Line-In Latency/Delay Disable PLAY:5



Show first post
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.

193 replies

DFTT.

Another DJ use case here. Gutted to find I couldn't use with my set up. I had the Sonos 5 (gen 1) and it didn't have any delay. I used DJ with the Gen 1 regularly, in a group with no delay. It's the reason I went out an bought the newer version.

So lame. Come on Sonos. 4 years 150 comments. 

 

 

Another DJ use case here. Gutted to find I couldn't use with my set up. I had the Sonos 5 (gen 1) and it didn't have any delay. I used DJ with the Gen 1 regularly, in a group with no delay. It's the reason I went out an bought the newer version.

So lame. Come on Sonos. 4 years 150 comments. 

 

 

The gen 1 has the same delay as current speakers.  Or to put it another way, if you have been happy up to now you should still be happy.

after reading through this whole thread it’s surprising seeing the dismissal from other users that no latency line-in is some far fetched idea.

for decades on almost any speaker purchased there has been no (noticeable) latency on a physical line-in.

it’s logical to assume there won’t be latency when using line-in on speakers.

it’s illogical to assume there will be latency on a line-in no matter what your use case, in general.

i do not think Sonos is going to do a thing about this, but i think the solution is simple … no need for a toggle (although i’d prefer one for quick switching if needed).  but for simplicities sake (since some of you think people will be confused with the option to do this) any UNGROUPed speaker using a physical input (HDMI/Optical/Line-In) it defaults to no latency mode.  the moment it’s grouped or used wirelessly, then the latency is introduced.

why does a physically connected single speaker need to introduce a buffer to sync up audio if it’s not grouped with any other speakers? it makes no sense.

i think if a user was reading about audio latency issues they were having with their speakers, it would make complete sense that a delay is introduced when being used wirelessly or in a group so the system could be in sync.

Userlevel 1
Badge

after reading through this whole thread it’s surprising seeing the dismissal from other users that no latency line-in is some far fetched idea.

for decades on almost any speaker purchased there has been no (noticeable) latency on a physical line-in.

it’s logical to assume there won’t be latency when using line-in on speakers.

it’s illogical to assume there will be latency on a line-in no matter what your use case, in general.

i do not think Sonos is going to do a thing about this, but i think the solution is simple … no need for a toggle (although i’d prefer one for quick switching if needed).  but for simplicities sake (since some of you think people will be confused with the option to do this) any UNGROUPed speaker using a physical input (HDMI/Optical/Line-In) it defaults to no latency mode.  the moment it’s grouped or used wirelessly, then the latency is introduced.

why does a physically connected single speaker need to introduce a buffer to sync up audio if it’s not grouped with any other speakers? it makes no sense.

i think if a user was reading about audio latency issues they were having with their speakers, it would make complete sense that a delay is introduced when being used wirelessly or in a group so the system could be in sync.


JACKPOT!  You hit the nail on the head @essential.  The only conclusion I can draw from the dismissal seen is that the individuals involved are not genuine sonos users, but instead on the payroll at Sonos corp, and their purpose is to sweep this product failure under the rug as part of a whitewashing effort.

@by7 .At least everybody else proposing this change has put forward a rational case. Please can we avoid stupid conspiracy theories?

Userlevel 1
Badge

@by7 .At least everybody else proposing this change has put forward a rational case. Please can we avoid stupid conspiracy theories?

That’s exactly how I’d expect someone on Sonos’s payroll long enough to make 15k replies to respond.

My rational case is when people want to have a single set of speakers for their Laptop, TV, and Music.  That’s pretty rational, and detectable latency is not OK on laptop and TV sources. 

May I point out that there are various tricks that can be employed in debate.  One is to accuse those with a different viewpoint of corruption.

Another trick is to mis-characterise the views of others so that you can ridicule them.  @by7 uses the term ‘dismissal’.  Looking back, I don’t think there has been any ‘dismissal’.   I don’t think anyone on this thread has argued that Sonos should not make this change.  Speaking purely for myself, I have only sought to point out that this is not self-evidently a good change with zero downsides.  And that even if it were a uniformly good change, it isn’t necessarily going to be top of Sonos’ priority list of developments.  And that even apparently simple changes may not be quite so simple in a system that may comprise millions of lines of code.

