Zp 24/96

There are a fair number of current and would-be sonos users who need/want better digital quality. 24bit in particular gives huge advantages in dynamic range and signal/noise ratio. Anyone recording or mastering music on a mac already has this, and the pros have had 24/96 or better for a long time. Increasingly you can get high-quality digital audio for classical and even (gasp!) rock and pop, so the trend is well under way.

SO why hasn't sonos brought out a high-spec ZP?? I hope I am wrong, but it seems a bit like sonos are not investing much in product development and are too busy milking the cash cow to care if they they miss the high end of the market.

It would be a pity to see sonos, who really led the field and have a great product, overtaken!

Read the thread.

There are a fair number of current and would-be sonos users who need/want better digital quality. 24bit in particular gives huge advantages in dynamic range and signal/noise ratio. Anyone recording or mastering music on a mac already has this, and the pros have had 24/96 or better for a long time. Increasingly you can get high-quality digital audio for classical and even (gasp!) rock and pop, so the trend is well under way.

SO why hasn't sonos brought out a high-spec ZP?? I hope I am wrong, but it seems a bit like sonos are not investing much in product development and are too busy milking the cash cow to care if they they miss the high end of the market.

It would be a pity to see sonos, who really led the field and have a great product, overtaken!

To repeat what jgatie posted: Read This Entire Thread.

Also follow the many links posted in this Thread that give much better explanations on the +/- of 24bit music, as well as why in recording/mastering it makes a difference, but in playback - not so much (or at all).

Best of Luck

Read This Entire Thread.
... especially http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?p=159189#post159189 and follow the link there.

Essential reading IMHO.

JXB and others.. you guys are missing the point. Sonos is truly not concerned about sound quality, of course neither is most of the world, just take a look at the current state of the CE industry, at least here in the USA there are almost no more specialty audio stores left, but I digress. Sonos is concerned about one thing, Market Share, they are concerned about building their brand, they are not an audiophile company, what they do, they do better than any one else and frankly their sound quality is in line with current mass market expectations, no one except the very small and ever shrinking (and frankly monetarily unimportant) audiophile market thinks that Sonos doesn't sound great, and for the target market it does, look at all the folks that think mp3 sounds good, or that the Play 5 or 3 sound good, and they do if your level of expectation is a Bose Wave Radio..

In this context Sonos has no more need to be an audiophile company than, say, my Netgear switch. When a ZP80/90/CONNECT is set to Fixed Volume the digital output is bit perfect to the source. Sonos simply transports and unpacks the bits.

That's my point exactly...

Of course it's curious why so many "bit perfect to the source" devices don't all sound the same, but hey CD players in 1982 sounded perfect too..

So long as volume is Fixed, Sonos should output source-perfect data. IIRC it's even been tested with Dolby encoding (which it clearly can't decode) to verify transparency.

Jitter could be a marginal factor, depending on how the downstream equipment behaves.

So long as volume is Fixed, Sonos should output source-perfect data. IIRC it's even been tested with Dolby encoding (which it clearly can't decode) to verify transparency.

Jitter could be a marginal factor, depending on how the downstream equipment behaves.

Downstream equipment which includes ears and minds. 😉

Downstream equipment which includes ears and minds. ;)
Agreed, especially as decent DACs will re-clock.

Like so many discussions regarding music and "high-fidelity" there will always be active disagreement on what "hi-fi" is..and what, if any value, it has for the listener. Although I don't consider myself an audiophile in the classic sense..ie..I don't spend thousands of dollars on cryogenically treated, high cost cables, anti-vibration devices, and esoteric power conditioning technology, I do rip all my CD's to lossless formats. I do this, because on my high end rig in my living room, I can most definitely hear the differences between mp3 files and lossless formats.
There are those in this forum who would argue that I'm "hearing things" and that there are studies with qualitative data that demonstrate I'm hearing phantom effects, because, in effect, I want to hear them. (ref: the xiph.org post which so many posters here have referenced, as evidence that I am in fact "hearing things"). So be it. But those phantom effects are of enough value to me, that I'm willing to provide my hard earned cash to Sonos, if they would be willing to offer a hi-res ZP 90 variant. I would also contend that there are many, many others who would also. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, or think I'm wasting my money, or that hi-res isn't mainstream yet, the bottom line for Sonos is corporate profits. If they build it, will they sell enough units to offset thier costs (R&D, manufacturing & distribution, marketing, etc)? I would argue that they most certainly will. This tread, which contains over 400 replies and close to 60K views, would also seem to indicate that there is significant interest from the Sonos installed base. And as you all know, active forum posters represent a small percentage of the overall base.
I use Sonos as the backbone of my whole house system, but in my "critical listening" area (my living room), the sonos feeds a benchmark DAC, which then feeds my "hi-fi" system. For the remainder of my home, sonos feeding in-wall speakers is just fine for background listening. My point is this. I choose to take the time to rip carefully, in a lossless format, and play through a high quality DAC, when I want to do some "dedicated" listening. I also chose to spend the monies to purchase high quality components, speakers, etc, because they bring me much enjoyment, and thus have an intrinsic value to me. That doesn't imply that this value is something, that everyone would recognize and/or share.
I love my Sonos system, and have an extensive multi-room system. I would also love it if Sonos offered a hi-res variant of the ZP 90 and I would willingly shell out a premium price to purchase one. This doesn't mean that those of you, who are totally content with 16/44 or MP3 music, need purchase one, or have anything forced upon you and your sonos system. For those who feel this way, Sonos offers a perfectly good system as is. Fine! Why argue the merits (or lack thereof) of hi-res music formats if it's of no value to you. My and many others, desire for a hi-res Sonos component, should actually be meaningless to those of you content with your Sonos and music in it's current state. You pay for what you want…and we pay for what we want and value. End of issue/divide.