Avid Contributor I

Answered

Sonos won't play Hi-Res music files. What are my options?

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
September 22, 2023
35 replies
6657 views

Hi everyone

I’m a newbie Audiophile and love Hi-Res music but don’t fully understand what it’s all about other than the quality of sound is better.

I have a Sonos system at home that comprises of an Arc, Sub and two One speakers L+R.

I keep all my music files on my PC and a backup drive. These files are mostly Apple AAC/M4A format that I listen to through the Sonos app on my PC as well as on my phone.

However, I recently purchased two Hi-Res albums online U2’s Achtung Baby and All That You Can’t Leave Behind. They are both 96Khz/24bit FLAC files but Sonos will not play them and brings up a message saying;

“Unable to play this track - it is encoded at unsupported rate 24b96000Hz”

Is there a way round this to play these files without compromising the sound? If this isn’t possible, then what are my options to play Hi-Res music through my Sonos speakers?

I have been able to listen to Hi-Res music through my Sonos speakers but this was through using Amazon Music streaming service.

Now I want to play my own Hi-Res music files stored on my PC but can’t with Sonos.

This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

Best answer by jgatie

All a higher sample rate gives you is the ability to capture frequencies higher than a human being can hear. It's pure snake oil, unless you are playing music for your dog. Studies show any quality differences are due to better mastering, not higher sample rates. So resample at 48 kHz and be confident you aren't missing any quality.

Show previous replies

J

joanna72Author

Avid Contributor I

Indeed, even Apple AAC, that is a format that compresses CD files, offers outcomes that are audibly the same as CD quality, something that is vouched for by the head of Apple Music.

I always had the understanding that AAC was better in sound quality than CD or am I wrong? Like if you buy a 256kbps Mastered for iTunes album of The Beatles Abbey Road that it would be better sounding than your old CD album you purchased 20 years ago?

ratty

I always had the understanding that AAC was better in sound quality than CD or am I wrong?

It can’t be. AAC is lossy. It throws data away.

(Some might argue that this makes it sound ‘nicer’ but it’s not what the artist intended.)

Like if you buy a 256kbps Mastered for iTunes album of The Beatles Abbey Road that it would be better sounding than your old CD album you purchased 20 years ago?

That’s a different matter, independent of the format issue. Remastering should obviously (we hope) improve on the original, sometimes dramatically.

J

joanna72Author

Avid Contributor I

I have recently remastered albums on CD, so if I wanted to rip those songs from the CD into digital format, what would be the best format to rip them in and using what software?

I have always ripped my CD’s into Apple iTunes m4a format but is this losing the quality that is on the CD?

K

Kumar

I have always ripped my CD’s into Apple iTunes m4a format but is this losing the quality that is on the CD?

Since you have both versions, you can easily check for yourself if you hear any difference between the CD and the rip. If you do not, all else is moot.

ratty

I have recently remastered albums on CD, so if I wanted to rip those songs from the CD into digital format, what would be the best format to rip them in and using what software?

I have always ripped my CD’s into Apple iTunes m4a format but is this losing the quality that is on the CD?

It depends whether you rip to ALAC or AAC. Both use .m4a files. ALAC is lossless.

K

Kumar

I always had the understanding that AAC was better in sound quality than CD or am I wrong? Like if you buy a 256kbps Mastered for iTunes album of The Beatles Abbey Road that it would be better sounding than your old CD album you purchased 20 years ago?

There are so many such out there on iTunes, that I suspect that this is just Apple marketing to allow people to think that compressed AAC is as good as CD quality. I have never found any difference between known performances on CDs v lossless CD rips v this remastered for iTunes thing. One just has to be make sure that sound level differences are not fooling one into thinking otherwise, and if that is the case, fixing that difference just needs a nudge of the volume level controls.

ratty

I have always ripped my CD’s into Apple iTunes m4a format but is this losing the quality that is on the CD?

Since you have both versions, you can easily check for yourself if you hear any difference between the CD and the rip. If you do not, all else is moot.

Moot or not, if one is going to all the trouble to rip one’s CD collection (IIRC it took me 3 weeks, all day every day, back in 2007) it is simply crazy to use a lossy storage format.

ratty

I have never found any difference between known performances on CDs v lossless CD rips v this remastered for iTunes thing.

Then either the remastering was a waste of effort or something else is amiss. Remasters are often, but not always, audibly different from the original issues. Even if the mix is similar the higher frequencies are usually cleaner.

K

Kumar

And from someone that spent a decade down the rabbit hole of audiophilia: I find that even a streaming source such as Spotify gives me the same sound quality I used to get from my high end CD/SACD players, now sold.

Change the speakers or where they are placed in the room, and you will hear audible differences, even day and night ones. Do anything else in a typical domestic listening environment, and you are wasting time and money better spent on music listening and many other things.

ratty

Try premium headphones, from a premium DAC.

Show more replies

Sign up

Login to the community