So for the record, I do not not dismiss this request, and nor do I think I have any right to do so.  Those requesting this change have a rational case and valid reasons.  But it is not self-evident that Sonos should do this right now.  And if they prioritise other developments over the one requested on a particular thread, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are incompetent or indifferent to customers’ requests.

That is my view.  Please accept my right to express it, as I respect the rights of others to express theirs. Wild, evidence-free conspiracy theories don’t help the discussion. 

And please don’t accuse me of being in Sonos’ pay.  There is no way I can disprove that accusation, but I do believe and hope that others on here are too sensible to side with @by7 on this point. 

Edit please note: I had not seen @by7 ‘s further post when i posted the above.

As to the 15k replies over 8 years, I am afraid I am sad enough to have made these entirely in my own time.  Most of them are helping people with technical issues.  But I do not see any point in debating @by7’s accusation further, as it is an argument I cannot win.

If any moderators feel like editing @by7’s posts or my responses please don’t.  As he knows zero about me his accusations are worthless and water off a duck’s back to me.  Please don’t edit a word of this.  Let everyone make up their own minds.  If they are bothered either way - this is just a sideshow.

Userlevel 1

I’d like to add another request for minimum-delay audio for non-grouped devices that are playing audio from line-in. I’d be happy if it’s done programmatically or manually. 

I’ve had a bunch of Sonos devices for a bunch of years, very happy with it, best things I own. But my Play 5s would be *better* if they removed the artificially added delay and I could use them as more functional speakers for my computer and TV. It does sound like there are a good number of other customers and potential customers who have a variety of use cases where they want minimal-delay audio.

Maybe Sonos has concluded it’s really technically complicated. Maybe they've concluded the potential market is just too small. Doesn’t seem that way to me, but those are legit issues, and I obviously don’t have solid evidence. 

But the argument that Sonos wouldn’t do this because it’s not in their main wheelhouse — multiroom wireless speakers — is weak. As many people have said, Sonos has branched out far from that original two-thousand-aughts mission, to reach more customers and make more money. Maybe Sonos has gotten stuck in thinking about the line-in architecture one way; maybe they could become unstuck. Sonos’ new CEO changed the approach to development so they release new products a lot faster (and the next two products are apparently non-wheelhouse: headphones and smaller portable speaker). Maybe this new attitude will be more open to more use cases, like getting rid of line-in delay. 

For people who are repeatedly criticizing this request, we got it. We fully understand that most Sonos users don’t care at all about this feature, that it’s not part of the core function (which is amazing!), and that it would take some work. Even so, we think it’s a small feature that would make Sonos a lot more useful to a lot more people, and we wanted to voice that here. 

Userlevel 1
Badge

I’d like to add another request for minimum-delay audio for non-grouped devices that are playing audio from line-in.

Good luck @somatic.  SONOS has been happily ignoring this defining requirement of all speaker products, for years; Supported by a chorus of echoing audiophile fanatics with rose colored glasses.

The absence of a clear pre-sale warning label stating that delay is intentionally added, combined with the fact that most other speakers do not intentionally add delay should itself be grounds for a class action false advertising suit, not just their victims emberassingly pointing it out on a web forum.

The delay we experience is not an accident, or physics, it’s intentionally designed into the code by choice of Sonos.

That sonos doesn’t have an off button for this misfeature, just adds insult to injury.

 

Maybe Sonos has concluded it’s really technically complicated. Maybe they've concluded the potential market is just too small. Doesn’t seem that way to me, but those are legit issues, and I obviously don’t have solid evidence. 

 

 

Yep.

 

But the argument that Sonos wouldn’t do this because it’s not in their main wheelhouse — multiroom wireless speakers — is weak. As many people have said, Sonos has branched out far from that original two-thousand-aughts mission, to reach more customers and make more money. Maybe Sonos has gotten stuck in thinking about the line-in architecture one way; maybe they could become unstuck. Sonos’ new CEO changed the approach to development so they release new products a lot faster (and the next two products are apparently non-wheelhouse: headphones and smaller portable speaker). Maybe this new attitude will be more open to more use cases, like getting rid of line-in delay. 

