We need Audiophile Edition version of Port

I
Userlevel 2

First of I want to say that I have been using Sonos products since 2009. Besides Sonos, I had a lot of gear but none of it could match Sonos's ease of use and sound quality (for the price). I have to come clean and say that I am used to using Sonos everywhere and I love it. 

As an audiophile, I was looking to replace my aging Sonos Connect with Port and realized from all the reviews that it does not have a better digital output. This was a show stopper for me and it is a show stopper for all audiophiles out there. 

You are missing a very important niche of the market. It is taken by Raspberry Pie implementations and Bluesound and Aurelia, not because they have better software or support for services, but because they have a better digital output. That is it. Nothing else. Everyone I have talked to said they like Sonos but the digital output is jittery. I have tried a lot of solutions and even they sound better than Connect over coax they are all not easy to use, do not have support for the majority of services, etc… I meet old people putting Raspberry Pie solutions together and struggling with boards and power supplies and software issues just to get good digital output. Audiophiles are people willing to spend a lot of money on a good streamer. 

Wired 4 Sound managed to mod Connect into a damn good streamer. There is no reason you can do it too! 

Sonos has the best software and the rest of the products are great but you are missing the main link with audiophiles.

Sonos Port Digital or whatever you want to call it

No audio inputs or outputs. Audiophiles will not use them. They suck compared to $$$$$ priced amps. Just Digital Coax and maybe, just maybe, optical output.

Get power supply clean and stable, maybe even consider having standard power cable, get rid of jitter, use high-quality SPIDF connector…

Make Sonos digital output sound great and you will sell a bunch. 

I will buy it first if you manage to do it for $899 or less.

I sure hope that someone from Sonos will take this seriously.

If anyone agrees with me please leave comments so we can get Sonos attention.

Cheers!

108 replies

K

Thanks. I think my issue is relevant, but off topic for this thread, maybe someone could suggest another thread for using an existing 2-ch Sonos system as rear channels for a surround system without degrading the existing 2-ch system

 

Yes it is off topic because the only way to make a valid comparison of two alternatives is to have every other variable stay the exact same. And if you are comparing a stereo 2 channel set up with the sound from a surround set up even if the latter is on full music mode, there are far too many variables that will make a nonsense of any comparison because they will sound so different. And I can't see any way to have any existing 2 channel system set up for full time music play with front located speakers to also do rear surround - unless you are willing to give yourself the time of a few weeks to get used to how the latter sounds for music in full music mode with speakers at the rear. In that time, as it does in all cases to varying degrees, the brain will adapt itself to the new sound, and you may probably find it far more acceptable for full music listening than it does now. 

As to Port pricing it has little do with cost, but with a Sonos perceived value to users, with the price set accordingly by Sonos as a price policy. Those users that agree with that perceived value will find the present price acceptable. The same Port could be priced a lot lower if costs were the only consideration, but that may not give Sonos an equally good result where total profit is concerned, which is a fair way of assessing such policy decisions in any profit funded organisation.

M
Userlevel 2

If the Port had an optical output that would be a different story.

Not really, apart from the electrical isolation element. You might wish to acquaint yourself with digital transmission techniques. 

 

Agreed. Not irrelevant, but a different story.

 

I don’t think Sonos should make an audiophile Port. What they should make is a cheaper version of the Port that only has a digital out. Eliminating the DAC and preamp (analog in and analog out) should provide significant savings.

In percentage terms? I’d wager it would actually be a pretty small saving, considering the need for processor, memory, DSP, network interfaces, etc would be the same either way. 

Not sure what DSP you have in mind, but the idea is not to mess with the source at all.

It’s all commodity stuff. I think the end product is such a stripped down version of what they put into all their products that it could be cheaper just because it’s simpler. Every little thing adds complexity. It really is the core of every Sonos product. That’s probably the main reason they won’t offer it separately.

M
Userlevel 2

a frustrating thread in which I’m trying to find some answers as to why my 2-ch system w/ a Sonos Connect into a Pro-ject Pre Box S2 into a Bryson 4B sounded so much better before I replaced all that with an Amp so I could use the 2-channels as rear speakers with an Arc and Sub. Even when I set the surrounds to max for music playback, the music just isn’t as enjoyable as it was before. Probably has more to do with impedance matching with the speakers (B+Ws) than anything else.  

