How good would a Sonos system playing uncompressed files be?

[Dan Turner]

If I had a NAS drive or laptop with all my CDs ripped uncompressed in something like AIFF or FLAC format, and had a Sonos ZP90 hooked up to my stereo system (as per sig below), just how good would it be? Would it rival my Arcam CD37 for outright quality?

What other considerations are there - is it better to minimise the number of wireless connections (e.g. better to have a NAS drive wired to the router than a laptop wirelessly connected) - what compromises are there in the wireless connection between router and sonos - Can you still browse the internet at something like a reasonable speed when music is being pulled over your router's wireless connection - would something more intensive like a file download interfere?

My interest was peaked when I realised that all I needed to do was buy a NAS drive (cheap), a ZP90 (£250) and download the controller app for my iphone (free). However sound quality is more important than convenience.....

Any advice from those 'in the know' would be welcome. Cheers.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Ummm FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec - isn't uncompressed.

Yes, a NAS would be better, avoiding any possible effects created by CPU usage on your laptop. But you will also need a ZonePlayer or a ZoneBridge connected to your router, in order to stream to the ZonePlayer connected to your system.

 

[Dan.m]

Im also looking to purchase a sonos bundle with an extra bridge. I would prefer a NAS but prices vary considerably e.g. buffalo's and AVA rs3. Other than cosmetic looks would the extra cost bring about an improvement in sound quality. I realise some may be quicker/easier to burn CD's but my thinking is once its done that it!

1) The NAS would be wired to the router - any suggestions?

2) Am i better off getting a cheaper NAS and purchases a couple of DAC's for each room.

Cheers

Dan

 

[Dan Turner]

Andrew Everard:
Ummm FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec - isn't uncompressed.

Yes, a NAS would be better, avoiding any possible effects created by CPU usage on your laptop. But you will also need a ZonePlayer or a ZoneBridge connected to your router, in order to stream to the ZonePlayer connected to your system.

OK, thanks Andrew, I didn't know what FLAC stood for, but based upon the context in which it has been discussed, assumed it to be uncompressed. I'd go with something like AIFF then I think, as storage space shouldn't be an issue.

I get about the bridge and that makes sense, and one of those doesn't add too much to the cost.

What do you think about outright quality in comparison to my CD player? That's the key consideration for me - Ideally I'd like convenience and quality, but if I had to chose one, it would be quality.

Also does anyone know what sort of standard the built-in amplification in the ZP120s is? I use an Arcam Delta 290 in a second system at the moment, driving some BR2s; would the quality of the ZP120 amplification be as good as that?

 

[Andrew Everard]

I think the sound should be pretty close to that of your CD player, but I'd go for the ZP90 - the one without the built-in amps - and connect that into your existing amplification.

 

[Dan Turner]

Thanks Andrew.

 

[The_Lhc]

Dan Turner:Andrew Everard:
Ummm FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec - isn't uncompressed.

Yes, a NAS would be better, avoiding any possible effects created by CPU usage on your laptop. But you will also need a ZonePlayer or a ZoneBridge connected to your router, in order to stream to the ZonePlayer connected to your system.

OK, thanks Andrew, I didn't know what FLAC stood for, but based upon the context in which it has been discussed, assumed it to be uncompressed. I'd go with something like AIFF then I think, as storage space shouldn't be an issue.

I think you're getting confused, FLAC isn't uncompressed, but it IS lossless, so won't sound any different to uncompressed WAV files (in theory).

I get about the bridge and that makes sense, and one of those doesn't add too much to the cost.

You only need the bridge if you can't wire the ZP90 directly to the router.

Incidentally your question about a NAS wired to the router compared to the laptop as wireless source isn't really a valid one, Sonos do not recommend having your file storage wireless, whether it's a PC, laptop or NAS, they recommend having that wired to the router as well, in order to stop it flooding the wireless connection. Obviously this is more likely with lossless or uncompressed music files as they're so much bigger than compressed (eg mp3) files, so there's more data to shift.

The only difference between using a NAS and laptop, if both are wired, is that you'll have to have the laptop on all the time if you want to listen to music, which might not be convenient.

As far as sound quality is concerned, there is NO difference between one NAS or another, it's network traffic being passed, not music.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Yes, but then if you just want to stream over a wired Ethernet connection, then something like a Squeezebox connected by cable to the router and then into your system will work just as well, and save some money.

 

[The_Lhc]

Andrew Everard:Yes, but then if you just want to stream over a wired Ethernet connection, then something like a Squeezebox connected by cable to the router and then into your system will work just as well, and save some money.