 

 

First off, the new headphones and mini-move are likely to operate similar to the Move, in that they will have a WiFi mode and BT mode.  No delay (other than standard BT delay) in BT mode.  So in some way you’ll likely get what your asking for in these products.  The headphones are even rumored to have a aux line in.    I’d argue they are still part of Sonos wheelhouse though, as they surely will be able to to participate in the whole home network, as the Move does in WiFi mode.

Worth noting thought that all three of the products have a BT mode not so much to remove delays but so that they can be used away from the home.   So does it makes sense for Sonos to make products that work with TVs and be part of the whole home system?  Yes, they have made several of those.  Does it make sense to make a product that can be used as a computer speaker, DJ speaker, or PA system?  Right now, doesn’t appear to be a high priority. 

 

For people who are repeatedly criticizing this request, we got it. We fully understand that most Sonos users don’t care at all about this feature, that it’s not part of the core function (which is amazing!), and that it would take some work. Even so, we think it’s a small feature that would make Sonos a lot more useful to a lot more people, and we wanted to voice that here. 

 

I’m not criticizing the request personally.  I just think it’s a bit much to conclude the development and support of the feature on existing products is easy and cheap, or that loads of customers consider it a must have feature. 

And exactly what evidence does the poster have that this is an “artificially added delay”?  For all we know, the only path from the line is through the digitizing and buffering hardware and it can’t be changed in software.  A lot of rank speculation in this thread, with no balance to the other possibilities.

And yes, the number of posters clamoring for this feature is miniscule compared to the number of owners.  Vocal? Yes.  But 1,000 posts by 10 people is not equivalent to 10 posts by 1,000 people.  It’s hysterical that one without any knowledge of Sonos’ use case data is saying Sonos, who collect and collate this data on a massive scale, are the ones with their heads in the sand.  Guess a sense of irony is not their strong suit.

Userlevel 1
Badge

exactly what evidence

uhm.  how about the settings screen in their own app….  where the Sonos gods graciously let us choose which delay of four choices they personally excreted, which happen to all be round numbers.

Get your facts straight before you open your mouth.

That setting should be a variable slider with 0ms on the left side.  If 0ms results in jittery audio, great!  pop up a little we told you so notice when the user selects less than 70ms.  But don’t interfere with 0ms if that’s what users paid for.  (And it is what they paid for unless you can show me where on the box it says 70ms minimum latency.)

Suggest 70ms as the minimum if you want.  Let the slider “snap” to 70, and the other recommended latencies.  fine. but get out of the user’s way and OBEY THEM if they want to choose 5ms or 10 or 0.

exactly what evidence

uhm.  how about the settings screen in their own app….  where the Sonos gods graciously let us choose which delay of four choices they personally excreted, which happen to all be round numbers.

 

 

So because you have the option to modify the delay within a range, you assume that the delay can be modified to less delay than in your provided range?  That’s your evidence?  Could it possibly be the range is limited for technical reasons rather than arbitrary?

 

Good grief! :rolling_eyes:

 

 

So because you have the option to modify the delay within a range, you assume that the delay can be modified to less delay than in your provided range?  That’s your evidence?  Could it possibly be the range is limited for technical reasons rather than arbitrary?

 

 

Of course it is arbitrary.  Otherwise, the argument would be moot, and the posters asking for this feature would be incorrect in their assumptions.  And that can never happen.  Ever.  So they apply their “logic” in any way that makes them correct.  Rinse.  Lather.  Repeat.  Just like the people who still think you can fit a 1 Gig application in a 124 K bag.

Userlevel 1
Badge

It is arbitrary.  You know it.  I know it. 

I’ve worked at embedded hardware companies before.  Some QA team (maybe just one guy) tested a range of latencies on a couple linksys routers a decade ago and decided 70 was “about as good as it would get without stuttering”, and they closed the ticket and went home for the day.

 

Call it arbitrary or not….  It was a subjective decision.  One in which I’m not interested.

This is like someone at Burger King’s corporate office deciding three pickels is the right number to put on a burger.  Yeah, it’s probably a fine decision for most people.  And most people won’t even think about it.  But if I want an extra pickel or no pickels, you know, I bet even Burger King would do that if I asked, with minimal to no complaints, instead of sticking their head in the sand.  And there wouldn’t be someone standing around telling me how unusual my no pickels request is and that it doesn’t fit the business model.  GIVE ME A BREAK.

