problem that doesn't exist any more.

I thought we agreed some pages back that squeeze now use a single stream for synced players? So I am not sure about the architecture issues you refer to.


Ah, I missed that, sorry. Clearly they had to change the architecture to make syncing work.

Certainly for many years there were bold claims by their fans (with the encouragement of Logitech employees) that syncing worked perfectly when clearly it didn't with any degree of reliability.

[Incidentally, this is a devious form of marketing as you can use customers to get messages into the market that aren't actually true without getting into trouble with the advertising regulators.]

My point is still valid: multiple streams from a server are difficult to sync. On the other hand if you have a single stream, that stream can only support a single resolution.

Cheers,

Keith

We also agreed a few pages back that the delay for Squeezebox sync is ~30 ms, whereas Sonos is ~3 ms. Also, sync on Squeeze is atill lacking in some areas, including when using their online server, gapless playback, ALAC transcoded by the serrver, and others.

I don't want to pretend that Squeeze is perfect, it isn't. My point was that of all the reasons you might want to buy Sonos instead of Squeeze, syncing and multi-room support isn't one of them. I see this argument put forward a lot on this forum, and I can only assume it dates back to the days before Squeeze addressed the issue.

At the risk of going back on-topic, being in the fortunate situation of having a streaming system that will play hi-res, I would say that a 24/96 download and the same file downsampled to 16/44.1 sound the same to my ears. Hi-res doesn't appear to bring any benefit in of itself. What does appear to be true however is that some 24/96 downloads have had more care taken over their production than the 16/44.1 version. So while technically 16/44.1 vs 24/96 seems a wash, in certain (limited) cases there is better quality music available on 24/96. I could imagine a situation developing where CD / MP3 continues with the current compressed rubbish, but 24/96 versions are available (at a premium, no doubt) with compression levels aimed less at the iPod crowd and more at enthusiasts.

At the risk of going back on-topic, being in the fortunate situation of having a streaming system that will play hi-res, I would say that a 24/96 download and the same file downsampled to 16/44.1 sound the same to my ears. Hi-res doesn't appear to bring any benefit in of itself. What does appear to be true however is that some 24/96 downloads have had more care taken over their production than the 16/44.1 version. So while technically 16/44.1 vs 24/96 seems a wash, in certain (limited) cases there is better quality music available on 24/96. I could imagine a situation developing where CD / MP3 continues with the current compressed rubbish, but 24/96 versions are available (at a premium, no doubt) with compression levels aimed less at the iPod crowd and more at enthusiasts.

+1 to all that.

Cheers,

Keith

I don't want to pretend that Squeeze is perfect, it isn't. My point was that of all the reasons you might want to buy Sonos instead of Squeeze, syncing and multi-room support isn't one of them. I see this argument put forward a lot on this forum, and I can only assume it dates back to the days before Squeeze addressed the issue.

At the risk of going back on-topic, being in the fortunate situation of having a streaming system that will play hi-res, I would say that a 24/96 download and the same file downsampled to 16/44.1 sound the same to my ears. Hi-res doesn't appear to bring any benefit in of itself. What does appear to be true however is that some 24/96 downloads have had more care taken over their production than the 16/44.1 version. So while technically 16/44.1 vs 24/96 seems a wash, in certain (limited) cases there is better quality music available on 24/96. I could imagine a situation developing where CD / MP3 continues with the current compressed rubbish, but 24/96 versions are available (at a premium, no doubt) with compression levels aimed less at the iPod crowd and more at enthusiasts.

On the bolded we agree. The studies also agree that most (if not all) observable differences are due to higher production quality, not the final sampling rate or resolution. Which is why some of us suggest downsampling to a Sonos compatible format in order to listen to these higher quality recordings.