You can connect your Turntable to the Phono input on your PreAmp. Then If you have a Tape/REC out on your amp just run RCA’s to the Ports RCA-In.  Select your turntable as the source on your Amp and select Line in in the Sonos app for the the Port and setup your default Sonos speaker (Room). You can then group other Sonos speakers to hear the music on them.

Thanks for the thoughts, I think that would probably work. My pre-amp does have another set (2 pair) of RCA outputs. I wonder if there would be any delay issues though…

For reference, this is my preamp:  http://www.dehavillandhifi.com/MERCURY_PRE.htm

I was responding on the premise that you have what is commonly called “Separates”.

Pre-Amp > Amp >  ThenSelect Source (i.e. CD Player, DVD Player, Tape Deck with RCA IN and OUT, Turntable and possibly AUX with RCA IN and OUT)

The Ports RCA-In would Connect to the Tape Deck (or AUX) RCA-Out.

The only time Sonos experiences a noticeable 75ms delay is when using a Sonos sound bar as a Home Theater connected a TV to send TV audio to speakers that are not part of the Home Theater setup.

Line-In is just a SONOS network source. Line-Out can play any SONOS network source, there is no direct connection between them. There is a 75ms latency between Line-In and output from a player.

AjTrek1’s scheme is treating PORT as a cassette deck. This would yield the direct path between the turntable and your amplifier that you want. Using the amplifier’s analog output connected to PORT’s Line-In you could play any input to the amplifier through SONOS players. Note that there will be a 75ms latency for all SONOS players. This is not usually an issue for distant players.

Yes, I understand. The preamp selects the source, and routes that signal to the preamp output RCAs, of which there are two sets of lefts and rights for a total of 4. I only use one set of right/left to run to my monoblock amplifiers. I currently have the port (via outboard A/D) connected to one set of RCA inputs on the preamp. I would, in this case, run phono preamp to stereo preamp other input. When that input is selected (phono), it would be routed to the two lefts/ two rights output from the preamp. Again, one set of those is run to the monoblocks. The other, currently unused set of preamp outputs could then be routed to the SONOS Port line-in, thereby getting the phono output into the SONOS ecosystem. 

I believe that is the solution you are suggesting, and I suspect that it would work...

So I believe you are answering my question regarding whether I can get an unadulterated signal out of the Port “Out” connectors from the line-in...and your answer is no. I thought maybe since the line-in on the port is analog, so I thought that perhaps the RCA “Out” on the port might be just a pass through. But, again, I believe that you are saying NO to that idea….

If the amplifier output that you use for Line-In follows the amplifier’s Volume control, you’ll have Volume control “wars” with the player Volume controls.

That’s correct

Good point. This would be the case since volume control is indeed at the preamp. Thanks for your input.

“Supposedly” may be in theory based on DAC specs, but audibly in a blind test with sound levels accurately matched? No one has been able to prove that even in a quiet domestic listening environment by picking between the two alternatives in a statistically reliable manner. 

Do what is most convenient therefore, without bothering about theoretical differences.

I use a Modwright Signature Level 2 modified Perpetual Technologies Upsampling DAC. Here is an old review of such: https://www.v1.stereotimes.com/acc040201.shtml. I feel confident that this DAC is superior to that of the Port. I haven’t done a comparison using the port DAC as I just received it, having upgraded from the old ZP80. But, I did notice a significant improvement over the ZP80.

