Morning all, derivative of a question asked many times (also by me) but with new scenario this time.
Have a Connect Amp (actually a new one in this location) to work alongside a Sonos Sub & two pairs of B&W ceiling speakers.
Originally installed 2 x B&W CCM616's but now fitted extra pair of B&W CCM663's & with a view to downgrading the CCM616's to bedroom duty and adding a second set of CCM663's in the kitchen.
They sound great but of course the CCM663's overshadow the CCM616's, hence the adjustments. Just to clarify, it means I have 2 616's & 2 663's working right now with the Kitchen Sonos.
But the Connect Amp cuts out when worked hard. Installed the new speakers December & unusually they not been used so much as normal....daily yes but not worked hard.
A Biffy Clyro, and Gang of Four session yesterday showed the Connect Amp to cut out when driven hard. All other rooms & Sonos boxes worked as normal. I think I'm over working the Sonos box but is opinion not deduction.
If I power down & up, then the Sonos box recovers & continues to earn a decent living.
Have a feeling I need external amplification. Have looked at this before but in the end never needed needless to say, due to more skilled advice on this site.
Would like to understand:
a. If I am over driving the Sonos unit
b. If I have some component mismatch that I'm not understanding
c. If I'm over working the Sonos then can I add a decent quality, small (tiny) footprint amp with ease
Definitely some of you have helped me with this question was way back.....think Buzz and Ratty amongst others. I cannot find that Q just now so must be very old, the scenario was a lot different anyway.
Would very much appreciate a direction on this one.....my Sonos system earns it's crust & then some but it's frustrating a little just now in this area. Many thanks in advance
Page 1 / 1
The nominal impedance of the CCM663 is 8 ohms. However the quoted minimum is 4.5 ohms. Two in parallel would therefore present a minimum impedance of 2.25 ohms. This is too low, and when driven hard the CONNECT:AMP is being asked to supply too much current. C:A can support a minimum of 4 ohms.
(I couldn't find the minimum impedance for CCM616 but assume it's similar to the above as it has an 8 ohms nominal figure.)
You could in theory use an impedance matching device but if you're asking for a lot of volume this may not suffice. If you're open to the option of using a separate amp IMO you'd be better off pursuing that route and swapping the CONNECT:AMP for a CONNECT. The snag is that you'd then have to find an alternative subwoofer, since SUB can't bond with CONNECT.
(I couldn't find the minimum impedance for CCM616 but assume it's similar to the above as it has an 8 ohms nominal figure.)
You could in theory use an impedance matching device but if you're asking for a lot of volume this may not suffice. If you're open to the option of using a separate amp IMO you'd be better off pursuing that route and swapping the CONNECT:AMP for a CONNECT. The snag is that you'd then have to find an alternative subwoofer, since SUB can't bond with CONNECT.
Ratty many thanks for the quick reply. Think I'm with you.
The C:A O/P terminals originally had the 616's fed directly...no problem...well via speaker wall plates. Then (as you mention) I added the 663 to the same O/P terminals. I think this does mean parallel....apols should know this stuff but been a while.
And indeed the bathroom/shower has 2 pairs of 616's wired in same way feed from a C:A that never miss a beat....and they also are worked hard.
Possible to ask you for an example or two of the Impedance device? Also yes very happy to swap the C:A to other duties and put in a C...no problem with that.....but any suggestions of small format, high power amps that I could use? Space is somewhat limited with this part of the installation.
Many thanks as always Ratty
The C:A O/P terminals originally had the 616's fed directly...no problem...well via speaker wall plates. Then (as you mention) I added the 663 to the same O/P terminals. I think this does mean parallel....apols should know this stuff but been a while.
And indeed the bathroom/shower has 2 pairs of 616's wired in same way feed from a C:A that never miss a beat....and they also are worked hard.
Possible to ask you for an example or two of the Impedance device? Also yes very happy to swap the C:A to other duties and put in a C...no problem with that.....but any suggestions of small format, high power amps that I could use? Space is somewhat limited with this part of the installation.
Many thanks as always Ratty
Sorry I've no hands-on experience of impedance matching units. As for small amps, well google is your friend. You'd probably be looking for a little class D ('switching') power amp -- as in the C:A -- for efficiency and therefore reduced heat output.
