Zp 24/96

I find it interesting that the poster who touched off this latest round of "I'm gonna dump Sonos for XYZ as soon as it comes out!!!" was previously in here touting the Simple Audio system. I imagine we can look forward to another post in about a year or so exclaiming the superiority of the next big "Sonos killer." :rolleyes:

All this talk of a competitor is fine, but it suggests that all a competitor has to do is create a beyond-full-res capable system and they will steal the market.

Clearly this isn't the case. Beyond-full-res (aka "hires") is neither new, nor is it absent from the market. Other companies, nominally competitors to Sonos, have been in the market with beyond-full-res capable systems for many years. None have been as successful as Sonos, and many have fallen by the wayside, despite having beyond-full-res capability.

The view that beyond-full-res capability is currently anything other than a niche desire with an insignificant impact on the market and consumer buying is a view borne of ignorance, fantasy, and a staunch refusal to consider evidence (both historical and current) of the market that Sonos operates in.

Beyond-full-res capability isn't about lack of competition. It's about lack of requirement from consumers.

Cheers,

Keith

There's also the question of wireless bandwidth.

Good point...

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

Isn't that the point, though - all the evidence seems to point to 24 bit files sounding no better than, and possibly worse than, CD quality files... The only difference is in the mastering, which may be superior for the 24 bit version.

I can't see the point of changing everything to 24 bit just to hear inferior quality sound - it's not logical.

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

That's a good question. I think that when you get into the 2K + range, there are streamers/servers out there already that have enough "name recognition" that its going to be a tough market for a company like Sonos to break into. But that's just my opinion - it would be hard for me to write a check for a couple of thousand bucks for a piece of audio equipment manufactured by a company that hasn't produced that sort of thing in the past. There are too many other options that would seem safer to me.

On the other hand, if Sonos produced a box that was limited to streaming/serving a digital bitstream to my DAC/integrated amp from SonosNet (or even hardwared into ethernet) using the same Sonos interface, and that box contained better jitter rejection of the incoming data, better clocking of the outgoing stream, an electrically quieter power supply, and better signal isolation, I would be willing to pay a premium for that. I wouldn't notice better SQ in most of the places I listen to Sonos (eg. my kitchen), but I would be in the market for a Sonos streamer that I could plug into the system I use to listen to music seriously.

What is a reasonable premium? For me - maybe a $300-$500 upcharge. That's off the top of my head, but I know I'd be tempted. That kind of $$$ doesn't usually kill the deal when experimenting with a hobby like audio, but I think Sonos could make a profit at that range, especially by leaving out all the DAC/analog stuff and amplification.

Would I be able to tell the difference? Who knows. That question misses the point - only a miniscule number of users are ever going to really conduct any A/B subjective testing, blinded or not. What matters is that I would like to upgrade the system, and if I THINK it sounds better, well, that's in MY head.

The point is, I'm willing to pay if Sonos is willing to produce. What's wrong with that?

The point is, I'm willing to pay if Sonos is willing to produce. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that as a wish or desire.

However, you may be in such a small (yet vocal) minority, that it makes little financial sense. From either Sonos' or your perspective.

i.e. - The price Sonos needs to charge to bring it to market is too high for the limited targeted audience.. OR ..The up-charge value your cohort will willingly absorb is a money-loser for Sonos to undertake.

These are variables we can debate ad nauseum, but it's the Product Managers and Product Marketers of Sonos who have a better understanding of their actual market and users. They've already indicated their current negative decision over on ask.Sonos. That may change as technology improves, but it has to make business sense to Sonos - despite your perceived needs.

I see nothing undesirable about a Sonos ZonePlayer that can pass thru 24bit audio. Perhaps with some specific restrictions on how it interfaces (or not) with their traditional ZPs.

Somehow, I think they have thought this through and yawned at that small, potential market and decided to direct their limited resources elsewhere.

Best of Luck

Isn't that the point, though - all the evidence seems to point to 24 bit files sounding no better than, and possibly worse than, CD quality files... The only difference is in the mastering, which may be superior for the 24 bit version.

I can't see the point of changing everything to 24 bit just to hear inferior quality sound - it's not logical.

My definition of sound heaven involves multi-channel high rez content. Mostly playback of DVDA-SACD material.... standards that failed for many reasons. Biggest of which are education and valuing quality and well mastered sound.

The blue-man group DVDA cd is totally amazing in a calibrated 7.2 setup.. but I've already got the equipment for that.

Question is: should Sonos upgrade its equipment to manage high rez multi-channel content via wifi ? Would be cool but there is no demand for quality content like that.

You can see image quality improvements (thus the never ending rez improvements) but sound quality appreciation takes training and a good measure of education.

I find it interesting that the poster who touched off this latest round of "I'm gonna dump Sonos for XYZ as soon as it comes out!!!" was previously in here touting the Simple Audio system. I imagine we can look forward to another post in about a year or so exclaiming the superiority of the next big "Sonos killer." :rolleyes:

Or one could conclude that formerly very content Sonos customers are telling the company to evolve. Since buying the Sonos ZP90, I have heard competition that were able to sell products at similar prices or cheaper than Sonos that sounded better when coupled to a good and reveiling DAC.

So please explain: Since when may customers no longer be critical on products they buy? The Logitech Touch sounded better when the external powersupply is used, but is no longer available. The simple Audio solution sounded good, but isn't there yet development wise. So blame it on me to still be looking out for a better product for the buck. And if that means replacing my ZP90, that's OK by me.

Offcourse: You do not have to be as picky as me when it comes to sound quality, but you do not need to be so touchy when somebody is critical on the performance of a Sonos product. Are you a Sonos deveopler, or what? A Sonos product is okay soundwise, but I for one am expecting a better product this year than the one from a few years ago. I also want to be taken serious as a customer, and not be told what to need or not to need. Not Sonos, not any other company, nor you will be the judge of that.

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...

I couldn't agree more. It isn't even only about the 24 bit discussion, but about the drive I would expect from Sonos to make any resolution file sound better.

I couldn't agree more. It isn't even only about the 24 bit discussion, but about the drive I would expect from Sonos to make any resolution file sound better.

What is holding you back? Buy I decent or high-tec DAC with build-in reclock function and connect it to the digital out of the ZP90.
You won't get anything better than that. No Sonos "improvement" needed to get the highest standard.

And for the HD material discussion, it won't be the first or the last one, but this is an interesting article: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html