Support high resolution files


Userlevel 2
I purchase lots of high res FLAC files from hdtracks.com, but I can't play them on SONOS as high res FLAC files are not supported. Please add support for high res FLAC files: Reference: https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php https://sonos.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/80/kw/Music+Formats#var_f

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.

815 replies

Userlevel 5
Badge +11
Buy products based on your needs not what you wish they had. I didn’t know I NEEDED it until I heard the sound quality sonos DOES have; which in all honesty is probably more than enough. BUT, there is something better available so obviously now I want it.

What I don’t get is how a product modeled as a “Hi-Fi speaker system” has no intention on supporting high res audio. Don’t piss on my boots & tell me it’s raining. :?


What quality?
Badge
They have nothing to do with each other. And from most testing etc the differences in hi res are not perceivable. The mastering may be difference and as before If you have hi res files I can see wanting Sonos to transcode (which itself it does not).

Hi fi doesnt mean hi res files. Never has never will. You make your personal choices as to what you need. Hi res is a niche market that a few people do support if that is what you need. I prefer Sonos and reliability.
sounds like someone’s just in an arguing mood today. I was not the audiophile I am today when I got into the sonos game. “Hi-fi” “hi res” I saw “hi” & the HIGH product price and figured it was all the same. No biggie, I’m a big boy. I’ll take my licks & be just fine. Just bugs that they straight said there’s no plans. I’d rathar be left in the dark lol.
By the way, this is my favorite post of this thread, from 3 years ago:

Any one who thinks HiRez music is not already mainstream need only look to Pono's success - you don't raise 6.3 million dollars to produce a 24/192 player just because you're a rock star, you raise it because people want to hear better quality sound.


Pono lasted just over 2 years.
Buy products based on your needs not what you wish they had. I didn’t know I NEEDED it until I heard the sound quality sonos DOES have; which in all honesty is probably more than enough. BUT, there is something better available so obviously now I want it.

What I don’t get is how a product modeled as a “Hi-Fi speaker system” has no intention on supporting high res audio. Don’t piss on my boots & tell me it’s raining. :?


It's not "something better", it is snake oil.

Here's some lovely reading, brought to you by xiph.org, the creators of FLAC the most popular hi-res audio format on the planet. Yet even they think Hi-res audio "makes no sense".

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
They have nothing to do with each other. And from most testing etc the differences in hi res are not perceivable. The mastering may be difference and as before If you have hi res files I can see wanting Sonos to transcode (which itself it does not).

Hi fi doesnt mean hi res files. Never has never will. You make your personal choices as to what you need. Hi res is a niche market that a few people do support if that is what you need. I prefer Sonos and reliability.
Badge
Buy products based on your needs not what you wish they had. I didn’t know I NEEDED it until I heard the sound quality sonos DOES have; which in all honesty is probably more than enough. BUT, there is something better available so obviously now I want it.

What I don’t get is how a product modeled as a “Hi-Fi speaker system” has no intention on supporting high res audio. Don’t piss on my boots & tell me it’s raining. :?
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
Buy products based on your needs not what you wish they had.
Badge
I spent $2000 on 5.1 SONOS “Hi-Fi” hardware & they don’t even have plans on supporting 96/24 lossless audio?! What in the golden is the point?! 😠 Jesus Christ
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
From the HiRes side I can understand Sonos not supporting playing HiRes. I support the scientific info that you can not hear the difference between the two. Differences to me I ever notice are most likely due to increased amplitude or better master recording used.

However, the Sonos problem actually is not being able to do things like pass the hires to an offboard DAC or downconvert a hires file. HiRes files are completely ignored by Sonos. So having any with Sonos does you no good at all your best to convert them all to standard FLAC lossless.
Bummer
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
oops - Sorry my phone had a mind of its own ... that was supposed to say NOT NOT pass a hires file
Thank you Chris
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
Sonos will pass a not hires file
I have not read this entire 5 year thread so please excuse me if this question is answered within. I understand that the DACs used by Sonos products cannot handle hi-res files. However, can a Sonos connect pass a hi-res file unmodified to an external DAC through it’s digital outputs? I use to Sonos to play music in some places where the sound quality is not all that important but all I need it to do for my “listening” room is move packets unmodified from the hard drive attached to the router to my DAC. Will it do that?
Same on my side, I have a whole bunch of high resolution Flac files that I can't play through sonos, what a pitty !
Just do a one-time downconversion. You'll benefit from any superior mastering and won't suffer from the acknowledged intermodulation products caused by nonlinearity in the ultrasonic region.
Userlevel 1
Badge
Same on my side, I have a whole bunch of high resolution Flac files that I can't play through sonos, what a pitty !
Yes but they also say in the interview with WHF that they just can't make the maths work, ie, there is NO benefit. It's about as clear a "no" as you're ever going to get.
Userlevel 7
Badge +17
for those in the UK I suggest you take a read of Hifi Choice magazine article/interview with Sonos in the December issue. This is the publication but not the actual article as you need to buy a copy !
http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/news/article/december-issue-out-now/22524

