Zp 24/96

Well not entirely, Simple Audio's Roomplayers DO exist, albeit at double the price for the equivalent device (although this is still within the same order of magnitude as Sonos, unlike the £1000+ devices from other manufacturers) and with the same 65k track limit as Sonos from what I understand (despite requiring Twonky server to run on a NAS if you want to use one).

True. Though they are not available in the US, so they are about as useful as Squeeze for that market. But I should not have ignored the UK.

By the way, has Simple Audio gotten their players to sync yet? Anyone know?

By the way, has Simple Audio gotten their players to sync yet? Anyone know?

Dunno, I haven't heard anything to suggest that but I'm not paying that much attention to them to be fair.

As an ex audiophile - in the narrower meaning of that word, someone more interested in the tech and the equipment than the music - I know my problem was that I always wanted to be doing something to the system, unable to leave well enough alone. Music took second place far too often.

Looking back I know that many of the upgrades/tweaks didn't do anything audible for the sound. I must say that it was fun while it lasted though.

A "problem" with Sonos is that there isn't anything to do, once installed:) Other than fixes to the rare glitch. In that sense, it is a boring system, but one that gets out of the way of the music. Perfect for me now, where I have, in my main system, an amp and a pair of speakers that, barring breakdowns/accidents, will be the last ones I will ever have.

I went from an airport express streaming solution to Sonos, so I don't have user experience of Squeezebox. But it seems to me that it allows for a lot more user interaction and tweaks, and playing around with hires and the like. Gives people something to do. And therefore, if I may use the word meaning no disrespect, more aimed at a geek user base.

A niche product, and must not have justified itself via volumes in a company like Logitech.

There seems to be no real competition to Sonos then, at this time. High end streaming solutions from Naim, Linn and the like are very expensive. I am still to figure out what additional value they provide in comparison to Sonos.

Hi again and thanks for some of the useful comments ('ffs', what does this mean, buddy) !? - Christmas is 4 months away, that is not a very long time ;)

This is meant to be a PLUS-1 thread for 24/96 on the SONNOS CONNECT and I am another member of the Public asking for Hi-Resolution support.

I am looking at LINN and NAIM's offerings amongst a few others, although they are more expensive I prefer the SONOS interface, saying this as I have borrowed a friend's CONNECT for the past week and find it a breeze.

My issue is that should I buy a SONOS CONNECT, I will want to at least have the Dr Volk Jitter modification done to the Clock because I will be sending this into a high-end Tag McLaren AV32R DP Processor (modified to sound sweet as) and without low jitter things sound a little unfocused (this is what the Tag McLaren SyncLink technology does, reduced jitter and clock timing to minimal skewing) - ..........so this SONOS will set me back to the tune of £550....and with this outlay I will want to play the odd HiRes track, as they become more prevalent with things like Bluray AUDIO disks being produced even moreso.

This has been a long ongoing request so feel SONOS must have investigated or have something in the pipeline.....otherwise requests fall on deaf ears here

I had an OPPO BDP-93 and if they sort out the iPhone/Android App (it's in the pipeline) in their next model which will be early next year I guess, this may be what I will wait for as it is a true UNIVERSAL Source that 'does' (or will do) everything very well!

🙂

ti33er,

As announced the Sound Ideas forum is no longer the primary board for feature requests (although the content of existing threads will continue to be noted). Perhaps you'd like to open a new Idea thread over at ask.sonos.com where it might solicit a reaction from Sonos staff and fellow members of that community.

This has been a long ongoing request so feel SONOS must have investigated or have something in the pipeline.....otherwise requests fall on deaf ears here


Given the way real-world development actually works, there is a third, more likely, option:

It's been placed on development list but has never reached the level of priority warranted for it to be investigated.

Cheers,

Keith

A moderator comment from a speaker maker's forum where I am also a member may be of interest:

Quote

Moderator's comment: please be aware that 192/24 is unlikely to produce higher fidelity that 44 or 48k. That is because the extended bandwidth permits and encourages spurious HF tones to bleed through which would otherwise, intentionally, be filtered by 44/48k systems. 192/24 is not the automatic route to greater fidelity, just to greater noise.

Unquote

A moderator comment from a speaker maker's forum where I am also a member may be of interest:

Quote

Moderator's comment: please be aware that 192/24 is unlikely to produce higher fidelity that 44 or 48k. That is because the extended bandwidth permits and encourages spurious HF tones to bleed through which would otherwise, intentionally, be filtered by 44/48k systems. 192/24 is not the automatic route to greater fidelity, just to greater noise.

Unquote

Thanks for the post but I must disagree with that - smacks of the old DolbyDigital NoiseReduction...sure it may have cleaned up background noise, but it also stole some of the detail!

SACD sounds great to me - compare Dires Straits SACD vs CD on a high end active stereo system....I know which one has the 'blacker' background. ;-)

It's a bit like arguing that vinyl lets everything through, including hiss and static in the recording studio.

Best regards

Thanks for the post but I must disagree with that - smacks of the old DolbyDigital NoiseReduction...sure it may have cleaned up background noise, but it also stole some of the detail!

SACD sounds great to me - compare Dires Straits SACD vs CD on a high end active stereo system....I know which one has the 'blacker' background. ;-)

It's a bit like arguing that vinyl lets everything through, including hiss and static in the recording studio.

Best regards

You cannot compare a production SACD to a production CD. They are well known to be mastered differently, with more time, care and emphasis being given to the SACD version. For a true comparison, downsample an SACD recording and do a double blind A/B/X comparison between the original and downsampled versions. When this was done in the past, the peer-reviewed results showed listeners ranging from trained ears to student volunteers are not able to discern any difference between the 24/96 and 16/44 versions. The study concluded that audible differences between 24/86 and 16/44 versions of a work are wholly due to differerences in production, not the superiority of the 24/96 format.

ETA - You may find this thread, and the links contained within, interesting:

http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?p=159096#post159096

You cannot compare a production SACD to a production CD. They are well known to be mastered differently, with more time, care and emphasis being given to the SACD version.
+1 to this.

I have a SACD player, and a bunch of JVC XRCDs. These are CDs, just a carefully mastered version, with some fancy packaging, sold in the audiophile market at a premium over normal CDs. They sound just as good as the few SACDs I have. As do many of my regular CDs, I suppose they have been decently mastered as well. Now all my player does is serve as a DAC for the Connect, and music sounds just the same as from the SACDs/CDs, that have been ripped to the NAS via Apple lossless. I suspect that even ripping at the default iTunes 256k compressed setting wouldn't sound audibly different. I did lossless because HDD capacity is not an economic issue any more.

For academic interest, a question: does this mastering thing apply to vinyl as well? Can one have different quality LPs of the same recording?