Sonos Targets Audiophiles By Adding 24-Bit Qobuz Streaming To S2 Platform (cepro.com) 104
CIStud writes: Sonos notes it first added Qobuz 16-bit FLAC streaming back in 2013, but now the company has expanded its relationship with Qobuz to stream 24-bit/48kHz content. Some of the ways Qobuz supports the audiophile market includes curated content, liner notes and a download store. In addition to the United States, the 24-bit option is also available in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
No supersata - sigh (Score:2)
Malcolm Stewart will not be happy
I would be happy if ... (Score:1)
they would fix it so that my IKEA Sonos system did not disconnect one or more speaker form the wifi several times a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I do not have a microwave. So no. My neighbours perhaps. But that is hard to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not have a microwave.
Wait... What? How? Now I'm genuinely curious. Are you in the US? I'm pretty sure you are issued a microwave at birth over here. Is it not the same elsewhere?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don’t have a PC? Or a Mac?
I mean, Sonos supports iOS, Android, FireOS, Windows and macOS. You don’t have any relatively modern versions of any of those?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He'll never need an updated Android tablet to make it work.
But if you buy something complex and sophisticated like Sonos wifi enabled speakers, it's reasonable to assume you will need to make technology upgrades along the way to keep using them.
I have a pair of decade-old iPod touches. The Spotify app doesn't work on them. It's just how it is.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Something along the lines of MEmu or BlueStacks to emulate Android?
Re: (Score:2)
..they would fix it so that I could access the 24 bit streams on my SACDs.
Re: (Score:2)
Super Audio CD audio is actually 1-bit digital audio.
What's the point (Score:4, Insightful)
16 bits already gives 96dB signal to noise ratio. More than that is pointless.
Re: (Score:3)
It looks good in the marketing BS to people who don't have a clue. And anyone who buys Sonos these days after what they got up to a few years back you REALLY doesn't have a clue.
Re: (Score:1)
It looks good in the marketing BS to people who don't have a clue.
For audiophiles, nothing is good enough.
Re: (Score:3)
(puts on flameproof suit)
Like GP said, "people who don't have a clue"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the copying process, it's plausible...
Like, if there's somehow a lossy encode generation (or an analog generation or five) between the original and copy or if the CD is burned so poorly it's audibly skipping or if it's done in a way that inserts gaps between tracks
But if you don't do something wrong, nah.
Re: (Score:2)
If the copy is a bit-identical copy, the player could still have difficult reading the ink copy. So the difference is error recovery artifacts.
Re: (Score:1)
Its nice and all, that you know how digital works, but sound isn't digital.It is as you might know analog, and it the process of making a digital signal into analog is not trivial, and everything in the process can and usually does influence the result (if you have a system that has the resolution to show it.Things like Jitter, error rate, emi, rfi, powersupply stability has so much influence on the datastream. This is why a powersupply for a high end networking switch is kind of expensive, digital is not j
Re: (Score:3)
Most "Audiophiles" it is a status thing vs something that has any additional value.
I Minored in music at a University that had a highly renowned music school, I did well in the classes that a lot of successful musicians took, including courses in ear training.
That said for a lot of this audiophile stuff I really cannot find much of a difference between a Lowly MP3 and a high quality vinyl recording, unless they are played back to back. What helps the sound more than anything is a good pair (Not top of the l
Re: What's the point (Score:2)
It depends on the type of music, in my experience.
MP3 compression has a tough job with metal for example, probably because distinguishing between noise and signal becomes difficult when noise is a big part of the signal. I've also noticed classical music to suffer in dynamics.
But then pop music and EDM are usually indistinguishable when compressed. Probably because they developed alongside the loudness wars and so the producers have adapted the style to the medium. Metal's big development happened during th
Re: (Score:2)
Granted I picked MP3 as the lowest quality. However the difference between 16 bit or even 24 bit sound isn't as huge as people think it is. You can even get OK sound out of 8 bit. as these sound sources will have a smoothing algorithm (or a capacitor) that fills in the gap in the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people use their system to listen to music. Audiophiles use music to listen to their systems.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a status thing. That may be a distant secondary concern for some, but you can't drive around in a $10,000 vinyl rig, wear it on your body, etc. so there are much better ways to do conspicuous consumption.
Audiofool extravagances are enjoyed in private. A better way to characterize it is magical or religious thinking. Analog audio is somehow blessed, never mind that after the signal hits the DAC and turns into moving air it's all analog anyway. If any digital equipment touched it, that signal is unde
Re: (Score:2)
I really cannot find much of a difference
I'm glad you said it yourself. There is not MUCH of a difference, but there IS a difference. And that's what makes a difference for the audiophiles. Don't get me wrong. I consider myself an audiophile, but I use zip cord for my speaker wire and my network cable is not this [amazon.com], but one that was probably $3. I can tell the difference between 128Kbs MP3 vs. 16 bit/44KHz flac, depending on the recording. But having a good set of speakers and a good source are the two most important things when it comes to au
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a wireless world, someone needed to invent a wireless equivalent for Monster Cables.