But that's not really the point here. When I adopted the SONOS ecosystem (way back around 2006. I even had the CR100 controller), I did so simply to use it as a transport mechanism. I couldn’t keep track of all my CDs, and it was becoming painful loading and reloading my CD changer. I was already into the audiophile hobby, building my own speakers, introducing a tube preamp, etc. At the time, I had no interest going back to analog source due to availability of vinyl, and the ease of use of the CD format. I implemented a NAS to house all my music, a collection of over 1GB of music in FLAC format. I understand both the benefits and limitations of 16bit digital music, and I am fine with it (I’d like to see more support for higher resolution bit streams, but that's another topic). But, the point of my question above is this: if using the phono with the port means taking an analog source, digitizing its output, then converting it back to analog prior to amplification, then that is something that I myself am not interested in. At that point, what would be the sonic benefit of the analog source? In that case I may as well just stick with digital sources and be done with it. My first goal here is to achieve the best sound quality that I can. This means no digitization (quantization) of the analog source at a minimum. And I can guarantee that you could hear the difference in that (at least if you have a sound system capable of relatively high fidelity, which I do).

-Radiate88

If you are looking for no digitization of the analog input, Sonos is not the solution.  Every Sonos Line-In will digitize the analog input, and there’s no way around it.  As to whether it is audible (regardless of the “high fidelity” of your system, which is audiophile speak for “I spent more $$$$ than you, so I can hear things you can’t.”), a couple of guys named Nyquist and Shannon would have a lot to say about that.  But that’s another conversation.  If digitization in the audio chain is a deal breaker, Sonos is not for you. 

That is a strange question to ask when the source in question is low fidelity tech like vinyl!

On the other hand, if vinyl is being used for other subjective and valid reasons, sonic benefits should not be in the frame.

Seriously? Look at what I wrote. Sonos is valuable to me as a transport mechanism. I also have a 5 in my garage, a 3 in my office, a 1 in my bathroom, a Sonos amp playing outdoor speakers. Sonos is for me,  and has been for many years. In the digital domain, it's fine. But, for high fidelity analog source use I do not want digitization. There is loss of information in digitization, regardless of what Nyquist and Shannon say. What resolution is good enough for you? Of course, a CD is 16 bit, so is that it? What about higher resolutions such as SACD? Do you think you could tell the difference between an 16 bit mp3 and a wave file? How about 8 bit mp3? 

The point is not that "I can hear things you can't" as you write, though that is the end result due to the fact that a high end system can reproduce sound from information that you are missing due to effects of quantization, as well as other effects, such as induced noise from a power supply etc. Not too mention frequency response capability of the speakers.

It's all good jgatie. I understand that my pursuit is not for everyone. Some folks love to color the sound with equalizers and other processing...more power to them. But I wouldn't chalk it up to someone just throwing money at a stereo for bragging rights. I am just trying to reproduce two channel stereo recorded vinyl as best I can. That's me.

-Radiate88

I get your point, but I certainly dont think that a2d followed by d2a conversion, just for the sake of it, would be preferable to no conversions at all. Do you?

In this case, the concept is that music, and other sound, when created is analog by its very nature. Any conversion to digital, then back to analog (cause we can't hear digital) results in data loss by definition. Are there artifacts that result from vinyl playback? Of course. So I also try to minimize that. There are plenty of people out there that will tell you they can get better Soundstage and imaging from vinyl than they can from a digital source. Sound is subjective. I will continue to play both digital and vinyl. And I will continue to try to create a sound reproduction that, to my ears, is as good as I can get within reason. To me, one thing that means is avoiding conversion of analog source data to the digital domain. 

To the first - there is a feature driven reason why Sonos does this - it is not just for the sake of it. And if this two step thing has no audible impact, what’s the beef?!

The second is a similar thing - if the data loss is not audible how does it matter? Assuming that your claim of “by definition” is correct in the first place for this specific instance, but for this argument, I am granting that it is.

I do get that the audiophile pursuit often is in domains that are not audible, which is why the hobby is not one that music lovers have to pursue to fully enjoy their music listening experience.

Actually, Nyquist-Shannon is mathematical proof that there is no data loss whatsoever within the bounds of the sample rate. The analog wave is recreated perfectly.  No loss of fidelity, no jaggies, no stairsteps, just a perfect representation of the incoming waveform.  So “by definition” there is NO data loss at all, not the other way around.  