Except then if you want to use a NAS for storage you need one that can have Slimserver installed on it, which cuts down your choices drastically and leaves out most of the cheaper devices. Otherwise you're installing Slimserver on your PC/laptop and then you may run into CPU issues, but only if the PC is quite old, anything relatively recent should cope fine.

But then the Zonebridge is only 69 quid, which, compared to the cost of the ZPs, is almost insignificant, so if you can't wire the ZP to the router it's a viable alternative.

I have my router on the same rack that all my other equipment lives on, including the ZP90, is on, so it doesn't make sense to have a zonebridge when a 1m network cable does the same job. My ZP120 connects wirelessly obviously, through the ZP90.

 

[Dan Turner]

Thanks all, this is great food for thought - wireless isn't essential, but the Sonos option gives the useful option of extending to another room with (reletively) low cost and considerable ease.

The critically attractive thing with the Sonos system is the ability to browse and select the music on the controller/iPhone - does the Squeezebox have a comparable interface?

The other option l was toying with would be having all my music stored on a laptop, and connecting an optical spdif out into a DAC and then into the amp? I would iTunes as the interface, and I wouldn't do it unless I was going to do it properly, I'd go for a Macbook and a Cyrus DAC-X. Obviously high on cost, low(er) on convenience, but I imagine that playing lossless/uncompressed files that would be the best option for quality? Again any thoughts on how that would compare to my CD player?

 

[The_Lhc]

Dan Turner: Thanks all, this is great food for thought - wireless isn't essential, but the Sonos option gives the useful option of extending to another room with (reletively) low cost and considerable ease.

Well, yes, that is really the Sonos' raison d'etre however, so isn't that surprising really.

The critically attractive thing with the Sonos system is the ability to browse and select the music on the controller/iPhone - does the Squeezebox have a comparable interface?

I believe there is an iPhone app for Squeezebox, however I've never used it so I couldn't tell you anything more.

The other option l was toying with would be having all my music stored on a laptop, and connecting an optical spdif out into a DAC and then into the amp? I would iTunes as the interface, and I wouldn't do it unless I was going to do it properly, I'd go for a Macbook and a Cyrus DAC-X.

Ah, well you're shifting the goalposts now, I'd kind of assumed you'd be using a DAC with the ZP90 anyway. Personally I don't much rate the onboard DAC on the ZP90, my sound quality improved massively by using the optical output on the ZP90, rather than the analogues and that was just using a 10 year old Sony home cinema integrated amplifier, so nothing amazing, but it lifted the sound VERY noticably, I was seriously disappointed with the sound from the analogue outputs on the ZP90. I don't know whether that says more about my old amp than anything else though, I haven't tried the analogues with any "proper" stereo amplifiers but if the DAC in an old HC amp is an improvement then it doesn't say much about the ZP90's onboard DAC, IMO.

The Macbook and Cyrus DAC-X will sound much better than a ZP90 straight into the amp, but better than a ZP90 and DAC-X? I wouldn't have though there'd be much difference at all, to be honest.

There is one other thing you need to consider though, if you're after maximum music quality, Sonos cannot yet handle 24-bit files, it's 16-bit ONLY, so if you're thinking of going to 24-bit in the future then you may wish to look elsewhere (this is where the Macbook might become more interesting). Indeed I can't see Sonos supporting 24-bit on the current hardware, they've repeatedly stated it isn't going to happen (the digital output is in fact 24-bit but 8 bits are used for volume control), so unless they come up with a new 24-bit Zoneplayer you'll be stuck if 24-bit files was something you were considering.

 

[Dan Turner]

Thanks the_lhc, that is invaluable information.

I know I was shifting the goal posts a bit with the macbook option, but thought i'd chuck it in there! It is interesting to know about the Sonos 16 bit limitation. It wouldn't be a concern for right now, but I wouldn't want that constraint if I had access to some high-res files in the future. So perhaps it's best to save up and go with the macbook option - especially as from what you're saying I should be factoring in a decent DAC as well.

Don't suppose anyone knows of an iPhone app that lets you remotely browse and select music on your mac, via iTunes? That would seal it!

 

[Dave_]

Dan Turner:

Don't suppose anyone knows of an iPhone app that lets you remotely browse and select music on your mac, via iTunes? That would seal it!

Apple's own app! Remote

 

[Dan Turner]

daveh75:
Dan Turner:

Don't suppose anyone knows of an iPhone app that lets you remotely browse and select music on your mac, via iTunes? That would seal it!