 

 

 

If you want any constructive help here you will have to clarify exactly the signal chain via which the sound in the past, being compared against, was delivered as compared to the signal chain via which it is being delivered now. 

Thanks. I think my issue is relevant, but off topic for this thread, maybe someone could suggest another thread for using an existing 2-ch Sonos system as rear channels for a surround system without degrading the existing 2-ch system because you can only do it by putting an Amp on the 2-ch system.

The Amp replaces the external DAC, preamp and Amp on the 2-ch system. That system now has a Sub too.

That isn’t the only issue though. Switching from TV/surround to playing music on the Surround Channels through the new system is not exactly the same as playing music on the old 2-ch system. I think there is some strong DSP now on the Surround Channels. I have changed music playback from Ambient to Full and set the volume of the Surround Channels to max for Music Playback. I don’t recall if I tried turning off Trueplay, I’ll do that this weekend. If that sounds better for music I’ll just leave it off.

It’d be nice if you could set Trueplay on for TV/Surround and off for Music (or vice-versa).

 

jgatie

A DAC chip goes for pennies, it’s a commodity product.  Even the most expensive “audiophile” DAC chips are under $10, which is a rounding error for the Port pricing. Same for the analog out. 

ratty

If the Port had an optical output that would be a different story.

Not really, apart from the electrical isolation element. You might wish to acquaint yourself with digital transmission techniques. 

 

I don’t think Sonos should make an audiophile Port. What they should make is a cheaper version of the Port that only has a digital out. Eliminating the DAC and preamp (analog in and analog out) should provide significant savings.

In percentage terms? I’d wager it would actually be a pretty small saving, considering the need for processor, memory, DSP, network interfaces, etc would be the same either way. 

M
Userlevel 2

You state: “The current from the power supply is what’s moving the magnets in the woofers and tweeters that creates the sound you hear.” Just to avoid confusion: this topic is about the Port, that does not drive speakers directly. If you want to try a different power supply for the Port, they are available: 

https://www.fidelityaudio.co.uk/sonos-port-pro-low-noise-psu-5089-p.asp

https://wyred4sound.com/products/digital-converters/music-servers/upgrades-accessories/sonos-port-modified

When using the digital out, you are correct that the Port doesn’t drive the speakers directly. Nevertheless, it’s part of a network that starts with one or more power sources and ends with sound waves created by the motion of coils, magnets, ribbons or other components driven by those power sources. If the Port had an optical output that would be a different story.

If you use the variable, analog output then the Port is also both the DAC and the preamp, which are very much in the path of the current that drives the speakers. 

I agree that many audiophiles go overboard with expensive stuff, some of which may make little or no audible difference. I don’t agree that when the source is digital, nothing else matters. If you use the Port’s digital out, there’s little room to improve what comes out of the Port (perhaps none), but I wouldn’t discount the possibility of any improvement. Most of what could be improved, however, could be done at the input stage of an external DAC, e.g. re-clocking, isolation of noise so it doesn’t reach the DAC’s analog outputs, etc. 

If you’re using the Port’s DAC and preamp, that’s a whole different story.

I don’t think Sonos should make an audiophile Port. What they should make is a cheaper version of the Port that only has a digital out. Eliminating the DAC and preamp (analog in and analog out) should provide significant savings.

jgatie

Could you give us a analysis result which shows the power supply on the Port puts out “so much electrical noise” along with an ABX test which shows that “so much electrical noise” is audible to the listener?

Thanks!

The current from the power supply is what’s moving the magnets in the woofers and tweeters that creates the sound you hear. The first commercial DACs built into CD players had tons of issues, such as voltage changes based on how many bits were 0s and how many were 1s. They’d output a significant difference between 01111111 and 10000000, when that should be the smallest difference possible. It doesn’t take “golden ears” to hear the difference between a mass market 1980’s CD player and a high quality one from 2022. It also doesn’t “golden ears” to hear the difference between components with cheap switching power supplies and ones with good power supplies.

