Zp 24/96

It's a matter of time before some other brand will produce a product which sounds better than Sonos ZP90 (even with external DAC), does play 24 bit files and has the good interface like Sonos does. I know people will want to play a little extra. And it doesn't have to be serious money like the Linn Majik DS or the sort.

In 5 days time (march 26th) a company called Wifimedia in The Netherlands will unveil a completely new audio streamer that promises to do all these things. 24 bit 192 kHz files, indexed music without the 64,000 files limit, pretty nice and sleak design, good interface like sonos, controlled by tablet, etc.

I for one am very interested and will ditch the Sonos after several years of waiting as soon as I am sure this new product delivers. In fairness, I am finally fed up with sonos' denial that 24 bit music is only a niche and them closing their eyes for people who want their music to sound better than average at least in their living room set.

I am finally fed up with sonos' denial that 24 bit music is only a niche and them closing their eyes for people who want their music to sound better than average at least in their living room set.

On the other hand, there are many people who don't know or care about the bits and the sampling thing, and there are also quite a few that believe that 16/44 is as good as it needs to be for audio, with SQ depending on mastering quality, speaker performance and room acoustics. Another factor is the rise of streaming music services, with none of the mainstream ones offering lossless streams of 16/44 music files, leave alone 24/96 and beyond.

That said, viable competition can only be good news. Viable will need to include support of the same quality as Sonos, and a user forum such as this one, which gives Sonos a strong competitive edge. Sonos is strong as a complete package, and someone challenging them will need to come up with something more than just the hardware.

It's a matter of time before some other brand will produce a product which sounds better than Sonos ZP90 (even with external DAC), does play 24 bit files and has the good interface like Sonos does...

Its already happened (in the U.S). Olive, a long-time producer of "audiophile" streaming/rendering/network playing devices, is producing the "Olive One" - a product that clearly has Sonos in its crosshairs. Not much more expensive, capable of Hi Rez file rendering, and obviously stylish with an engaging interface, it is being produced through a public-funding campaign that seems to be working. Unlike their traditional products, the One has wireless, multi-room, distributed audio capabilities that make it look like Sonos on steroids. Odds are better than even, IMO, that they will bring it to market soon. Advance samples were well-reviewed.

I personally don't know what to think about audio files comprising greater bit-depth and higher sampling frequencies than Redbook. I think its foolish to discount the possibility that Hi Rez files might produce a better listening experience when those files are processed properly. First of all, I think too much is made out of the whole "Sampling Theory" argument that you can't hear frequencies above 20 kHz (I probably can't hear above 14 or 15, given my age...), so you don't need to digitally sample/measure the analog waveform at a frequency higher than 40 kHz. I'm sure that 99.9% of the people that trot out the Nyquist/Shannon theorum have 1) never studied it, and 2) couldn't understand it if they did. Both of those parameters apply to me, but I DID try to pursue it in an "analog" fashion for a while - reading about it and trying to understand what Prof. Shannon and Dr. Nyquist (who were NOT collaborators, BTW - weren't even contemporaneous) were trying to say. Forgive me if I have this wrong, but I believe the Nyquist Theorum states that one can reconstruct perfectly an analog waveform if one samples the waveform at a frequency at least twice that of the highest-frequency component wave that is contained within the complex waveform - AS LONG AS 1) THE COMPLEX WAVEFORM IS PERIODIC (REPEATS ITSELF OVER AND OVER), AND 2) YOU HAVE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO SAMPLE THE WAVE. Since neither of those conditions apply to recorded music, it may be inaccurate to dismiss the notion that a Hi Rez file might be able to reconstruct the analog information more richly. And, as far as bit-depth goes, the use of greater word-lengths in recording allows the noise to be shifted away from the real audio information and therefore filtered out more effectively without losing the music along with the noise. But I'm not convinced it doesn't also have some benefit in playback - or that the presence of greater bit-depth can't be used during processing to produce better SQ.

Its pretty clear to me the Sonos is drilling a lot of holes where the wood is thinnest - they haven't substantially improved the product in years, but they keep coming out with new applications for it, and therefore building new audiences and markets...and profits. Can't blame 'em for that. I like the system - it does what its designed to do very well. I do wish, however, that they gave a nod to those of us who are interested in trying to see just how GOOD the experience can be from a sonic standpoint. If they don't want to delve into higher resolution audio processing, fine. But how about offering a product with some concessions to well-recognized features that could improve the sound quality of Redbook? Things like better clocking of the data so those of us who output digitally into an outboard DAC could get the benefits of reduced "jitter". Or better power supplies. Or better isolation...

Come on, Sonos, we're in the minority, but there's a market for a Sonos-based network player with some tech enhancements. Nobody is going to be interested in a Sonos product for 2K, but some of us would pay a reasonable premium for better technology.

Just my two cents...

Nobody is going to be interested in a Sonos product for 2K, but some of us would pay a reasonable premium for better technology.



Why not 2K? What would a "reasonable" premium be?

But how about offering a product with some concessions to well-recognized features that could improve the sound quality of Redbook? Things like better clocking of the data so those of us who output digitally into an outboard DAC could get the benefits of reduced "jitter". Or better power supplies. Or better isolation...

