Power consumption - Power off / Deep Standby Request

The instant of power-up is one of the most stressful events in a unit’s life. After a certain number of cycles the unit will fail. Implied with the power-up is a temperature cycle, starting at ambient, rising to operating temperature, then back down to ambient after power-down. Deeper temperature cycles are more stressful. Power-up for months or years is a single cycle.

Don't expect a manufacturer to publish any data about this. My strategy for all electronics has been to power-up when needed and keep the unit powered for the remainder of the day, rather than cycling as I move from room to room. This minimizes the number of cycles. Over the years this has served me well.

@buzz, @Stanley_4 

Thanks for explaining, makes sense. My case is similar to buzz. Some rooms may remain off for days or weeks. Others are turned on more regularly, a few times a week. If they are needed again on the same day, power usually stays on. I guess no more then 300 on/off cycles per year. My very first Play 5 is 12 years old. Still works. So I'm rather concerned that it's no longer supported by S2. Before devices die of temperature issues, Sonos will probably retire the hardware.

I noticed that power consumption in standby is only slightly lower than in operation. Temperature will probably be fairly constant if you leave it plugged. I doubt though, that lifespan due to on/off is a concern for the Sonos ppl. Since battery speakers implement automatic power off (have to).

Most Sonos users I talked to, including you, have some kind of workaround for 'Power-Off'. Dumb Plug, Smart Plug... Considering high standby consumption, hassle for reconfigurating grouping/volume/playlist after power up, I think it's unworthy for the market leader's products. Lots of use cases obviously, but we have to live with such a crutch. Understand their point, they also want instant response. But it's not necessary in all situations. Why not make power-off (deep standby) an option with some more comfort, and leave it to the users. I guess there's no official answer, but I hope they consider some solution for the future.

Technology marches forward. Functions that were at the edge of imagination a few years ago are now a given.

Consider the original IBM PC with it’s 4.77 MHz processor, 160K floppy drive, 64KB RAM, and simple serial port -- costing a few thousand dollars. Compare this to a $15.00 Raspberry Pi Zero. True, you need to add a cheap power supply for the Pi and the PC was bundled with a case, monitor and keyboard, but many of us now have these things in our junk box. 

But, that expensive PC is virtually useless at this point. Sadly, that PLAY:5 will fade into memory at some point. Yes, I know that a few audio systems from the 70’s and maybe older have survived (the units that have not survived are cluttering our landfills), but where is their HDMI port and network connection? Do they have a remote control?

I suspect there is a constant frisson in the engineering department and other parts of Sonos with regards to how ‘robust’ parts need to be. In order to make sales, the pressure would be to keep prices down, and use less expensive components. Pennies matter when you’re dealing with volume production.
 

Engineering, of course, wants the best, so the device stands up to the rigors of time, power cycles, etc. And I suspect there’s always learning to be done. I wouldn’t have thought that the BRIDGE’s power supply to have been as significant source of failure, for instance. Or the lack of memory in the CR100/200 remotes…

@Airgetlam, I had to google CR100/100. I was not aware of any remotes all those years. :) I use phone and Ipad. Has it been discarded, not available in the store?

Other then a couple of setup issues, I’ve never experienced serious problems with sonos itself. More Issues with IFTTT for Sonos recently. Not very stable. My perception of Sonos always has been high end quality, for a serious price though. I’d support the engeneers. I’d rather pay more for the best quality, including low power technology. Saves money anyway in the long run.

It would work the same WiFi as wired, you have to have the receiving device, be it Ethernet or the radio, powered and listening for the magic packet.

Of course there is a minimum power draw, first from the required power supply to keep the necessary electronics awake, then the Ethernet port and radio receiver to acquire the packet and last the circuitry to recognize the packet and power up the rest of the electronics.

Looks to be working for folks other than Sonos.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000027615/intel-nuc.html

I think there were several issues with the CRx00 line of remotes. Battery issues, screen (LCD) issues, memory size and CPU speed issues, such that any that still remain are stuck on S1. They certainly haven’t been sold by Sonos for a long time. 

I’ll admit I never felt the need to own one, it was always more convenient to use my iPhone. 

Makes sense, I would love that. But it won't redeem us veterans from the workaround with the smart/dumb plugs anyway. I don’t anticipate I will like to replace all my expensive sonos with new hardware anytime soon.

I’d like to emphasize this one request again. Which may be feasible for existing hardware by some  minor changes in firmware architecture - idk:The use case of my parents:

Their sonos system is set up with grouped speakers and favorites for each room. To be operated with device’s pause-button. They (almost) never change it. When speakers are powered off (either on purpose by a switch to save energy, or by some kind of power outage), favorite channel and grouping is lost. You need the app in order to configure it again, which is annoying.

Why not save that setting and restore it after power up?

True. It may rather be a policy, not so much a technical issue. My guess, most users are not aware how much it costs them. Especially here with german energy prices. I think 1W idle consumption would make it unreasonable to power-off with some switch solution. Depends on particular use case of course.

6.3 W is a lot. I have an older playbar, which consumes a little less. In most rooms we have pairs of ONEs or some older Play 1. 3W each, 6W per room. Far too much for doing nothing most of the time.

With rising energy prices here (€ 0.45), I roughly calculate 12 €/year for each 3 Watts-speaker. We have a collecion of 24. Everyone I talk to, powers-off with some kind of switch. If that’s not Sonos policy, they ignore reality of their users.

This is how I justified a purchase of an Era-100 to replace two P1s + Amazon Echo (9.5w total standby, according to vendors websites) vs Era-100 (1.86w). The electricity saved over expected life span will pay for the up front cost 😀

Sonos will officially say their products are designed (from a function point of view) to be left on all the time, but modern well designed electronic devices can go through 100’s or 1000’s of power cycles. If they fail, probability says they will fail in early life (in warranty) or end of life, I recall some bath tub graph.

Apply some common sense, if you have a room that is ‘in standby’ (doing nothing most of the time), eg guest room, power down unused equipment. A Soundbar that is used on the main TV daily, keep it on standby.

@106rallye thanks for the link. Below 2 Watts is an improvement. They are aware of that problem. obviously. I’d still consider to switch off a stereo pair e.g. in guest room or basement though, Certainly depends on frequency of use.

@craigski Era 100/300 replace former ONE and FIVE. I have a bunch of ONEs, I’ll probably want the latest toy at some point. As of now I’m still super happy though. I suspect you also didn’t throw your P1s on the trash. That’s what happend to my P1s a few years ago, I upgraded the systems upstairs, and found a spot for the P1s elsewhere. Still perfect stereo sound - no complaints - e.g. in the sauna. It’s not often used, makes no sense to leave them on standby.

What usually happens with a dumb switch, you go downstairs in a bathrobe, switch it on. But phone is upstairs. Waiting for booting, get your phone, play around with app and set it up is annoying.

I guess this is pretty common szenario for the users: You power up, and want it to play with recent setup after ~90 seconds of booting. I’d think, technically this should be well feasible with existing hardware.