Sonos power supplies aren’t crap, but to simply dismiss the impact of the electrical engineering that goes into making different audio components as inaudible because they’re “digital” is as foolhardy as the claims of any audiophool.

Sorry to pick on you. You’re post is just at the end of a frustrating thread in which I’m trying to find some answers as to why my 2-ch system w/ a Sonos Connect into a Pro-ject Pre Box S2 into a Bryson 4B sounded so much better before I replaced all that with an Amp so I could use the 2-channels as rear speakers with an Arc and Sub. Even when I set the surrounds to max for music playback, the music just isn’t as enjoyable as it was before. Probably has more to do with impedance matching with the speakers (B+Ws) than anything else.  

 

If “golden ears” are not needed, then the requested ABX test to show the electrical noise is audible to the listener should be a piece of cake.  When should I expect it?

106rallye
Userlevel 7
Badge +17

You state: “The current from the power supply is what’s moving the magnets in the woofers and tweeters that creates the sound you hear.” Just to avoid confusion: this topic is about the Port, that does not drive speakers directly. If you want to try a different power supply for the Port, they are available: 

https://www.fidelityaudio.co.uk/sonos-port-pro-low-noise-psu-5089-p.asp

https://wyred4sound.com/products/digital-converters/music-servers/upgrades-accessories/sonos-port-modified

K

a frustrating thread in which I’m trying to find some answers as to why my 2-ch system w/ a Sonos Connect into a Pro-ject Pre Box S2 into a Bryson 4B sounded so much better before I replaced all that with an Amp so I could use the 2-channels as rear speakers with an Arc and Sub. Even when I set the surrounds to max for music playback, the music just isn’t as enjoyable as it was before. Probably has more to do with impedance matching with the speakers (B+Ws) than anything else.  

 

 

 

If you want any constructive help here you will have to clarify exactly the signal chain via which the sound in the past, being compared against, was delivered as compared to the signal chain via which it is being delivered now. 

M
Userlevel 2

Could you give us a analysis result which shows the power supply on the Port puts out “so much electrical noise” along with an ABX test which shows that “so much electrical noise” is audible to the listener?

Thanks!

The current from the power supply is what’s moving the magnets in the woofers and tweeters that creates the sound you hear. The first commercial DACs built into CD players had tons of issues, such as voltage changes based on how many bits were 0s and how many were 1s. They’d output a significant difference between 01111111 and 10000000, when that should be the smallest difference possible. It doesn’t take “golden ears” to hear the difference between a mass market 1980’s CD player and a high quality one from 2022. It also doesn’t “golden ears” to hear the difference between components with cheap switching power supplies and ones with good power supplies.

Sonos power supplies aren’t crap, but to simply dismiss the impact of the electrical engineering that goes into making different audio components as inaudible because they’re “digital” is as foolhardy as the claims of any audiophool.

Sorry to pick on you. You’re post is just at the end of a frustrating thread in which I’m trying to find some answers as to why my 2-ch system w/ a Sonos Connect into a Pro-ject Pre Box S2 into a Bryson 4B sounded so much better before I replaced all that with an Amp so I could use the 2-channels as rear speakers with an Arc and Sub. Even when I set the surrounds to max for music playback, the music just isn’t as enjoyable as it was before. Probably has more to do with impedance matching with the speakers (B+Ws) than anything else.  

 

 

 

chicks

Sonos are a great company who make great things but are being fast outdated (in this respect) and I think that for £400 a far better streamer could be sold to us, or for a bit more too. By this I mean that if it costs £400 for a streaming module then it should be a better streaming module than they put into speakers that you could buy between 2-3 of for the same price. A decent power supply that doesn’t produce so much electrical noise and a couple more digital outputs aren’t a lot to ask. 

 

melvimbe

 

Completely disagree with the idea that any one who’s purchased a Port is in the  ‘enthusiast and audiophile’ bucket.  As you pointed out, if you already have an existing system that you like, then a Port is a good option, but you didn’t mention the cost difference between keeping your system and replacing it with Sonos home theatre setup.   As an example, I used to have a basic 5.1 setup with in wall speakers that I had a Connect (Port’s predecssor) connected to.  I did not want to spend over a thousand to replace that just to get the system part of Sonos, so the Port made a lot more sense.  It does not mean I’m an audiophile.