11G?
Re: (Score:2)
11G is a licensed frequency (at least in the US)
Oops - I was making a joke, as in the Spinal Tap Movie's amplifier "going to 11" instead of just 10.
Re: (Score:2)
99% of music claiming to be a resolution higher than 48kHz 16bit is FAKE
Sure, we define "high res" as "better than CD quality" for a reason - because it means 48kHz 16bit recordings, or 48kHz 24 bit recordings (both are industry standards for digital recording) are "high res".
Anything above that is generally fake.
There are a few stu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's more to life than signal to noise ratio.
Maybe, but there is this _not_ more to bit depth than signal to noise ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More bits has no effect on the "brick wall filtering at 20 khz". None.
(also: There's no such thing as a brick wall filter in real life)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PCM is a logarithmic scale that at 16-bit should be able to accurately position electromagnetic cones quite precisely. If we consider basic Newtonian physics, paper cone (or fabric for example) should not provide a stable enough frequency response to profit from higher bit depth. Maybe... just maybe at earphone scale it would.
This leaves piezo electronics that can of course provide clear and consistent frequency response across a wi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who says otherwise has done a blind listening test.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Opinions aren't something I care about. Those are for marketers. The claim was there's a perceptible difference in quality. A scientific process can handily separate that from an "opinion" that may or may not have a basis in reality.
As far as speakers go, there is a perceptible difference between most of them, and that's got absolutely nothing to do with the bit depth or sample rate of the signal on the back end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can discern a difference at all, you'll have no problem doing it in a blind test. Problem is, there's no difference once you exclude the psychological.
As far as my own listening, I have plenty of vinyl and FLACs to listen to (been collecting CD/FLACs 15+ yrs, vinyl 20+) but the other half that's digitally compressed is just as good, excepting a few horrible BLADE-encoded MP3s that I grabbed on IRC, decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
No, its the sampling frequency that determines what filtering is required. Going from 44.1kHz to 48kHz sampling only pushes up where you need the output filtering from 22kHz to 24kHz, a trivial difference. It requires going up to a higher sampling rate like 88.2kHz or 96kHz to allow a more gradual output filter
In practice for more than a decade, that happens in the converter. The 44.1 or 48 kHz input is oversampled in the DAC, typically by 8 times, by zero stuffing and then filtering which considerably relaxes the anti-aliasing requirements. ADCs do the same thing in reverse for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for the poor bits tho. Their role in life is pretty much to define the SNR of the PCM channel.
Re: (Score:1)
Has it been shown in real tests that people can hear the difference ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has it been shown in real tests that people can hear the difference ?
In many cases people can't even tell the difference between 16-bits and 8-bit dithered.
(8 bits is more than cassette tapes had and the world used those with no problems)
Re: (Score:2)
"(8 bits is more than cassette tapes had and the world used those with no problems)"
This is false. Common consumer cassettes could achieve 10 - 12 bits. Not sure what the point is in making such an absurd claim.
Re: (Score:2)
This is false. Common consumer cassettes could achieve 10 - 12 bits.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
PS: My citation is Monty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
To answer my own question, namely "Has it been shown in real tests that people can hear the difference ?"
No, it has not.
In fact, "In order to hear the difference in dynamic range between a 16-bit and a 20-bit recording in a normal quiet listening room, you would have to play the music so loud it would cause permanent hearing loss."
https://www.mojo-audio.com/blo... [mojo-audio.com]
So cut the bullshit, and stop writing stuff like "to some people who train their ears, there are some benefits".
No-one can hear the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially over Sonos gear which is neither "HiFi" nor capable of such volumes.
Re: (Score:1)
Many things have been shown in tests, both ways, mostly showing that the tests don't work. Its been shown that most people who only listen to mp3s like that sound, because thats what the ear is used to. But in my simple test working in a hifi store, most everybody will know the difference after just a few minutes of listening.
And again, the technical data of the recording has much less of an impact than the quality of the recording, i would much rather listen to a good recording in 16bit 320kbps mp3 than a
Re: (Score:2)
Again, for people who has the system with the resolution to show the difference and with ears trained to it.
James Randi has a million dollars waiting for such a person.
Down here on Planet Earth people have trouble hearing the difference between 8 and 16 bits.
Here's a test for you: https://www.audiocheck.net/bli... [audiocheck.net]
Re: (Score:2)
James Randi has a million dollars waiting for such a person.
