Good afternoon
I’ve recently purchased the ARC, Sub (gen 3) and Move and have discovered that you only support 24bit streaming up to 44,000hz or 48,000hz. I have a lot of music that’s in 88,000hz, 96,000hz or 192,000hz (.flac container format) and I can see that this isn’t supported!
This is real shame and I’m sure many other customers will feel the same? It would be great if your developers could implement this as soon as possible via a support update?
Best answer by Krishma M
View original
As for me and a lot of other users on here, what software would you recommend that would adapt the 96/192kHZ albums that we have, to say 48kHZ, so it’s compatible for the current setup? thanks
dBpoweramp Music Converter is often regarded as the gold standard, but there’s lots of free software available.
The “down-conversion to 24/48 in the port” - would be great see in a future update as a last resort!
First of all I appreciate both your replies ratty/amun, but the support “headaches” that you think Sonos would endure, are more down to the user(s) having the necessary bandwidth to deal with the larger file sizes especially if they’re using WiFi and not a hardwired connection!
In my world, and yes, it’s about giving the customer the choice, pointing out to them about the connection issues, and the speeds that are needed to enjoy the larger file sizes that come with the higher frequencies.Audiophiles understand this…
As for me and a lot of other users on here, what software would you recommend that would adapt the 96/192kHZ albums that we have, to say 48kHZ, so it’s compatible for the current setup? thanks
As ratty has already pointed out, the network overhead caused by the increased file sizes would give Sonos severe problems, as they support up to 32 devices per system. Consequently, this is not a simple software fix, but would affect the capability and reliability of the system, and would therefore probably also cause Sonos a massive support headache.
It’s also not a universal software fix because, despite later hardware quite possibly including a DAC capable of handling up to 192kHz (as indeed does the Port), there just isn’t any way of rendering the resulting ultrasonics without a supertweeter. Indeed if ultrasonics were present they’d quite probably degrade the sound owing to audible intermodulation products.
No, if Sonos feels a burning compulsion to tick the ‘hi res’ box and get that monkey off its back my bet would be on a tweak to the Port firmware, as I sketched earlier. Whether they’d also include down-conversion to 24/48 in the Port so it could group with regular players, in the same vein as AirPlay requiring a capable ‘target’, is an interesting question.
Also other users here, are creating new threads based on this topic all the time, and Sonos don't seem to be listening.
All I'm asking for, is that my comments, along with others is passed to the relevant team.
And they may well have been, along with all the other comments relating to this request, which are regarded by many here as pure snake oil.
As ratty has already pointed out, the network overhead caused by the increased file sizes would give Sonos severe problems, as they support up to 32 devices per system. Consequently, this is not a simple software fix, but would affect the capability and reliability of the system, and would therefore probably also cause Sonos a massive support headache.
As you’ve already pointed out, there is kit around that will do what you want, although I have severe doubts that it can do it and provide the capability that Sonos does. As usual,TANSTAAFL applies.
Higher frequencies which are only audible to pets in a domestic setting? MQA is also an encoding technique which has thoroughly divided industry opinion. Many argue that, if one really wants higher sampling rates, internet bandwidth is now sufficiently plentiful that MQA is a solution to a problem that no longer exists. Personally I’d reckon the chances of Sonos supporting it are even lower than for 96kHz lossless.
By the way, it’s well understood that the ‘night and day’ differences between such ‘higher resolution’ material and the original can be entirely accounted for by the careful remastering that’s typically part of the equation. A down-conversion preserves all that. Sit back and enjoy it.
greater than 16bit frequecies
There’s no such thing, but I understand what you meant to say.
The discussion is to do with 24bit and higher frequencies..... And in turn total Tidal achieves this by streaming greater than 16bit frequecies by using MQA techniques to wrap and unwrap those higher frequencies.... Nice way of doing things I say!
MQA? This discussion started off from Sonos’ recent introduction of 24-bit lossless decode.
A proprietary codec, implying licence costs, to squash ultrasonics into a 24/48 stream. One has to ask oneself: why?
Thanks ratty!
Happy listening to music and enjoy your Sonos kit
MQA rules - https://www.mqa.co.uk/
'fingers crossed"
Tidal is the best streaming service.....
I can tell the difference with the higher frequecies over the lower ones, the detail is important....24 bit 96 or 192 needs to be implemented to give the user the choice
Consistently, in a double-blind test? Such superhuman ‘golden ears’ would surely be hugely valuable…
But setting aside the ‘faith’ vs ‘science’ debate for the moment, Sonos is a business. They will address users’ demands for ‘choice’ only if (a) they're technically feasible and (b) profitable to do so.