Likewise, if you want use a 3rd party multiroom amp instead of several Sonos amp, then you’ll want to use a Port.    If you have a turntable or some other component you want play in your Sonos system, but don’t need a Five or Amp, the Port is the way to go.

You’re correct that the convenience of the Port is a big plus, but it’s really about the convenience of the whole multiroom system and the Port is often a useful component of that system….even if doesn’t read the audiophile standards of a segment of the market.

Hiya, you make a lot of good points here, but I’m not saying that anybody who has bought a port is an audiophile, but lots of people who have, are. I’m saying that to invest £400 into an existing system suggests a level of love for old school hifi, for people who love their amplifiers enough to not buy a Sonos amp but rather keep their old one and buy the port dispite the price difference not being too drastic.

 

Again, you are wrong here.  Your assumption that people are choosing between an existing 2.0 stereo receiver/amo  + Port  or the Sonos amp is not correct.  There are some, sure, and that cost difference is minimal.  However, I would argue that the majority are looking at replacing a 5.1, 7.1, etc home theatre setup or multiroom audio system  rather than a ‘simple’ 2.0 stereo.   To replace a 5.1 setup, I would need an amp  + 2 Ones at a minimum, (keeping exiting front speakers and sub) well over the cost of a single port.  And obviously, you would need at least two amps to replace a multiroom audio system.  That’s not considering those who only want an aux input into the Sonos system for a turntable, CD player, etc.

 

But we live in a world now with high res music streaming from Apple Music, tidal, Amazon and soon to be Spotify for no extra money. Sonos are a great company who make great things but are being fast outdated (in this respect) and I think that for £400 a far better streamer could be sold to us, or for a bit more too. By this I mean that if it costs £400 for a streaming module then it should be a better streaming module than they put into speakers that you could buy between 2-3 of for the same price. A decent power supply that doesn’t produce so much electrical noise and a couple more digital outputs aren’t a lot to ask. High res shouldn’t be either but I understand that’s relatively recent and slightly more complicated to fit into an entire ecosystem. 

 

It seems like you are looking at the Port more as a stand alone streaming device rather than part of a multiroom audio system.  I would agree that if all you want is a streaming box, whether you’re an audiophile or not, there are probably more logical choices out there.  But the Port isn’t just a streaming box, and those other options are not going to play in sync with other Sonos speakers or wirelessly send aux audio to Sonos speakers.

 

Danny
jgatie

Could you give us a analysis result which shows the power supply on the Port puts out “so much electrical noise” along with an ABX test which shows that “so much electrical noise” is audible to the listener?

Thanks!

R

People already buy the port though, they do so to use with hi fi systems they clearly love enough to buy a £400 accessory for, so Sonos already has enthusiast and audiophile customers, however I personally (and I know other people who feel the same) feel like I’m only willing to pay the high price for the convenience of a Sonos port if it sounds as least as good as not having one. 

 

Completely disagree with the idea that any one who’s purchased a Port is in the  ‘enthusiast and audiophile’ bucket.  As you pointed out, if you already have an existing system that you like, then a Port is a good option, but you didn’t mention the cost difference between keeping your system and replacing it with Sonos home theatre setup.   As an example, I used to have a basic 5.1 setup with in wall speakers that I had a Connect (Port’s predecssor) connected to.  I did not want to spend over a thousand to replace that just to get the system part of Sonos, so the Port made a lot more sense.  It does not mean I’m an audiophile.

Likewise, if you want use a 3rd party multiroom amp instead of several Sonos amp, then you’ll want to use a Port.    If you have a turntable or some other component you want play in your Sonos system, but don’t need a Five or Amp, the Port is the way to go.

You’re correct that the convenience of the Port is a big plus, but it’s really about the convenience of the whole multiroom system and the Port is often a useful component of that system….even if doesn’t read the audiophile standards of a segment of the market.