Come on, Sonos, we're in the minority, but there's a market for a Sonos-based network player with some tech enhancements. Nobody is going to be interested in a Sonos product for 2K, but some of us would pay a reasonable premium for better technology.

Just my two cents...

My experience is that with the referred tweaks one is playing at the fringes. Far better to spend that money on better speakers, and time on placing them in the right places in the room while taking care on getting the best possible room acoustics. That's where over 90% of the SQ comes from, maybe more in today's era of digital/solid state electronics upstream.

PS: Recent corroboration for me is a Manu Katche album I bought on I Tunes yesterday. From ECM, who have a reputation for high quality recording and mastering. The file is AAC lossy, 256k and yet the sound produced from my Connect feeding my main system is as good as from any CD/SACD I play in the SACD player in that system which has Harbeth C7 speakers at the business end.

It's a matter of time before some other brand will produce a product which sounds better than Sonos ZP90 (even with external DAC), does play 24 bit files and has the good interface like Sonos does.

Quite possibly. One of the downsides of being in the game longer, and more successfully, than anyone else is that you will seriously annoy your exisiting customers if you start bringing out kit that isn't fully compatible with the older kit.

The capabilities of the kit is largely dependent on how much computing power is available. There's no reason that you couldn't use much more powerful processing in each unit to provide 24 bit multi room audio in sync - but only if every piece of hardware had the same capabilities.

On of the many reasons that people like Sonos is because a piece of kit that you buy today will work perfectly with one bought a number of years ago. In the days of disposable technology, this is fairly unusual.

At the moment Sonos has a proven track record in sync multi-room streaming audio. The sales figures indicate that their sales (and presumably, revenues) are booming. I don't see that deeply annoying existing customers by making their existing investment obsolete is a very sensible sales strategy, particularly if it's only being done to please a very small minority (albeit a very vocal one) of customers. With the rise of internet streaming (which has comparitively low res files), I would imagine that Sonos see even less reason to risk their currently very successful business model.

In this respect, anyone new to this area has an advantage - they don't have to worry about compatibility with existing units, or upsetting a loyal customer base.

The capabilities of the kit is largely dependent on how much computing power is available. There's no reason that you couldn't use much more powerful processing in each unit to provide 24 bit multi room audio in sync - but only if every piece of hardware had the same capabilities.
There's also the question of wireless bandwidth. A 24/96 file would require about 3 times that of a 16/44.1. The number of Players supportable on SonosNet would be significantly reduced from the current figure of 32.

With the rise of internet streaming (which has comparitively low res files), I would imagine that Sonos see even less reason to risk their currently very successful business model.

To judge by comments in interviews this seems to be their attitude. They see the strategic direction as being towards the Cloud. There's an awful lot of low-hanging fruit available without the architecture upheaval hires would imply.

In this respect, anyone new to this area has an advantage - they don't have to worry about compatibility with existing units, or upsetting a loyal customer base.

Indeed, and competition is good. However a newcomer would have much to do to match Sonos' position in brand recognition and user experience.

The reference has been made elsewhere in the thread, but it's worth pointing out again that on ask.sonos.com the support of hires tracks has been marked as Not Planned.

I recently heard an interview on CKUA with a sound engineer. I forget his name but he essentially said CD sound and even compressed variations are up to the last rung of the ladder. Some people are spending far too much time and money trying to get the final rung under them.

He also said we forget about the music. There are songs that are recorded like sh*t but are hits. BECAUSE THEY ARE GREAT SONGS!

That last bit hit home to me. I remember playing the Monkees' I'm a Believer over and over on 45 on a portable turntable. I was in heaven. Scratches and all.

he essentially said CD sound and even compressed variations are up to the last rung of the ladder. Some people are spending far too much time and money trying to get the final rung under them.

He also said we forget about the music.

And to my age affected ears, I am pretty sure that the last rung won't yield audible benefits. It is very liberating to know and accept this. It has allowed me to vastly simplify my systems.

I would much rather enjoy the music with the reliability that the current Sonos architecture brings to it.

There's also the question of wireless bandwidth. A 24/96 file would require about 3 times that of a 16/44.1. The number of Players supportable on SonosNet would be significantly reduced from the current figure of 32.


To judge by comments in interviews this seems to be their attitude. They see the strategic direction as being towards the Cloud. There's an awful lot of low-hanging fruit available without the architecture upheaval hires would imply.


Indeed, and competition is good. However a newcomer would have much to do to match Sonos' position in brand recognition and user experience.

The reference has been made elsewhere in the thread, but it's worth pointing out again that on ask.sonos.com the support of hires tracks has been marked as Not Planned.

Cash is king ;)

If there was a way Sonos could make tons of money by catering to a niche audience it would.

If you're going to go into the playback of high resolution files you'll need a parallel infrastructure that supports it. The communication strategy as well as the equipment receiving the signal would obviously be high end.

Considering how well the current equipment works, a Sonos HD line of products would most likely be a jaw-dropping experience to listen to.

Imagine for a moment a future 9.2 setup using 9 PLAY:3 HD speakers and 2 HD SUBS with automatic room calibration. You'd also need an iPad interface to fine-tune speaker positioning and view the calibration results...

High resolution is a whole different ball game if you're selling speakers AND a wifi content transport infrastructure. I don't see this happening until there is pressure from a competing product. The research and development costs alone can easily be a deal breaker.