That hasn't been a thing for 11 years now.
Not that it mattered. It was always just a publicity stunt. Given how little effort they put into "administering" the thing, I'm surprised they stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
"Having a good recording rather than a bad recording does way more than using 16 or 24 bits. But a great recording in 24 bits. thats just wonderful to listen to."
A "great recording in 24 bits" that is "wonderful to listen to" will continue to be "wonderful to listen to" after (proper) conversion to 16 bits.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
How often do you listen to the oscilloscope?
Re: (Score:2)
Just to expand on that, noise in the analog signal path and distortion from the speakers limits performance to a point below 16 bits
Re: (Score:2)
Explain the specs for bluray audio then.
Re: (Score:2)
To appeal to people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
and most mics and studio gear puts out more noise and distortion and so even standard cd format has more headroom than is needed.
compressors can fully kill all resolution that used to be there from that expensive condensor mic.
plus, everyone runs their levels WAY above -12db and most adc and dacs have severe distortion as you get above -12 or -6. gibbs (look it up) is a real problem today.
running dacs at 96k makes sense for other reasons, but 24but audio is a lie and always has been.
Re: (Score:2)
16 bits already gives 96dB signal to noise ratio. More than that is pointless.
For the source material I agree. For transmission, processing and conversion high bit rates become very relevant, especially in these devices which control volume digitally before digital to analogue conversion.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the same argument used against 2k monitors, then 4k monitors, and now 8k monitors. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that line of reasoning sucks. Sure, you may not be able to consciously recognize the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit, but the brain is a weird thing and is aware of far more than what we are consciously aware of.
Re: What's the point (Score:2)
That said, the reason that that's enough is that the listening environment will have a noise floor of someplace above 20dB (if only for the blood pumping through your ears and such), and the crest factor of most music is around 12dB (classical is sometimes closer to 20dB or even more, house, if anyone cares, is more like 6dB). Hence 98dB
Re: (Score:1)
Aren't those the guys ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... that disable their IoT HiFi trash that they have paid permission for you to use when they feel like it?
I fundamentally do not understand why these guys even have a market.
Why? (Score:2)
I refer you to P. T. Barnum.
Re: (Score:2)
Their products by all accounts work quite well, and few people know about them bricking stuff.
You have to remember that most consumers don't read tech news sites, and probably don't think the hardware will last longer than a decade anyway. Environmental responsibility is low down their priority list.
If we want to make companies suffer over policies like this then we need to find a better way to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
"... that disable their IoT HiFi trash that they have paid permission for you to use when they feel like it?"
No, even ignoring the stupid mistakes you've made.
Re: (Score:2)
I fundamentally do not understand why these guys even have a market.
Many reasons:
a) they have a good eco system.
b) their products actually work unlike many other garbage streamers out there.
c) their capabilities go beyond just audio streaming, think more SmartHome audio management.
d) people are used to being abused and accept the expense.
e) (this isn't an excuse for their shitty behavior) they only really killed off older products and the throwaway culture is real.
Mostly d though. People are used to being treated like shit now, so respecting your customer no longer has an i
Re: (Score:1)
I fundamentally do not understand
That's right, you do not.
that disable their IoT HiFi trash that they have paid permission for you to use when they feel like it?
That never happened.
Ever.
I believe you're talking about the upgrade scheme they had, where you could buy a newer speaker for a discount, and they would disable the old one.
That's not "when they feel like it", it's after you specifically, and voluntarily told them to do it in return for a monetary reward (discount on new gear).
The other thing the you may possibly be referencing is where after a decade of one protocol, they introduced a new OS and protocol, which only worked with gear
Qolity Qontrol (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, Qobuz! Where you can find the famous album Angry Man [qobuz.com] by Charles Aznavour.
As well as the famous album Angry Man [qobuz.com] by Bill Evans Trio.
And Anrgy Man [qobuz.com] by Les Compagnons De La Chanson ...
There's a spammer which has been uploading 500+ albums, all with the same album art and title, 4-5 times per month. He picks a new label name every two albums or so. He's done it at least since 2016. The album images are stock images, sometimes with a filter applied.
None of these white label-based streaming services are the slightest bit interested in removing such spam. Neither is the company they most likely source these from, 7digital.
It's sad to say, because Spotify are pretty evil, but none of the alternatives to Spotify are worth shit.
I read that fast and thought it said (Score:1)
Soros targets audiophiles
Predatory behavior victimizing audiophile retards (Score:1)
Just pipe the audio through ffmpeg and upsample it yourself.