Hiya, you make a lot of good points here, but I’m not saying that anybody who has bought a port is an audiophile, but lots of people who have, are. I’m saying that to invest £400 into an existing system suggests a level of love for old school hifi, for people who love their amplifiers enough to not buy a Sonos amp but rather keep their old one and buy the port dispite the price difference not being too drastic. But we live in a world now with high res music streaming from Apple Music, tidal, Amazon and soon to be Spotify for no extra money. Sonos are a great company who make great things but are being fast outdated (in this respect) and I think that for £400 a far better streamer could be sold to us, or for a bit more too. By this I mean that if it costs £400 for a streaming module then it should be a better streaming module than they put into speakers that you could buy between 2-3 of for the same price. A decent power supply that doesn’t produce so much electrical noise and a couple more digital outputs aren’t a lot to ask. High res shouldn’t be either but I understand that’s relatively recent and slightly more complicated to fit into an entire ecosystem. 

chicks

 

Most “audiophiles” are utterly clueless.  Thankfully, Amir is changing that by measuring this crap.

You think?! You cannot change what does not want to be changed.

Manufacturers are being forced to take Amir seriously.  His site now has 2.8X the traffic of Stereophile (with its nonsensical “reviews” pushing over-priced garbage), with more engagement.  

 

K

 

Most “audiophiles” are utterly clueless.  Thankfully, Amir is changing that by measuring this crap.

You think?! You cannot change what does not want to be changed.

chicks

From technical side and jitter Sonos knows what sounds good. If Wired 4 Sound can do it Sonos can too and 10x better.

 

Wyred 4 Sound.  ROFL.  They recently formed a company to license the legendary Bob Carver name, then produced this overpriced piece of garbage:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/carver-crimson-275-review-tube-amp.29971/

 

Most “audiophiles” are utterly clueless.  Thankfully, Amir is changing that by measuring this crap.

melvimbe

People already buy the port though, they do so to use with hi fi systems they clearly love enough to buy a £400 accessory for, so Sonos already has enthusiast and audiophile customers, however I personally (and I know other people who feel the same) feel like I’m only willing to pay the high price for the convenience of a Sonos port if it sounds as least as good as not having one. 

 

Completely disagree with the idea that any one who’s purchased a Port is in the  ‘enthusiast and audiophile’ bucket.  As you pointed out, if you already have an existing system that you like, then a Port is a good option, but you didn’t mention the cost difference between keeping your system and replacing it with Sonos home theatre setup.   As an example, I used to have a basic 5.1 setup with in wall speakers that I had a Connect (Port’s predecssor) connected to.  I did not want to spend over a thousand to replace that just to get the system part of Sonos, so the Port made a lot more sense.  It does not mean I’m an audiophile.

Likewise, if you want use a 3rd party multiroom amp instead of several Sonos amp, then you’ll want to use a Port.    If you have a turntable or some other component you want play in your Sonos system, but don’t need a Five or Amp, the Port is the way to go.

You’re correct that the convenience of the Port is a big plus, but it’s really about the convenience of the whole multiroom system and the Port is often a useful component of that system….even if doesn’t read the audiophile standards of a segment of the market.

Danny
R

First of I want to say that I have been using Sonos products since 2009. Besides Sonos, I had a lot of gear but none of it could match Sonos's ease of use and sound quality (for the price). I have to come clean and say that I am used to using Sonos everywhere and I love it. 

As an audiophile, I was looking to replace my aging Sonos Connect with Port and realized from all the reviews that it does not have a better digital output. This was a show stopper for me and it is a show stopper for all audiophiles out there. 

You are missing a very important niche of the market. It is taken by Raspberry Pie implementations and Bluesound and Aurelia, not because they have better software or support for services, but because they have a better digital output. That is it. Nothing else. Everyone I have talked to said they like Sonos but the digital output is jittery. I have tried a lot of solutions and even they sound better than Connect over coax they are all not easy to use, do not have support for the majority of services, etc… I meet old people putting Raspberry Pie solutions together and struggling with boards and power supplies and software issues just to get good digital output. Audiophiles are people willing to spend a lot of money on a good streamer. 

Wired 4 Sound managed to mod Connect into a damn good streamer. There is no reason you can do it too! 

Sonos has the best software and the rest of the products are great but you are missing the main link with audiophiles.

Sonos Port Digital or whatever you want to call it

No audio inputs or outputs. Audiophiles will not use them. They suck compared to $$$$$ priced amps. Just Digital Coax and maybe, just maybe, optical output.