Why would you say there would be no audio impact? I believe it is indeed audible on a capable system. In fact, I know it is. As for the audiophile pursuit being in non-audible domains, well, thats just odd. I dont know about that. I am pursuing better audio. And if you need to “take for granted” that digitization results in data loss, than you do not understand it. And thats OK. 

Your last line encapsulates all of it though. Audiophile pursuits are not required for music enthusiasts to fully enjoy their listening experience. Of that, there is no doubt. However, there are limitations to quality sound reproduction imposed by many things, such as resolution of the digital bit stream, CODECs being used, induced electrical noise, compression used for satellite music (Sirius XM), Bluetooth transfers (if used), etc. 

We are way beyond the intended topic, though, so I am going to stop here. Frankly, some people just don’t get it. No problem...as you say, you can still fully enjoy the listening experience. And I can pursue my interest as well. I don’t intend to insinuate that the SONOS is not a great product. It is. I am just saying that I don’t want it in line with my analog source.

-Radiate88

I disagree with your premise, and you are free to disagree with mine. If you are interested, you can look here (see link below). Again, far beyond the intent of my original post. Suffice it to say, I believe that you are wrong due to the actual implementation of music reproduction. YMMV.

https://todayamerican.medium.com/audiophiles-rejoice-why-the-nyquist-shannon-sampling-theorem-actually-proves-high-res-audio-is-33ec158de5af

-Radiate88

You disagree with mathematically proven fact?  Good luck with that.  And that article is more audio hogwash, dressed up with engineer speak.  It’s trying to say the signal above audibility is something which is missing from the data, as if inaudible sound affects the audible spectrum.  Which is nonsense, and has never been proven to be anything but nonsense by countless A/B/X tests.  

I’m inclined to bring up the test where the majority of self-proclaimed golden ears audiophiles missed a glaringly obvious band of distortion when they were listening in their preferred method (hint: it wasn’t A/B/X), whereas the “listening on trash gear with trash ears” objective types heard it immediately through an A/B/X test.  But I don’t like to pile on. 

Anyway, I digress.  If you don’t want digitization of your analog sources, having Sonos in the signal chain is not a viable solution. 

Don't be silly. I don’t disagree with Nyquist, but you cannot argue that a signal bounded at 22050 Hz is equivalent to a source information that exceeded that frequency. You can argue that it is not audible, but I believe that to not be the complete picture, and I am trying to reproduce the original signal to the best of my ability. Not really sure why this seems to upset you so much. Is it that I am suggesting that my separates implementation is superior to your all digital sonos system implementation, and this angers you? Do you feel like I am some kind of guy with a superiority complex that brags about his hardware and feels you are beneath him? I really am curious...I’m truly not trying to upset anyone. 

I am actually a digital engineer with 30 years experience. I have been around A/D and D/A converters forever. Do you understand that, in real life, various things can happen to the conversions (in both directions) regardless of Nyquist? Conversion is partly based on reference voltages...do you think that voltage reference can vary in real life? Perhaps a little ripple is present? How good is the signal conditioning prior to the A/D? How about A/D and D/A accuracy? Do you believe that every component is created equal? What about noise induced into the analog signal due to a power supply, or radiated emissions? That noise can enter the digital domain when presented to the A/D input. Have you ever seen what a bad ground can do to these devices? These are real world issues I encounter often when trying to approximate analog waveforms in my line of work.  Listen, I hope you love your SONOS, and you can digitize your analog audio signals to your hearts content. I love SONOS for digital source stuff, and have a ton of their components to prove it. I even updated so I could go to the S2 software. All I wanted to know was how the port architecture with regard to the analog input was laid out so that I could make a decision that satisfies my personal music listening desires. Your previous statement “So “by definition” there is NO data loss at all, not the other way around.” completely ignores real world conditions. 