Sonos is so far behind so many of the others now (Score:2)
Having worked with both Sonos, Bluesound and HEOS i have to say that Sonos is so far behind. They are slow in adaption of new technology, makes UI overhauls frequently, lacks simple features that the competition has much better. Especially BluOS/Bluesound is so easy, simple to use, even advanced pairing situations are simple. as a user i would be FURIOUS with the many big UI changes they've made, and the way the handled their old products and adds commercials inside their app.
BluOS app is simple clean, easy
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea why people buy any of those systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Sonos is also behind the likes of Yamaha, who make stuff that sounds as good for a fraction of the price and several times the width of available products.
But I'll never see the marvels of Sonos S2 - I've got one device which is "legacy" and so can't be updated to S2. Instead, I have to endure continuous and repeated requests to "upgrade". Why they can't upgrade the newer devices and leave the old one with reduced functionality we will never know.
The only upgrade my Sonos will be getting will be to another
Re: (Score:2)
"Why they can't upgrade the newer devices and leave the old one with reduced functionality we will never know."
Don't know who this "we" is, Sonos has made it quite clear why.
"I don't feel like spending hundreds on a new device knowing that they could pull the same stunt on me again."
So could the "other brand", and Sonos has done this exactly once in their history, a history far longer than any "other brand". Also, you have literally ONE legacy device to upgrade and you think you're making a convincing arg
Re: (Score:3)
Wonder who's paying your salary? Sonos so far behind? LOL. Sonos is the standard in their market.
Sonos is not in the market of selling apps or operating systems and BluOS is not a Sonos competitor but merely a potential component of one. Furthermore, BluOS does not have a "sound" so it does not "sound better".
Also, that claim that Sonos "makes UI overhauls frequently" is laughably absurd.
It's a shame that public discourse has become so full of bullshit like this.
Re: (Score:1)
I wish BluOS was paying me, i am working a place that sells both, so its not that i dont have contact with these brands, but i do play with both systems alot. Sonos has overhauled its UI many times, and customers do complain to us every time. They even changed the app and made users brick their components.
Bluesound is a product with speakers, amps, soundbars, and more, and those components all maybe except the subwoofer, sounds better than the equalent Sonos component. its easily demonstrated if you have th
Sophos targets easy marks (Score:2)
By adding pointless nonsense to some of their shitty products.
not really hi rez (Score:2)
the vast majority of their content is not high res. If it was not recorded in high res, it can never be high res.
"Sonos" and "audiophile" are incompatible (Score:2)
Besides that, it is not at all clear that 24-bit audio produces an actual, real-world, listenable difference even on audiophile-tier (aka not Sonos lol) equipment at this point. Misinformation and dishonest marketing on the subject are everywhere, and it has received a decidedly cold reception that audiophiles generally have still not warmed up to [audiophilereview.com] even though it has been a
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't worry, Sonos speakers are so shitty ..."
As shitty as your troll?
"Besides that, it is not at all clear that 24-bit audio produces an actual, real-world, listenable difference even on audiophile-tier (aka not Sonos lol) equipment at this point."
At this point or literally any other point ever, but since you recognize this, what's with the troll of Sonos speakers then? They are Clearly NOT an audiophile product, who thinks they are?
tl;dr Asshole needs to point out that HD audio provides no value, yet ne
Re: (Score:2)
Even if HD audio were a real sonic benefit over 44.1/16 (which we agree is not clear,) a Sonos loudspeaker system would a poor medium for conveying that benefit to your ear. It would be like viewing an 8k video source through an NTSC standard CRT TV.
Undeniably they are shitty for this purpose. The article is literally headlined "Sonos Targets Audiophiles..." so that's the frame we are discussing
It's the speakers dumy (Score:2)
When will people learn that the limiting factor for sound quality for consumer audio is almost ALWAYS the speakers? Unless you are using a low bitrate streaming service (120kb/s or lower), the digital file is almost never going to be your limiting factor until you get to some seriously expensive gear. FLAC/AAC/24-bit, etc- none of that matters when you are listening with a plastic brick size bluetooth speaker with 4 inch drivers .
The Sonos Sound (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder how the speaker can tell the difference between singer, bass and everything else so that it can selectively deprive you of hearing the band? Perhaps your understanding of "hi-fi" could stand some improvement.
Supports, or actually uses? (Score:1)
This is meaningless "High Resolution" (Score:2)
... Qobuz enables music fans to stream 24-bit/48kHz content.
CDs are 16-bit/44.1 kHz. There is no need for higher amplitude resolution –– 16-bit is already enough for listening (except on very expensive equipment). Moreover, the difference between 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz is imperceptible to any human ear.
However, increasing the time resolution to something higher, like 192 kHz, will absolutely improve the listening experience (if the detail was there in the first place). You will hear new detail in the high frequencies, and more texture in the mid-range audio