Userlevel 1

OK, y’all have made your points, you’re not making any progress here. Accept that there might be someone wrong on the internet. The thread would be more fruitful if it’s just a space for people to post their support for low-latency line-in and how they’d like to use it. 

Adding my support for no latency option on the 5's. However this could be possible, I was so surprised to hear there was a delay when using the line in. I had incorrectly assumed sync wouldn't be an option when using line in, but that they would be just bypassing the sync software.

 

If this feature removes the ability to sync that's the price you pay for no latency, fine by me or if there is a delay on other speakers also fine by me, or if it's advised against due to stuttering then let users decide, but do allow the speaker to be a simple speaker in line in mode if... possible.

 

The option to use the 5's as standalone speakers will appeal to more than just those willing to post here, many musicians for instance.

 

For now I've got two 5's as my surround speakers, and two other brand simple monitor speakers on top for my decks, piano and computer sequencing!

 

A good article here, knowledgeable input on the subject of unfortunate latency on the Sonos 5's. 

https://darko.audio/2021/03/3-more-thoughts-on-the-sonos-five-vs-kef-lsx/

 

 

 

A good article here, knowledgeable input on the subject of unfortunate latency on the Sonos 5's. 

https://darko.audio/2021/03/3-more-thoughts-on-the-sonos-five-vs-kef-lsx/

 

 

Not knowledgeable at all.  The delay is not due to any DSP.  It is due to the need to buffer the input for multi-room sync.  Sonos needs to build up a buffer before playing, so that any timing issues have a buffer to work with in case of signal errors or dropouts.  The buffer allows each unit to re-request any bad packets before the buffer runs out, thus not affecting the stream and keeping the units in sync.  

 

A good article here, knowledgeable input on the subject of unfortunate latency on the Sonos 5's. 

https://darko.audio/2021/03/3-more-thoughts-on-the-sonos-five-vs-kef-lsx/

 

 

Not knowledgeable at all.  The delay is not due to any DSP.  It is due to the need to buffer the input for multi-room sync.  Sonos needs to build up a buffer before playing, so that any timing issues have a buffer to work with in case of signal errors or dropouts.  The buffer allows each unit to re-request any bad packets before the buffer runs out, thus not affecting the stream and keeping the units in sync.  

 

.. I think we all understand 'why' Sonos has latency, your point has been mentioned many times throughout this thread, the point is understood and valid only from the use of wanting to sync to other speakers.

 

Some here and myself are not interested in always syncing music, but using the speaker as a simple standalone speaker via the line in.

 

We're asking for the option to reduce or remove the latency simply and purely for direct local use of the speaker (musicians use). The article makes a point not made here yet, some knowledgeable info, in that in his experience of latency, it needs to be below 40ms for it to be unnoticeable and or useable as a direct source of sound. Knowing this makes it surely an even easier job for Sonos to allow a lower latency option in the app (albeit with a  dropout warning) for those who still try to sync at that (unreccomended) lower level.

 

It looks like he was as surprised as I was, that the speaker isn't without latency when simply using line in (no syncing necessary), which is why he had to return to add this oversight to his article.

 

This is his l video review here, prior to his redactions that I posted, I stand by it really is a good review.

https://darko.audio/2021/03/a-short-film-about-the-sonos-five-vs-kef-lsx/

You stated this “good article” has “knowledgeable input” on the latency of the line-in.  He got even the very basics of the line-in latency wrong.  I don’t call that “good” or “knowledgeable” at all.  

And we know what you are asking for.  People have been asking for it for 16 years, and it hasn’t come to pass.  TIme to move on. 

Hi all,

I’ve just learnt the hard way about the line-in audio delay for the Sonos 5 and I’m surprised and more then a little annoyed with Sonos. I’ve just renovated my office and I’ve chosen the Play 5 (overkill for the room size) solely for the line-in so I can use it for online meetings with my computer.  I replaced a perfectly good Bose setup to standardise on Sonos and I’m regretting that decision now. I shelled out for the overpriced Flexson wall mount which I won’t be able to return. 

I’m leaving this here to add my voice to the group of people asking Sonos to listen and get the zero latency line-in option available!!!
Thanks
Anthony