They discuss Trueplay, new Play 5 and HiRes and basically suggest that when there is a clear benefit (i.e. technical/noticeable music quality improvement) to support it then they will - no mention is made on which hardware may or may not handle it but its the first time Ive seen them openly saying they could support it if necessary.
Userlevel 7
Badge +17
further reinforcement of the 'Not Planned' stance !
http://www.twice.com/sonos-10-streaming-future/57924

you just need to work around the marketing waffle and question evasion !
Userlevel 4
Badge +5
Thank you for the feedback. At this time, Sonos does not have plans to add support for high resolution audio files, including high resolution FLAC. This topic will remain open for further discussion.
"Science, specifically the Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem, states that the entire sound can be perfectly recreated by a sampling rate twice the frequency range." - Jgatie

Relying on any theorem, no matter how popular, seems a little strange when no one actually believes that 16/44 is audio Nirvana which cannot be improved upon. Few people have any difficulty telling the difference blindfolded between 'live' sound and a 16/44 recording but are easily fooled by a good quality analogue recording OR a 24/96 (and above) recording.

The 'science' you are relying upon is based upon ABX tests which in turn rely upon the subjects' memory to identify minute differences - hardly reliable nor indeed unbiased. Listening to perfectly synchronised 24/192 & 16/44 tracks from the same master and instantly switching between them clearly reveals the difference to most subjects. Give it a try and then claim there is no difference if you wish but please don't rely on highly flawed 'scientific' tests. Medical science tells us that MOST tests are conducted badly and therefore wrong or unreliable (this is a medical test). 70% of scientific 'proof' is subsequently reversed (this is a 'scientific' test).

Finally, HOW do you hear things? NOT just with your ears. Personally, I cannot tell any difference between 16/44 & 24/192 when listening to headphones but I can through GOOD speakers etc. The argument about audible range therefore immediately becomes irrelevant. If I am detecting something through my skull, finger tips, feet, chest, or whatever, I am still detecting it. I don't know or have to explain HOW I am detecting it, just that I AM. Profoundly deaf people can perform some amazing feats of 'hearing' even though EVERY frequency is outside their audible range.

Taking a ‘scientific’ approach is laudable but that involves rather more than simply repeating, “...scientists have proved...”.
Userlevel 1
Thank you for the feedback. At this time, Sonos does not have plans to add support for high resolution audio files, including high resolution FLAC. This topic will remain open for further discussion.
Jgatie, I did really read the article, but did not click through the link explaining the sampling theorem. Is the root of our problem a combination of poor master recordings being used to create poor lossy music files? Would simply remastering every known recording at 16/44 in FLAC (as the article suggests) solve all of our "resolution wars" in your opinion? 

The "Scientific" reason for discounting a test that showed SACD sounding better than CD was, "This comparison is invalid; the masters are usually different." 

The only impetus for labels to remaster is to sell a new format, like 24/96 FLAC, in hopes of making more money from old recordings.  And if that is why they are doing it, they will not remaster for another 16/44 version (EVEN IF there is no scientifically provable improvement to the sound). Consumers will not understand. Which leaves us back with "C'mon Sonos, get on the 24 bit bandwagon."
Userlevel 2
Thank you for the feedback. At this time, Sonos does not have plans to add support for high resolution audio files, including high resolution FLAC. This topic will remain open for further discussion.
I suggest to try to listen to a hi-res on Sonos vs a hi-res on Bluesound. The Sonos silence vs the Bluesound music would be enough evidence that being able to play the file is better than not be able to do so.

It's sad that Sonos only want to rip people off with various "exclusive" versions of the Play 1 these days.
Userlevel 4
Badge +5
Thank you for the feedback. At this time, Sonos does not have plans to add support for high resolution audio files, including high resolution FLAC. This topic will remain open for further discussion.
Jersey, of course you're entitled to your opinion. However, science proved you wrong. Hence my reference to the article on the XIPH website. Opinions are free, facts are sacred. - Beymym Have you ever tried to hear the difference Beynym? If so - how?
Thank you for the feedback. At this time, Sonos does not have plans to add support for high resolution audio files, including high resolution FLAC. This topic will remain open for further discussion.
Science, specifically the Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem, states that the entire sound can be perfectly recreated by a sampling rate twice the frequency range. Since no human ever has been able to hear over 20 kHz, 44 will capture every audible ound dominating fromguitar string. By the way, if you had really read that article, you would have known this, and wouldn't have claimed that more data could translate into a more realistic sound. More data does two things, record sounds outside the audible range, and allow for a greater dynamic range. Neither of which are any benefit to.playback.
Thank you for the feedback. At this time, Sonos does not have plans to add support for high resolution audio files, including high resolution FLAC. This topic will remain open for further discussion.
I also read the article and found it curious that the test on average showed that people were about 50% right about identifying the hires files. Statistically, that could be the case if they all identified the difference but could not identify what was what. Ie if 50% identified 90% of the hires songs correctly and the rest did too, but thought they sounded bad and, hence, thought they were the 44/16 bit files; that would result in about 50% correct answers even though 90% of the time they could hear the difference. To me, that is quite possible. The difference I hear between 44/16 and 192/24 is not unlike how hd programs look on TV: it has a tendency to look amateurish because you recognize details from reality that you are not used to see on tv. Some hires recordings do the same thing: the mix of a bass and a keyboard may sound like an exciting new sound in 44/16, while a 192/24 recording reveals the two distinct instruments more clearly and make the song come across as more basic or "amateurish". So I completely understand why some listeners could prefer the 44/16. Still, the 192/24 is more correct.