As for your self proclaimed golden eared audiophiles, I think this says all I need to know. You don't like to pile on...lol. C'mon Man. You don’t believe in it...apparently for you there is no such thing as better than Sonos when it comes to sound reproduction. And there are aspects I don’t believe in. I am not going to buy a $1000 cable. But, I will invest in things I believe can create a superior sonic reproduction of the original source. 

We have long ago established that if I don't want digitization of my analog source, then don't route through Sonos, have we not? 

I am done here. Enjoy the music.

-Radiate88

This isn’t for the OP, but for other interested that may chance on this thread in future. I do not write here often now because I have not moved on to S2; I find that I get the features and sound quality I need from other solutions that are cheaper than Sonos - and by sound quality, I mean the same quality that Sonos offers, not better quality.

In my audiophile days, I used to listen to Miles Davis and others on 180g vinyl on a well set up Rega table. I also listened via CDs played on a high end SACD player. And now I listen to this music on an Echo Dot wired to a Sonos amp, via Spotify. Much of my listening is late evenings, when the ambient is quiet, but even there, I have heard no difference in the music across these three versions. Convenience is of course much more now, I don’t need to leave the couch to change tracks/albums.

The reason for this? Because I am using the same excellent Quad speakers since 2003. The speakers and how they are placed in the room drives upwards of 95% of the heard sound quality and much of what remains is lost in the ambient noise floor of a typical room in the home.

My audiophile decade was pre digital music and in the analog domain I have done similar playing with every component in the signal chain - and imagined I was getting better results.

But the chances of getting better results were higher then - digital audio has been a great leveller upwards to a high quality standard for home audio, for bargain basement prices. Other than on the speaker side, there isn’t any real need to experiment now. And even on the speaker side, passive speakers are more similar sounding than one would expect, after about the USD 1500 a pair price point.

For Sonos users of the line in feature, the message is that from a sound quality point, this is as good as it needs to be while also allowing for the feature of playing the line in source in perfect sync across Sonos zones/rooms. That this involves digitisation of an analog source is irrelevant to the heard sound quality.

Human nature of course is a funny thing. A recent example - when Apple Music released lossless streaming, the head of that Apple division said that there is no audible difference between that and Apple lossy 256k streams. But people still twist themselves into hoops to try to get the higher data dense streams from Apple in a hunt for better sound quality. 

The early generations of CD players were designed by digital engineers with no analog experience or analog engineers with no digital experience. Each group made some rather basic design errors in the unfamiliar domain. The result was some rather offensive sounding early CD players. Another very significant issue was the use of master tapes, intended to be used for LP mastering, being used for CD mastering. The idea was, in the interest of “purity”, to transfer the LP master tape directly to the CD master. (this also avoided some intellectual property licensing spats) Since there are some high frequency losses incurred with record production, one way or another the master tapes boosted the highs to compensate for the losses. This could be done with explicit equalization or clever choice of microphone and microphone placement. The result was some rather shrill sounding CD’s. Unfortunately, the audiophile community, with its analog roots and no understanding of “digital”, blamed “digital” for this mess. We are past these design issues now, but the folklore lingers.

Another dimension is the draconian compression used during modern retail music release. Compression was dialed up at about the same time CD’s were introduced. The resulting “lifeless” sound is blamed on “digital”. Earlier LP’s lacked this compression. “HD” releases sometimes avoid this compression and sound better on good systems. This improvement has no relation to the sample rate and word width.

There is also another thing about vinyl - if the distortion is mild, that may well end up becoming a user preference and a more accurate digital render may sound sterile. Nothing wrong with such a subjective preference of course, but it should be understood to be such - and the Sonos line in process will not take away this mild distortion either.

PS: I forgot to mention a fourth source that also sounds no different - via lossless rips of CDs to a local NAS and played wirelessly via Sonos. I hardly ever use this now because internet streams are now reliable and I prefer the Spotify interface to that of Sonos. And of course, since I no longer buy music, there is much on Spotify that isn’t there on my NAS. The NAS is kept serviceable, as a back up.