Go Back   Sonos Forums > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old Dec 3rd, 2012, 11:41 PM
markvh1 markvh1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 14
Default Sonos Connect with higher bit and sampling rates?

Does anyone know if Sonos have any plans in the pipeline to produce a Connect with 24 bit/96 kHz or 24 bit/192 kHz to enable playing of hi-res music? I have asked Sonos but they say they are not allowed to discuss future product releases.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Dec 4th, 2012, 12:47 AM
ratty ratty is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 14,102
Default

If you have the patience for it, read through http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?t=7951

There's a frequently referenced article which you might also wish to take a look at: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Dec 4th, 2012, 12:52 AM
the_lhc the_lhc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markvh1 View Post
Does anyone know if Sonos have any plans in the pipeline to produce a Connect with 24 bit/96 kHz or 24 bit/192 kHz to enable playing of hi-res music? I have asked Sonos but they say they are not allowed to discuss future product releases.
So if Sonos themselves won't tell you, what makes you think any of us are going to know?

Sonos don't discuss future products, you know as much as we do.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Dec 4th, 2012, 01:30 AM
markvh1 markvh1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lhc View Post
So if Sonos themselves won't tell you, what makes you think any of us are going to know?

Sonos don't discuss future products, you know as much as we do.
Because I thought maybe somebody may know somebody who is in the know or if any rumours are circulating about any developments.
I don't know if I am misinterpreting the tone of your post but please accept my humblest apologies for daring to post my original query. Perhaps I ought to go away now and consider a streaming system that handles the higher bit rates.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Dec 4th, 2012, 01:59 AM
the_lhc the_lhc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markvh1 View Post
Because I thought maybe somebody may know somebody who is in the know or if any rumours are circulating about any developments.
This is an official Sonos forum (I don't care what the mods say to the contrary, this site is hosted by Sonos under their domain name, that makes it as official as any other part of their website), if anyone did know anything they'd never be allowed to say so here, in however many years this forum has been around there has NEVER been a hardware leak.

Quote:
Perhaps I ought to go away now and consider a streaming system that handles the higher bit rates.
At the moment, yes, I'm afraid so, with Squeezebox no longer being available I wish you luck with finding anything in this price range, Simply Audio's Roomplayers will do hi-rez but they're approximately double the price of the equivalent Sonos Zoneplayer, beyond that you're into a different price bracket completely.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Dec 4th, 2012, 03:04 AM
markvh1 markvh1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 14
Default

Please forgive me if I am wrong. We talk about lossy (compressed) and lossless (uncompressed) files and treat 16/44 files as lossless (uncompressed) but aren't even these a form of compressed files in relation to 24/96 and 24/192 files?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Dec 4th, 2012, 03:19 AM
Kumar Kumar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: India
Posts: 1,839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markvh1 View Post
I don't know if I am misinterpreting the tone of your post but please accept my humblest apologies for daring to post my original query. Perhaps I ought to go away now and consider a streaming system that handles the higher bit rates.
As a new member, you wouldn't know the endless discussions on hi res that are part of the history of the forum. You might want to read these

Some of us, and count me in that, believe that there isn't any heard benefit in hi res. Whatever there is, is on account of better mastering of redbook material, repackaged and sold at higher prices, using hi res as the reason for the premium.

Simple audio is probably a non starter. It uses powerline in place of Sonosnet/wifi, and doesn't work as universally.

For a multiroom audio alternative that addresses hi res, you will spend many multiples of the equivalent Sonos price. And still not get all Sonos features, I venture to say.

Last edited by Kumar; Dec 4th, 2012 at 03:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Dec 4th, 2012, 03:33 AM
the_lhc the_lhc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markvh1 View Post
Please forgive me if I am wrong. We talk about lossy (compressed) and lossless (uncompressed) files and treat 16/44 files as lossless (uncompressed)
Lossless 16/44 files can be compressed (FLAC/ALAC) or uncompressed (WAV/AIFF) but they're still lossless.

Quote:
but aren't even these a form of compressed files in relation to 24/96 and 24/192 files?
Compression isn't the issue, it's whether it's lossy or lossless. It depends how you look at it, compared to the source (ie a CD) 16/44 lossless files contain exactly the same data, so you've lost nothing. Compared to a 24-bit file, yes you're missing bits but as you'll find out it's very debatable as to whether that means you're actually losing music.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Dec 4th, 2012, 04:27 AM
jgatie jgatie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,536
Default

Actually, there has been a (very) official statement about Hi-rez support from Sonos:

https://ask.sonos.com/sonos/topics/s...m_hdtracks_com

. . . and that statement is support for high resolution FLAC files is offically "Not Planned."

My advice: Find a good downsampling program and convert your hi-rez files to 16/44.1. The vast majority of the math and science involved states there is no differences heard, and in fact, it is the hi-rez files which can suffer from audible distortion caused by electronics having to reproduce the ultra-sonic frequencies which cannot be heard.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Dec 4th, 2012, 04:39 AM
jgatie jgatie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by markvh1 View Post
Please forgive me if I am wrong. We talk about lossy (compressed) and lossless (uncompressed) files and treat 16/44 files as lossless (uncompressed) but aren't even these a form of compressed files in relation to 24/96 and 24/192 files?
No; unequivocally, demonstrably, scientifically, mathematically - NO!!! The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theory states that an audio sine wave can be perfectly reproduced by a sampling rate 2X the highest auditory frequency in the sample. So at 44.1 kHZ, any sounds under 22.05 kHz are reproduced perfectly, with no loss in quality. Ignore the "jaggies" representation you see in audio magazines, it is misleading and wrong. Again, the actual analog sound wave up to 22.05 kHz is perfectly represented by a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, and 22 kHz is well above the hearing capability of the most perfect ears ever measured (20 kHz).

The only thing you gain by higher samping rates is a capability to record sounds above 22 kHz, which are not only inaudible, they are harmful to the electronics used to reproduce them, causing intermodulation distortion in the audible range.

Last edited by jgatie; Dec 4th, 2012 at 04:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:50 PM.