Apple's own app! Remote

oh beautiful. i thought they probably did... That pretty much seals it for me then. Time to start saving!

 

[Gerrardasnails]

Dan Turner:daveh75:
Dan Turner:

Don't suppose anyone knows of an iPhone app that lets you remotely browse and select music on your mac, via iTunes? That would seal it!

Apple's own app! Remote

oh beautiful. i thought they probably did... That pretty much seals it for me then. Time to start saving!

Just to add to the whole FLAC, uncompressed blah blah. As you are going to go for an Apple based system (Itunes, Iphone...), definitely go for AIFF (or whatever Apple Lossless is) as the files will be a bit smaller than FLAC and will also sound just as good. I think with your set up, the lossless with decent DAC will be better than your CD37

 

[Alec]

Gerrardasnails:Dan Turner:daveh75:

Dan Turner:

Don't suppose anyone knows of an iPhone app that lets you remotely browse and select music on your mac, via iTunes? That would seal it!

Apple's own app! Remote

oh beautiful. i thought they probably did... That pretty much seals it for me then. Time to start saving!

Just to add to the whole FLAC, uncompressed blah blah. As you are going to go for an Apple based system (Itunes, Iphone...), definitely go for AIFF (or whatever Apple Lossless is) as the files will be a bit smaller than FLAC and will also sound just as good. I think with your set up, the lossless with decent DAC will be better than your CD37

That would be ALAC - Apple Lossless Audio Codec.

 

[manicm]

Gerrardasnails:Dan Turner:daveh75:

Dan Turner:

Don't suppose anyone knows of an iPhone app that lets you remotely browse and select music on your mac, via iTunes? That would seal it!
Apple's own app! Remote

oh beautiful. i thought they probably did... That pretty much seals it for me then. Time to start saving!

Just to add to the whole FLAC, uncompressed blah blah. As you are going to go for an Apple based system (Itunes, Iphone...), definitely go for AIFF (or whatever Apple Lossless is) as the files will be a bit smaller than FLAC and will also sound just as good. I think with your set up, the lossless with decent DAC will be better than your CD37

I love AIFF too but it's not a compressed format - it's uncompressed and the files are as large as WAV - their main advantage is that album art can be added to them in iTunes, unlike WAV.

 

[Anonymous]

If your going down the mac route another thing to consider is a mac mini with a wireless keyboard and mouse. I have mine connected to my plasma for display and to my DAC/XP for digital music output. You can rip your music directly to the mini or stream it from a NAS. The mini has a 'N' spec wireless reciever built in so if your using a 'N' spec router, wireless streaming is a dream, never had any dropouts even streaming larger 24bit files. I do have a SONOS system too, which is excellent but I wanted to try 24bit music so the mini was the neatest solution for me.

http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini?mco=Nzk2MDUyNg

 

[Alec]

manicm:Gerrardasnails:Dan Turner:daveh75:

Dan Turner:

Don't suppose anyone knows of an iPhone app that lets you remotely browse and select music on your mac, via iTunes? That would seal it!
Apple's own app! Remote

oh beautiful. i thought they probably did... That pretty much seals it for me then. Time to start saving!

Just to add to the whole FLAC, uncompressed blah blah. As you are going to go for an Apple based system (Itunes, Iphone...), definitely go for AIFF (or whatever Apple Lossless is) as the files will be a bit smaller than FLAC and will also sound just as good. I think with your set up, the lossless with decent DAC will be better than your CD37

I love AIFF too but it's not a compressed format - it's uncompressed and the files are as large as WAV - their main advantage is that album art can be added to them in iTunes, unlike WAV.

AIFF also isnt apple lossless - alac - as i said above.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

manicm:Gerrardasnails:Dan Turner:daveh75:

Dan Turner:

Don't suppose anyone knows of an iPhone app that lets you remotely browse and select music on your mac, via iTunes? That would seal it!
Apple's own app! Remote

oh beautiful. i thought they probably did... That pretty much seals it for me then. Time to start saving!

Just to add to the whole FLAC, uncompressed blah blah. As you are going to go for an Apple based system (Itunes, Iphone...), definitely go for AIFF (or whatever Apple Lossless is) as the files will be a bit smaller than FLAC and will also sound just as good. I think with your set up, the lossless with decent DAC will be better than your CD37

I love AIFF too but it's not a compressed format - it's uncompressed and the files are as large as WAV - their main advantage is that album art can be added to them in iTunes, unlike WAV.

You'd never know I've only just got an Iphone and only just started using ITunes! Anything other than FLAC and WMA Lossless and I'm lost.