I can tell the difference with the higher frequecies over the lower ones, the detail is important....24 bit 96 or 192 needs to be implemented to give the user the choice
Right, so this would be useful IF the pet dog/cat likes the kind of music we do, with the higher frequency extension meant to deliver more of it’s content to them.
There’d be zero logic in extending such support to the speakers, since they lack ultrasonic transducers.
Who would benefit from ultrasonic transducers? By definition itself, not humans?
There’d be zero logic in extending such support to the speakers, since they lack ultrasonic transducers.
Who would benefit from ultrasonic transducers? By definition itself, not humans?
You’re clearly entitled to your opinions. However despite all the hype over many years we’re still waiting for clear evidence that sampling rates above Red Book produce any audible benefits. Indeed a recent large-scale listening test, conducted by a widely respected industry expert, found there to be no perceptible fidelity improvement.
Of course there’s a strong commercial imperative within the recording and equipment industries to try and convince users otherwise, so they’re motivated to go out and replace their existing music collections and playback equipment.
The marketing pressure for Sonos to comply, whether or not it makes sense technically, may become insuperable if for no other reason than to be able to tick the pesky ‘hi res’ box. If that ever did come to pass though I’d expect it to only affect the Port, with its digital output -- and maybe only for a wired or 5GHz network connection. There’d be zero logic in extending such support to the speakers, since they lack ultrasonic transducers.
Also other users here, are creating new threads based on this topic all the time, and Sonos don't seem to be listening.
All I'm asking for, is that my comments, along with others is passed to the relevant team.
OverallI am impressed with Sonos and it is better than it's competitors, but it's just missing that last little bit of fine tuning.
Thank you
You're missing the point I'm making and I don't agree with your comments.
There's plenty of other users who are looking for this ability as this is where the standard is in my opinion! Sonos should be listening to their user base and not suggesting and making things personal.
This is constructive criticism and should be passed along to the engineering teams and technical teams as I'm sure this could be implemented very easily through a software update!
Hey Sonos
Please support 24bit frequency 96kHZ or 192kHz as this will allow everyone the ability to play their own collections as they were intended, or listen to Tidal that streams in master quality using mqa! Bluesound offers this.... By only giving us 24bit 48kHZ or 44.1kHZ it is only a half baked option!
Thank you
If you truly must have support for higher sample rates, then I’d suggest selling your Sonos kit and buying Bluesound, or any other make that offers what you want at the moment.
By only giving us 24bit 48kHZ or 44.1kHZ it is only a half baked option!
It’s the option which embraces the range of human hearing, as has been well established in science and in listening tests. Higher sampling rates have their place in the production chain, but are quite unnecessary for final delivery.
Moreover doubling or quadrupling the bandwidth requirements would strain a wireless network, for no obvious gain.
I appreciate that those who’ve bought so-called ‘hi res’ music may feel a bit miffed to have to down-convert, but it’s a one-time exercise. And you won’t be able to tell the difference.
Bumping this thread every month is, I venture to suggest, a bit of a waste of time and effort.
Hey Sonos
Please support 24bit frequency 96kHZ or 192kHz as this will allow everyone the ability to play their own collections as they were intended, or listen to Tidal that streams in master quality using mqa! Bluesound offers this.... By only giving us 24bit 48kHZ or 44.1kHZ it is only a half baked option!
Thank you
Do the Sonos engineers have any idea when there will be a software update to allow the 24bit frequency 96kHZ or 192kHz to be supported?
Thank you
Thank you for your reply.
The real point I am making hear is that Sonos isn't supporting at the moment 96kHZ or 196kHZ, which is kind of half baked...I am really hoping that this is supported real soon! Please support this soon Sonos, as Bluesound support it as well as the MQA technology when sending the file to be unpacked at the hardware end.
Hi
24 bit music with local hard drive files is a wonderful thing. Thank you. How large a priority for the Sonos Team is it that we will be able to stream 24 bit music like Amazon HD?
Thanks!
Good afternoon
Do you know when you're updating the 24bit frequency so it works with 96Khz/192Khz encoded tracks please?
+12
Given that Sonos have provided support for 24bit, but only up to the frequency of 44.1/48kHZ, then this is only a half measure. Anyone that cares about sound quality and where the recording industry is going, would welcome the need for 96/192kHZ hi-res frequency!
Sonos has been against hi res in the past. But it
isn'tthat they are against sound quality, they make good sounding devices. Top notch sound quality at any price point.
I read they didn't think it mattered or was needed (or something like that).
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