No problem Ratty, thanks for the steer anyway...it points me in the right direction. Cheers
Anyone else have any experience in the small format amp field. Thanks
Anyone else have any experience in the small format amp field. Thanks
Why not just add another Connect Amp, one for each speaker pair? With another amp, you will have also see how to have it turn on automatically.
Hi Kumar....I like that.....in an ordinary situation not the cheapest of solutions but it so happens that I bought a spare C:A in error end of last year that I'm not using.
So essentially I could fit a 2nd C:A in the kitchen next to the existing one, hard wire it to an RJ45 wall plate then feed the 2nd pair of speakers out from it?
And from convenience, I guess I could run an RJ45 from the first box to the new one? That would work ok?
If so then this is perfect. And just edging bets, power wise, the 2nd unit would I guess be adequate (power wise) to drive the 663's?
Love it, brilliant solution if I'm understand correctly.
So essentially I could fit a 2nd C:A in the kitchen next to the existing one, hard wire it to an RJ45 wall plate then feed the 2nd pair of speakers out from it?
And from convenience, I guess I could run an RJ45 from the first box to the new one? That would work ok?
If so then this is perfect. And just edging bets, power wise, the 2nd unit would I guess be adequate (power wise) to drive the 663's?
Love it, brilliant solution if I'm understand correctly.
Kumar sorry just to clarify, the last part of your reply I'm not fully understandng "you will have also see how to have it turn on automatically" .... could you just elaborate on what that means please? Thanks again
Yes, if you have a spare C:A going for the asking. You'll obviously have to group the C:As, and re-group them after any reboot such as following a software update. Also you'll need to make sure that group volume is adjusted, not each singly.
And from convenience, I guess I could run an RJ45 from the first box to the new one? That would work ok?
Yes, assuming of course that the system's in SonosNet mode.
And just edging bets, power wise, the 2nd unit would I guess be adequate (power wise) to drive the 663's?
One would expect so. Try it and see.
Yes, if you have a spare C:A going for the asking. You'll obviously have to group the C:As, and re-group them after any reboot such as following a software update. Also you'll need to make sure that group volume is adjusted, not each singly.
And from convenience, I guess I could run an RJ45 from the first box to the new one? That would work ok?
Yes, assuming of course that the system's in SonosNet mode.
And just edging bets, power wise, the 2nd unit would I guess be adequate (power wise) to drive the 663's?
One would expect so. Try it and see.
Yes is mad but I do have a spare brand new one sitting not being used.....made a mistake in the ordering & should have ordered a C for my home theatre stuff.
Ah yes didn't consider the group volume.....I use group volume passively & event selected for pairing a couple of rooms....is there a way to permanently assign the grouping? And indeed to assign the Sonos sub for the kitchen to the two C:A's?
Sorry showing my limited skill set now....when you say SonosNet mode, what does that mean please? All my Sonos boxes are vanilla out the box & hard wired. I have no wireless Sonos boxes....oh actually I have a very temporary Play 5 in wireless at the moment but is rare & will be short lived.
Yes will give the 2nd box a go Ratty....need order a Flexson bracket as they are wall mounted but save that it sounds a great way forward.
Thanks again
No. It'll last until you reboot, or ungroup obviously.
And indeed to assign the Sonos sub for the kitchen to the two C:A's?
You can only bond it with one C:A. It's pretty academic if they're grouped, though it does mean that the ceiling speakers on the other C:A will be trying to handle a bit more bass.
when you say SonosNet mode, what does that mean please? All my Sonos boxes are vanilla out the box & hard wired.
You're in SonosNet mode (the somewhat misleadingly named 'BOOST Setup'). At least one box is wired.
Brilliant, got it....all makes sense. Many thanks again for explaining.
I think because Sonos tends to work so well 98% of the time, I tend to loose the topology understanding and terminology until that 2 %.....as such there's a tendency to ask what probably seem obvious stuff to skilled folk like you and Kumar.