Get power supply clean and stable, maybe even consider having standard power cable, get rid of jitter, use high-quality SPIDF connector…

Make Sonos digital output sound great and you will sell a bunch. 

I will buy it first if you manage to do it for $899 or less.

I sure hope that someone from Sonos will take this seriously.

If anyone agrees with me please leave comments so we can get Sonos attention.

Cheers!

I want this so much. I use a one so in my bedroom and have a separates hifi in my living room built from Chord, Cyrus, PMC and MK components. I love both, my separates system is vastly superior though (but not for convenience). I want to buy a streamer, currently it would probably be a blue sound node I most want but Ideally it would be a sonos product. I want it to work on the same app as. My sonos speaker and would probably already have a sonos port if it’s outputs weren’t point defeatingly poor and an outright £400 sonic downgrade. People already buy the port though, they do so to use with hi fi systems they clearly love enough to buy a £400 accessory for, so Sonos already has enthusiast and audiophile customers, however I personally (and I know other people who feel the same) feel like I’m only willing to pay the high price for the convenience of a Sonos port if it sounds as least as good as not having one. It shouldn’t be a big ask. I also wanna say I don’t mean to bash on SONOS right now. I like them and their products, but there is a product they don’t make that I want badly, it’s an attainable and exciting possibility I’m discussing here, not a complaint. 

R

Ivan - to be honest, I can’t see it happening. Whether you like it or not, Sonos is a volume manufacturer, but the audiophool market is (by comparison) a tiny one.

Sonos will probably want to leave it to the tiny specialists. It’s hard to be both a volume producer and a niche specialist, not least because in the specialist niche that you’re talking about, the marketing has to be completely different. It’s easy for a tiny, specialist company to do the necessary thing and start inventing things that don’t exist to satisfy this small group of people, but it’s hard for a big company to do that and maintain credibility with their “normal” customers (who will always bring in most of the revenue).

Here’s an example: How do you satisfy a niche market when most of the people in it don’t know what they want? Ask ten “audiophiles” what jitter sounds like, and you will get ten different answers. How do you manufacture a product on that basis?

So… IMO it’s something that Sonos will choose to leave to others...

Any self-proclaimed “audiophile” would use an external DAC which will reclock the signal, thus eliminating any jitter.  So exactly what’s the problem (besides not being expensive enough for bragging rights?)

I think you’re slightly misunderstanding. When we’re asking for a good digital output it is so that we can use it with a DAC, Jitter is about the static that the DAC is becoming connected to which then gets amplified and passed on through the amplification process. (It can be treated within the DAC But its better to prevent a problem than to remedy it after the fact). It’s also about being able to pass a good digital signal to the DAC regardless of the electrical noise that might come with it. Lastly it’s about having multiple options. I don’t have a Sonos streamer but my DAC has optical and usb inputs, so even if they made a streamer i wanted, it wouldn’t be compatible without those outputs. 

K

I would of loved to integrate with the Sonos Eco-system more but......I was sold on the Bluesound. HDMI, Bluetooth, Optical to name a few features which is well worth a third more IMO, YMMV of course.

 

All this is useful if the wireless in sync grouped play mode is stable and does not suffer stuttering and drops as Bluesound is sometimes said to suffer from. Of course if this is not your use case, it does not matter.

Stanley_4
Userlevel 7
Badge +22

I wonder how the Bluesound will hold up over time, both in hardware lifetime and in software support. 2006 era Sonos gear (minus the CRs) is still usable.

ratty

That's okay. You're still contributing to Sonos revenues indirectly, in the form of royalties. 

C

I would of loved to integrate with the Sonos Eco-system more but......I was sold on the Bluesound. HDMI, Bluetooth, Optical to name a few features which is well worth a third more IMO, YMMV of course.

 

I can't fault the BlueOS yet. So happy I can add my own radio stations via custom links. I couldn't find a definitive answer online but I'm happy to say you can.

 

I'll always love you Sonos but this time you were outdone by the competition.

 

ratty

One third more money, but if you’ve no desire to integrate with the Sonos world then Bluesound may suit. Hopefully the software is better these days. Just steer clear of the MQA stuff.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings