Hey Sonos Engineers!
I know this has been touched upon. I previously submitted this request to support and they encouraged me to share here to keep the conversation going.
Is there any chance we could implement a soft switch for line-in audio to bypass the computer for "delay disable" functionality.
I understand and appreciate the reason for the delay.
However, I'm running turntables through a mixer and into the line-in of the PLAY:5. Can't teach my son to mix records with that delay, and since we're set-up in a communal space, my wife is not too keen on bringing out the old mix monitors. Can you dig it?
Can we figure out a way to manually disable the delay on an individual speaker basis?
Otherwise love the gear!
Thanks!
Here's quote from customer support. Hope it isn't too heavy handed or out of school to post:
"I'm not on the development team, but I personally think that it wouldn't be too hard to implement some kind of soft switch to bypass the computer altogether and pipe line-in audio directly to the amplifiers (something like a computer-controlled solid state IC relay network)."
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.
Page 7 / 8
Being able to use the Play:5 as a regular, latency free powered speaker from the Line-in is an obvious use case that many people would find useful, and would improve the product. I think it would be welcome and overdue addition to the feature set.
For the sake of adding another voice in favor: I am not buying a Play:5 because of the line in latency, even though I'd love to extend Sonos to the office. I had assumed the line-in could go direct, without Sonos latency, when used as a standalone unit. Glad I searched for this first.
For me, the compact, high-quality play:5 is ideal for a medium sized home office. But not if it means having two sets of speakers occupying the space: one for the Sonos network and another to connect directly to a TV or computer. Low, direct-input latency is necessary for anything other than playing an album, like sound from a TV, messing with garageband, playing with a keyboard, amateur audio mixing, cutting a large audio file into separate parts, or even video editing home video.
Why buy a nice compact speaker for a office or bedroom when it's going to necessitate a separate wired system right next to it?
Maybe we're a small subset of users, so Sonos is unwilling to do it. That's fine -- I'm just one customer. But it's just a design/business decision. Audio equipment is normally designed for a source input to route around certain features as necessary. My main integrated amp routes sources around the equalizer by a switch. Line inputs on amps routinely route around effects features. And, of course, Sonos already allows you to set compressed or uncompressed, which in essence routes around compression. This function would just route the line input source direct to amp, skipping the network. It wouldn't take a focused effort, just implementation of a basic internal function.
One vote here for allowing Play:5 (and Connect:Amp) to operate as a standalone unit. The setting options would be: Automatic (default) Compressed (higher latency, better network), Uncompressed (lower latency, worse network), Standalone (zero latency, no network)
For me, the compact, high-quality play:5 is ideal for a medium sized home office. But not if it means having two sets of speakers occupying the space: one for the Sonos network and another to connect directly to a TV or computer. Low, direct-input latency is necessary for anything other than playing an album, like sound from a TV, messing with garageband, playing with a keyboard, amateur audio mixing, cutting a large audio file into separate parts, or even video editing home video.
Why buy a nice compact speaker for a office or bedroom when it's going to necessitate a separate wired system right next to it?
Maybe we're a small subset of users, so Sonos is unwilling to do it. That's fine -- I'm just one customer. But it's just a design/business decision. Audio equipment is normally designed for a source input to route around certain features as necessary. My main integrated amp routes sources around the equalizer by a switch. Line inputs on amps routinely route around effects features. And, of course, Sonos already allows you to set compressed or uncompressed, which in essence routes around compression. This function would just route the line input source direct to amp, skipping the network. It wouldn't take a focused effort, just implementation of a basic internal function.
One vote here for allowing Play:5 (and Connect:Amp) to operate as a standalone unit. The setting options would be: Automatic (default) Compressed (higher latency, better network), Uncompressed (lower latency, worse network), Standalone (zero latency, no network)
I see it as an "operates as designed" and ease of use issue. It isn't marketed as a stand alone computer speaker, and nobody wants to keep switching between buffered and non-buffered output according to how one is using it. It is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, and allowing it to be what it isn't is both costly in engineering and confusing to the consumer.
ETA: As ratty says, it is most certainly a hardware difference that allows the Playbar to pass audio more real-time. The Playbar uses the 5 GHz band to send audio to the Sub/surrounds in the same room. Unfortunately, the 5 GHz band was found to be unreliable outside of the Sub/Surrounds, because passing through walls and floors proved to be too much for the faster, yet weaker 5 GHz signal. Therefore, for synchronized music* which must go between rooms, Sonos has to buffer the 2.4 GHz, and thus the delay on the line-in for music.
*Note, even the TV source, which is low latency at the Playbar/Sub/surrounds, is delayed a bit when playing in other rooms due to this buffering.
ETA: As ratty says, it is most certainly a hardware difference that allows the Playbar to pass audio more real-time. The Playbar uses the 5 GHz band to send audio to the Sub/surrounds in the same room. Unfortunately, the 5 GHz band was found to be unreliable outside of the Sub/Surrounds, because passing through walls and floors proved to be too much for the faster, yet weaker 5 GHz signal. Therefore, for synchronized music* which must go between rooms, Sonos has to buffer the 2.4 GHz, and thus the delay on the line-in for music.
*Note, even the TV source, which is low latency at the Playbar/Sub/surrounds, is delayed a bit when playing in other rooms due to this buffering.
There's no 'bottleneck'. Sonos is designed as a networked music system, for which a measure of buffering is required to prevent dropouts when playing in sync across a multi-hop wireless network. In the case of PLAYBAR, it can afford a tighter buffer (30ms instead of 75ms) because it's tethered to its bonded satellites via dedicated 5GHz links.
Sonos is not designed to be computer speakers. Could the latency for standalone operation be reduced? Potentially. Would it 'take a lot of engineering'? We cannot know (and I've lost count of the number of 'it must be only a few lines of code' claims). What we can say is that, whatever the software development effort, it would require the full QA process come what may, it could risk destabilising the existing audio pipeline in the players, and it would be a significant distraction from other more lucrative feature developments. All for a use case for which Sonos is not designed.
It's a hardware that is being run by software. If I don't need it to communicate with other speakers in particular scenario, you can easily cut half of the measures that were put in the software to make it work in sync. That would reduce, if not eliminate the latency.
It reminds me of Xbox One early days when it refused to work without an active internet connection even with the single player games. Microsoft realized the issue and fixed it. Sonos just doesn't want to bother. And I can't blame them - it's all business. Just don't insist that it is theoretically impossible with the existing hardware.
Perfect if the 5 were a standalone speaker. But it is not. The delay is to allow the speaker to communicate with other speakers.
To engineer a 'direct path' for delay-sensitive content via Line-In played solely on a local device would be a significant distraction of effort for a limited use case...
But more fundamentally, Sonos have already addressed the requirement for low latency with TV sound, in the shape of the purpose-designed PLAYBAR. Modern TVs often no longer offer analog outputs anyway, only optical.
I bet if we through a vote, at least 30 to 50% of the current Play:5 owners would vote for that functionality and will use it.
I have Play:5 on my computer table. I bought Play:5 solely for the reason that it would allow me to play through Line-in, otherwise, I would get 2 Play:1s as I've already have in a living room. I planned to use it 50/50 as wireless player/computer speaker. As described above, the Sonos Manual/FAQ is not very clear on a remaining delay even after all the recommended settings adjusted.
I really don't think it would take a lot of engineering since you just have to get rid of additional protections and let it pass through as is without considering sync, latency, and other limitations. I assume it's a marketing resistance from Sonos that is concerned about a possible decline in sales of other products that are able to do that.
Finally, Playbar would look weird on the computer table, and I don't have enough space to put it there.
Does it work as advertised? - Yes!
Could it be improved without serious hassle? - For sure.
Resistance? Hardly.
First there are routinely statements to the effect that the system architecture is built around an assumption of multi-room operation. To engineer a 'direct path' for delay-sensitive content via Line-In played solely on a local device would be a significant distraction of effort for a limited use case. Moreover it has the potential to introduce regression problems in the players' existing audio pipelines.
But more fundamentally, Sonos have already addressed the requirement for low latency with TV sound, in the shape of the purpose-designed PLAYBAR. Modern TVs often no longer offer analog outputs anyway, only optical.
First there are routinely statements to the effect that the system architecture is built around an assumption of multi-room operation. To engineer a 'direct path' for delay-sensitive content via Line-In played solely on a local device would be a significant distraction of effort for a limited use case. Moreover it has the potential to introduce regression problems in the players' existing audio pipelines.
But more fundamentally, Sonos have already addressed the requirement for low latency with TV sound, in the shape of the purpose-designed PLAYBAR. Modern TVs often no longer offer analog outputs anyway, only optical.
Userlevel 1
I can't believe how much resistance there is between fellow Sonos customers.
I too bought Play 5 to listen to music in my living room and to watch TV. Little did I know I'll get the lag when watching it.
So yeah, I too would like a setting to disable the lag when I'm watching TV and not broadcasting to other speakers.
I too bought Play 5 to listen to music in my living room and to watch TV. Little did I know I'll get the lag when watching it.
So yeah, I too would like a setting to disable the lag when I'm watching TV and not broadcasting to other speakers.
I objected, and still do, to your use of the word "duped", which implies a deliberate intention to mislead. The line in is a minor point in the way the Play:5 is marketed and it is not marketed at all as a TV speaker. Given that the line-in can be used for a TV, it's natural that the line-in guide should give what helpful advice there is. "Reduce" lip sync delay clearly implies does not eliminate lip sync delay.
It remains nonsensical to claim you were duped.
It remains nonsensical to claim you were duped.
Userlevel 2
@JohnB I understand the Play speakers are largely only promoted as being for streaming music. However, if I am researching their products that include a line-in on their own support site, I would expect the "bonus for legacy audio devices" aspect to be made clear. Their official Line-In guide is here https://sonos.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1091/~/using-line-in-on-sonos#compression and specifically lists television as a legitimate reason to use uncompressed audio with line-in. For example:
[quote]Use Uncompressed if:
* You want to reduce the lip sync delay for video or a television.[\quote]
A simple disclaimer that the delay may still be noticeable even when uncompressed would be helpful. If their own guide lists TV as a viable line-in source, they can't blame me for not knowing a Playbar is the only "real" option for TV. I put a lot of time and research in before making this purchase and it's disappointing that the use of a TV (which was a big selling point) is now out of the question.
[quote]Use Uncompressed if:
* You want to reduce the lip sync delay for video or a television.[\quote]
A simple disclaimer that the delay may still be noticeable even when uncompressed would be helpful. If their own guide lists TV as a viable line-in source, they can't blame me for not knowing a Playbar is the only "real" option for TV. I put a lot of time and research in before making this purchase and it's disappointing that the use of a TV (which was a big selling point) is now out of the question.
@iamryanparker. Duped by Sonos? I'm sorry but that is a nonsensical statement. Sonos has only ever promoted one product as suitable for TV audio - the Playbar. The line-in on the P:5 is a "bonus" that allows legacy audio devices to be incorporated.
Userlevel 2
I've recently purchased several Sonos devices including a Play:1 & a Play:3 (I then upgraded to a Play:5). While I really do love the sound quality, I feel like I've been a little duped by Sonos. I got a Play:5 specifically because it added the flexibility of a line in, but only after plugging in my TV do I find out there's a noticeable delay (I have already adjusted to uncompressed audio as the guides have suggested, BTW). Is it really so much to ask for something like a "standalone" mode? I get that the delay is necessary for sending the signal out to other devices, but the speaker would not have to be streaming to other speakers on the network in this case.
I realize Sonos would likely dismiss this as being "niche" and not worth the effort. But it's really hard to commit to keeping this very expensive speaker when it is unable to perform a basic function like outputting audio without a delay. At the very least, Sonos should reconsider the wording in their official Line-In guide here: https://sonos.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1091/~/using-line-in-on-sonos#compression "A benefit of using Uncompressed is that there will be very little delay from the source and the audio." It would've been nice to know before my purchase that the "very little delay" is not quite little enough to be unnoticeable.
I found this video to be pretty accurate in demonstrating the Play:5 delay. It may not be a huge delay, but personally it's enough to make it quite unacceptable for video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvkxLnaYFYI
I realize Sonos would likely dismiss this as being "niche" and not worth the effort. But it's really hard to commit to keeping this very expensive speaker when it is unable to perform a basic function like outputting audio without a delay. At the very least, Sonos should reconsider the wording in their official Line-In guide here: https://sonos.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1091/~/using-line-in-on-sonos#compression "A benefit of using Uncompressed is that there will be very little delay from the source and the audio." It would've been nice to know before my purchase that the "very little delay" is not quite little enough to be unnoticeable.
I found this video to be pretty accurate in demonstrating the Play:5 delay. It may not be a huge delay, but personally it's enough to make it quite unacceptable for video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvkxLnaYFYI
Userlevel 2
Your point taken, John. I think there is a fine distinction in what is being requested. It is not to include every other feature under the Sun, but still maintain wired and wireless options only but broaden the market base. After all how much consumer market spread is possible unless it becomes accessible very cost effectively and internet really becomes cheap across the world, which is not the case.....
Indeed. My point was that they'd stand to lose even more business by diverting their attention away from the needs of their target market.
Sonos will certainly lose some business by not meeting this need. Just as they lose some by not supporting Bluetooth. Or Airplay. Or hires audio.
But overall the company succeeds by focusing all its efforts on being best at what it does, I.e. being a network based, multiroom, multiroom source home audio system.
You are entitled to ask for the feature you want but I can't see it ever getting near the top of the priority list.
But overall the company succeeds by focusing all its efforts on being best at what it does, I.e. being a network based, multiroom, multiroom source home audio system.
You are entitled to ask for the feature you want but I can't see it ever getting near the top of the priority list.
For the record you'd not need two subnets, just more than one Sonos system ('household'). Multiple systems can occupy a single subnet.
Userlevel 2
I have already resolved he issue of 32 devices in a local environment through two subnets in the worst case scenario, that is not a hurdle, I am already reviewing others do not worry about that
You may be missing the point.
It doesn't matter how big the potential market is for large corporate public address systems (and by the way Sonos' internal architecture imposes a limit of 32 devices per system), this simply isn't where Sonos chooses to do business. To devote any attention whatsoever to that segment would divert resources from the market space where Sonos has made its name and strives to continue to be successful.
I'm no Sonos employee but, to be blunt, in my opinion your needs simply aren't going to be addressed by Sonos. I therefore suggest you focus your search for solutions on other potential suppliers.
It doesn't matter how big the potential market is for large corporate public address systems (and by the way Sonos' internal architecture imposes a limit of 32 devices per system), this simply isn't where Sonos chooses to do business. To devote any attention whatsoever to that segment would divert resources from the market space where Sonos has made its name and strives to continue to be successful.
I'm no Sonos employee but, to be blunt, in my opinion your needs simply aren't going to be addressed by Sonos. I therefore suggest you focus your search for solutions on other potential suppliers.
Userlevel 2
Hi ratty. Thanks very much for your response. Considering the price range of Sonos 5 I can assure you there is a reasonable market in countries like Australia and potentially very large market in India. I have a huge potential of 40 to 50 speaker system currently I am working on. I am sure there is a very large corporate segment where it can be implemented cost effectively.
A fully wired network with guaranteed bandwidth provision could in theory provide low and predictable latency. However Sonos is designed as a wireless system, where fading and interference can periodically push up latency quite substantially.
Reducing the buffering to a very low level for public address applications over a dedicated wired network could of course be an option, but it's not Sonos' market at all. In fact Line-In is to some degree a nice-to-have for connecting legacy audio kit (turntables, CD, a phone's 3.5mm, etc.). Sonos' market focus was recently restated as being primarily on online music services (Spotify, Deezer, Apple et al), and voice control.
And before anyone chips in with the 'well, it would only be a software tweak' observation I have two words: Opportunity Cost. 😉
Reducing the buffering to a very low level for public address applications over a dedicated wired network could of course be an option, but it's not Sonos' market at all. In fact Line-In is to some degree a nice-to-have for connecting legacy audio kit (turntables, CD, a phone's 3.5mm, etc.). Sonos' market focus was recently restated as being primarily on online music services (Spotify, Deezer, Apple et al), and voice control.
And before anyone chips in with the 'well, it would only be a software tweak' observation I have two words: Opportunity Cost. 😉
Userlevel 2
Thank you for your response Ratty. I am not sure if you are a designer but what is being suggested is only an option. Further it is strictly on a closed LAN environment which does not touch the internet and normal delays without traffic is much less than 1 msec consistently end to end so I am not sure what ping times you are referring to. As I said earlier there are ip audio suppliers who are already providing such systems in collaboration with Allen Heath, Bose, AEQ, AKG, Amadeus, Ashly, Behringer, etc., etc.,......
Sonos is not suitable for such situations, and is not designed for them. The 5ms latency you seek is of the order of the PING time in an uncongested network. Any kind of sustainable audio delivery will require a certain amount of buffering at the receiver end, to ride out variations in packet arrival times. 70ms is a sensible compromise, allowing for several wireless hops in what is, after all, intended to be a multi-room wireless home audio system.
Userlevel 2
I wanted to purchase a reasonable number of Sonos 5 speakers in a real time audio environment. The live music was strictly in a local environment and not dependent on the vagaries of internet and strictly hard wired with 1 gbps Layer 3 Ip switch ports on a private LAN environment. I am really not sure if the current code can still be maintained with an option to opt out for direct connect scenarios to reduce the delay from over 70 msec to around 5 msec. By Sonos being rigid in their approach, it is likely that Sonos will lose large chunk of business which may be up for grabs and it may go to other solution providers which are available in the market place which are as cost effective and give better audio experience. One of them is a Dante solution.
Userlevel 3
Nobody wants it to "sync with other devices" -- we just want it to OPTIONALLY play without a delay. Sheesh. The Airport device I have connected to it is already doing the sync-ing with the other Apple Products.
Sonos specifically markets to guys like me who use Apple Products -- co-branding with Apple Music, instructions for how to connect an Airport Express etc. etc.
Anyway, this thread was originally started to express the desire to do this. You're not really a part of this. 😉
Sonos specifically markets to guys like me who use Apple Products -- co-branding with Apple Music, instructions for how to connect an Airport Express etc. etc.
Anyway, this thread was originally started to express the desire to do this. You're not really a part of this. 😉
Page 7 / 8
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.