Nevertheless is great to get the explanation so clearly. Have ordered a bracket and will be fitting & setting up mid week. Appreciate the support as always. Have a good evening
I think because Sonos tends to work so well 98% of the time, I tend to loose the topology understanding and terminology until that 2 %.....as such there's a tendency to ask what probably seem obvious stuff to skilled folk like you and Kumar.
Nevertheless is great to get the explanation so clearly. Have ordered a bracket and will be fitting & setting up mid week. Appreciate the support as always. Have a good evening
It doesn't matter now; I meant that if you went Connect + Amp route, you would have to find a way to start the amp out of standby mode the way a Connect Amp can when it senses a music signal, if left powered on and in standby when not playing. This can be tricky with third party amps.
And indeed the bathroom/shower has 2 pairs of 616's wired in same way feed from a C:A that never miss a beat....and they also are worked hard.
This suggests wiring the Sub to the Connect Amp that is wired to the 663 pair. Using a Sub takes some load away from the Connect Amp, so I doubt there will then be any trouble for it to drive a 663 pair.
Ah understand.
And indeed the bathroom/shower has 2 pairs of 616's wired in same way feed from a C:A that never miss a beat....and they also are worked hard.
This suggests wiring the Sub to the Connect Amp that is wired to the 663 pair. Using a Sub takes some load away from the Connect Amp, so I doubt there will then be any trouble for it to drive a 663 pair.
Brilliant, is what I hoped to hear....many thanks for your help Kumar....will be following this solution and should have it all working by end of week.....super stuff
Also, you can choose the Sub crossover via the controller when you set it up with the Connect Amp. Setting it as high as possible, using the small speaker option would mean that more of low frequencies - that is probably when the 663 drops its impedance to suck more power - are handled by the Sub, minimising the burden on Connect Amp. Which crossover is selected does have a bearing on sound quality, but I suspect it won't matter much in this case, and transferring as much load as possible to the Sub may be the way to go here.
After noon all.
Interesting development. Took the excellent advice from the guys here and added a new C:A....so 2 C:A's, one driving CCM616 and the other Sonos Sub & CCM663s.
Has been working well but noticed the last couple of days two things:
1. Laptap has been opening Sonos and saying it cannot find a system. If I reboot the 2 C:A's in the kitchen it finds everything. No obvious network issues or changes....all wired. The 2nd C:A is off a Linksys SE2500 5 port hub as is the original C:A
2. The CCM663s and sub have a habit now of cutting out for a few mins before returning.
If I de-group the two kitchen groups, the CCM663 & Sub work fine....group them back with the other C:A and CCM616's and issue returns.
Probably co-incidence but has been the case since a software update Friday. As say could be pure co-incidence.
Any ideas folks? Many thanks
Interesting development. Took the excellent advice from the guys here and added a new C:A....so 2 C:A's, one driving CCM616 and the other Sonos Sub & CCM663s.
Has been working well but noticed the last couple of days two things:
1. Laptap has been opening Sonos and saying it cannot find a system. If I reboot the 2 C:A's in the kitchen it finds everything. No obvious network issues or changes....all wired. The 2nd C:A is off a Linksys SE2500 5 port hub as is the original C:A
2. The CCM663s and sub have a habit now of cutting out for a few mins before returning.
If I de-group the two kitchen groups, the CCM663 & Sub work fine....group them back with the other C:A and CCM616's and issue returns.
Probably co-incidence but has been the case since a software update Friday. As say could be pure co-incidence.
Any ideas folks? Many thanks
Network weakness/issues identified by the update, probably IP address conflicts. Turn off everything at the mains and repower units in this order:
1. Modem
2. Router
3. Wired to router Sonos units, if any
4. All wireless kit, including the devices that are hosting Sonos Controllers
making sure of reboot completion before moving from one step to the next.
If this works, find a way to reserve IP addresses in your router to not have to do this after the next update.
1. Modem
2. Router
3. Wired to router Sonos units, if any
4. All wireless kit, including the devices that are hosting Sonos Controllers
making sure of reboot completion before moving from one step to the next.
If this works, find a way to reserve IP addresses in your router to not have to do this after the next update.
Hi Kumar and thanks for the advice.
It does appear ironically that switching the newly added C:A off and on sorts the problem.
My earlier network description was slightly wrong (although I don't understand why it would make a difference) ....
