Zp 24/96

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.
That's fair enough, but there is a strong argument to say that Sonos should provide a mechanism to do that itself. One could envisage a Hi-res ZP 90 that would need to be wired. It would provide 24/96 for a listening room and transcode down to 16/44.1 for the remainder of the Sonos setup. This would allow 24/96 files to be played without making the rest of the installation obsolete. The current situation does rather make a nonsense of 'Stream all the music on earth in every room'

That's fair enough, but there is a strong argument to say that Sonos should provide a mechanism to do that itself. One could envisage a Hi-res ZP 90 that would need to be wired. It would provide 24/96 for a listening room and transcode down to 16/44.1 for the remainder of the Sonos setup. This would allow 24/96 files to be played without making the rest of the installation obsolete. The current situation does rather make a nonsense of 'Stream all the music on earth in every room'

Yes, a "Wireless" multi-room audio system that needs to be wired? :rolleyes: And yet you expect marketing terms such as "'Stream all the music on earth in every room" to mean you can actually stream all the music on earth? Shouldn't you be complaining that it can't play WMA Lossless, 8-tracks, cassettes, wax cylinders, or live Borneo drum circles? It's amazing the selectiveness which one can apply when speaking about favored additions to the Sonos system. A term as specific as "wireless" can go out the window, but a nebulous marketing phrase like "All the music on earth" must be interpreted as gospel when it comes to hi-rez. It's really silly.

Yes, a "Wireless" multi-room audio system that needs to be wired? :rolleyes: And yet you expect marketing terms such as "'Stream all the music on earth in every room" to mean you can actually stream all the music on earth? Shouldn't you be complaining that it can't play WMA Lossless, 8-tracks, cassettes, wax cylinders, or live Borneo drum circles? It's amazing the selectiveness which one can apply when speaking about favored additions to the Sonos system. A term as specific as "wireless" can go out the window, but a nebulous marketing phrase like "All the music on earth" must be interpreted as gospel when it comes to hi-rez. It's really silly.

As far as I understand it, the first 'hop' from the router needs to be wired. From then on, Sonos wireless net takes over. I am suggesting for those who want 24/96, the box at the end of the first hop would need to be the hi-res box. It could transcode if needed for the rest of the sonos network or output 24/96 to a playback system. No change in system topology, but no good if the first hop isn't anywhere near your listening room.

As far as I understand it, the first 'hop' from the router needs to be wired. From then on, Sonos wireless net takes over. I am suggesting for those who want 24/96, the box at the end of the first hop would need to be the hi-res box. It could transcode if needed for the rest of the sonos network or output 24/96 to a playback system. No change in system topology, but no good if the first hop isn't anywhere near your listening room.

The bold is the reason for my incredulity at the "wireless" system requiring a wired component. There is a reason the Bridge was created and only costs $50 (originally $100). People complained about their "wireless" system requiring at least a $350 music box (ZP80) where they do not want music. The Bridge fixed this obvious and glaring exception to the marketing material. What you suggest is adding a similar obvious and glaring exception, requiring a player to be wired in a "wireless" system. And it would be an obvious and glaring exeption put in place for a minority of a minority of digital audio users (hi-rez users being a minority of lossless users, which are a minority of those who listen to digital audio). In sheer marketing terms, it does not make sense.

I'm not so sure the mythical hi-rez box would need to be wired. My system is completely wireless (except, of course, for the Bridge), and I don't have any trouble running 7 different zones simultaneously. A 24/96 stream is triple the bandwidth of 16/48 (the current max), so it in effect 'counts as 3'.

I'd wire it if I could, but that's true of all of my zones (except the Play:5's, which move around on occasion).

None of that changes the niche factor argument, though.

The bold is the reason for my incredulity at the "wireless" system requiring a wired component. There is a reason the Bridge was created and only costs $50 (originally $100). People complained about their "wireless" system requiring at least a $350 music box (ZP80) where they do not want music. The Bridge fixed this obvious and glaring exception to the marketing material. What you suggest is adding a similar obvious and glaring exception, requiring a player to be wired in a "wireless" system...

On a somewhat related note....

I'm starting to think that based on the current hardware limitations, Sonos will have little choice but to transform the "simple" bridge, into a media server of sorts for "Sonos Next" (next hardware iteration of Sonos). At that time, I see rolling in hi-rez downsampling support (if not play-back to hi-rez receivers).

I don't see any other way for Sonos to offer next generation hardware / features, without completely alienating users who have existing hardware. (Of course, Sonos may decide that Sonos Next would simply not be compatible with 1.0...)

The bold is the reason for my incredulity at the "wireless" system requiring a wired component. There is a reason the Bridge was created and only costs $50 (originally $100). People complained about their "wireless" system requiring at least a $350 music box (ZP80) where they do not want music. The Bridge fixed this obvious and glaring exception to the marketing material. What you suggest is adding a similar obvious and glaring exception, requiring a player to be wired in a "wireless" system. And it would be an obvious and glaring exeption put in place for a minority of a minority of digital audio users (hi-rez users being a minority of lossless users, which are a minority of those who listen to digital audio). In sheer marketing terms, it does not make sense.

The lack of hi-res support is clearly a limitation of the existing Sonos hardware, if it had been an easy software fix, I would imagine it would have been done by now. As we have already discussed, I do not believe that hi-res in of itself brings anything to the party, but there is a growing catalogue of well presented hi-res music that is closed to Sonos users without having to transcode on a PC prior to playing. My suggestion was how to address this within existing Sonos hardware constraints without current users being excluded.

Whether or not users need 24/96 is rather beside the point. The last couple of reviews I have read in magazines of the streamer market have made a point of Sonos' lack of hi-res support. This will become a marketing disadvantage before too long.

The lack of hi-res support is clearly a limitation of the existing Sonos hardware, if it had been an easy software fix, I would imagine it would have been done by now. As we have already discussed, I do not believe that hi-res in of itself brings anything to the party, but there is a growing catalogue of well presented hi-res music that is closed to Sonos users without having to transcode on a PC prior to playing. My suggestion was how to address this within existing Sonos hardware constraints without current users being excluded.

Whether or not users need 24/96 is rather beside the point. The last couple of reviews I have read in magazines of the streamer market have made a point of Sonos' lack of hi-res support. This will become a marketing disadvantage before too long.

Fair enough, but I was simply postulating that the marketing disadvantage of offering a "wireless" system that requires you to "wire" one of their players may just outweigh any advantage 24/96 gains. I'm not arguing that 24/96 support doesn't gain anything in the checkbox war with other systems. However, I am curious as to the importance the general public (and let's face it, Sonos' latest vendor; Target, is the very definition of general public) places on the 24/96 checkbox vs. having to wire an expensive box in a wireless system. Historically, the latter was obviously found to be very important, because the Bridge exists. How that compares to the wish/hope/dream for 24/96 by Sonos' intended market, nobody but Sonos knows.

Hello -

I would like to suggest that Sonos develop a NEW version of the CONNECT specifically for audiophiles. Essentially, I would like to see a player that could handle 24-bit FLAC files, with coax, optical and balanced digital outs only (no internal DAC or analog outs). This player should also have a 12-volt trigger built-in. NICE-TO-HAVE - allow 150,000 tracks instead of the current 65,000. This unit would be perfect for my 2-channel only "higher-end" room. Price could certainly be the same as the current CONNECT and I bet it would cost less for Sonos to make - maybe the higher margin would make up for the lower volume!

Thanks,

Bob

Why the 150k limit?