The original C:A is RJ45 connected to a wall plate then back to a Netgear 48 port gigabit switch (with zero config other than vanilla) and then to a Linksys router EA9500, then to a VM Superhub 3 modem.
The 2nd (newly added one) goes to a Linksys SE2500 simple gigabit hub before going to a second RJ45 wall port then back to the same Netgear 48 port gigabit switch....again neither have any config other than out of the box.
I don't really understand why that might cause an IP address conflict but there does seem some commonality for sure.
I wander if having a dedicated switch at the router/modem end purely for Sonos could help eliminate such problems? Or is that just hardware overkill?
The network does have a lot of stuff on it but all well established and very vanilla, nothing exotic. All Sonos is on RJ45.
I can set fixed IP's for Sonos is it is required.....I guess I'm just not really understanding why it is required.
Thanks for your continued support
It does appear ironically that switching the newly added C:A off and on sorts the problem.
My earlier network description was slightly wrong (although I don't understand why it would make a difference) ....
The original C:A is RJ45 connected to a wall plate then back to a Netgear 48 port gigabit switch (with zero config other than vanilla) and then to a Linksys router EA9500, then to a VM Superhub 3 modem.
The 2nd (newly added one) goes to a Linksys SE2500 simple gigabit hub before going to a second RJ45 wall port then back to the same Netgear 48 port gigabit switch....again neither have any config other than out of the box.
I don't really understand why that might cause an IP address conflict but there does seem some commonality for sure.
I wander if having a dedicated switch at the router/modem end purely for Sonos could help eliminate such problems? Or is that just hardware overkill?
The network does have a lot of stuff on it but all well established and very vanilla, nothing exotic. All Sonos is on RJ45.
I can set fixed IP's for Sonos is it is required.....I guess I'm just not really understanding why it is required.
Thanks for your continued support
With anything more complex than plain vanilla, I am all at sea where networks and routers are concerned, so I will pass on this; someone else should drop in with better advice. Else, Sonos Support.
On the reserved IP, because IPs are renewed from time to time, not doing so can cause IP address conflicts is about all I know on THAT. And that having done it in my router, my streaming stability has become satisfactory.
On the reserved IP, because IPs are renewed from time to time, not doing so can cause IP address conflicts is about all I know on THAT. And that having done it in my router, my streaming stability has become satisfactory.
attacama40
Switches are in principle layer 2 devices, so would have no intrinsic impact on IP issues. That said, managed switches have an IP address for configuration purposes, so there's a remote chance that one could cause a problem.
I agree that your reports do suggest a possible IP conflict. A complete network restart is a good first step. Otherwise, sketch out your network topology for us.
Switches are in principle layer 2 devices, so would have no intrinsic impact on IP issues. That said, managed switches have an IP address for configuration purposes, so there's a remote chance that one could cause a problem.
I agree that your reports do suggest a possible IP conflict. A complete network restart is a good first step. Otherwise, sketch out your network topology for us.
Since you say both C:As are hardwired, I'd try disabling their WiFi radios. Or at least one of their radios if you rely on that location relaying to another Sonos device somewhere else. This is one of those things Sonos claims is not supported, but it is (and I suspect was added for installers so is unofficially officially suported). Google will quickly give you the info on how to do this.
Hi folks and apologies for the late reply/feedback.
It turns out I had a damaged RJ45 feed to one CA from the switch. That was compounded by the Sub that I thought was hardwired actually being on wifi! I'd fed the RJ45 in but due to a decorating project I'd forgot to connect the XXXX thing! Attention to detail!!!
So the Sub was actually cutting out every now and again on the wifi and the damaged cable meant the 2nd CA was intermittent. Apols for the dropout, (been away on a work project) but many thanks to you both for following up.
It turns out I had a damaged RJ45 feed to one CA from the switch. That was compounded by the Sub that I thought was hardwired actually being on wifi! I'd fed the RJ45 in but due to a decorating project I'd forgot to connect the XXXX thing! Attention to detail!!!
So the Sub was actually cutting out every now and again on the wifi and the damaged cable meant the 2nd CA was intermittent. Apols for the dropout, (been away on a work project) but many thanks to you both for following up.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.