I just got my first pair of Sonos units - two Play:3's for the kitchen and bedroom and I absolutely love them. I'm not a huge audiophile, but the convenience and total plug 'n play nature of Sonos is what attracted me to it.
Of course the next thing that occured to me was how to get this connected up to my stereo.
What I don't understand is why the basic Connect is $349 while the Play:3 units are $299 each. I mean if anything it seems like a Connect is just a Play:3 without the speakers and amp? Why does it cost so much more for fewer features? Seems like the guts of the connect should be a $99 unit - I meant he appleTV is $99, and it does way more (At least in terms of technological capability - video/etc) than the connect.
To be honest I've been drooling over Sonos for years - and I know the quality is very high, but the expense of the units has always put me off. It wasn't until the Play:3 that I felt like there was enough bang-for-the-buck to justify diving in... I'm probably going to get at least 2 or 3 more Play:3's for elsewhere in the house, but it's going to be hard to justify the Connect until the price comes down further. It's still cheaper to just put a Play:3 in the same room as my stereo - it's small and powerful enough to just sit near my existing speakers.
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 4 / 8
What has Apple added to Airplay audio tech in the last 2 years? Nothing that I know of.
Your other points are well taken, although I don't see how you see it to be enormously less expensive. The play units aren't a lot more expensive than airplay enabled units of similar sound quality.
As reported in several threads, when you link the connect to any modern A/V receiver (which is exactly what is supposed to do), it messes up all the sync the Sonos system brags about.
That is, if your using the connect with an A/V receiver connected to speakers AND you are using Play 3/5 speakers, your music will simply be out of sync, because the A/V receiver introduces processing and the sonos system does not have a very simple feature such as establishing an x amount of delay before the music is sent to the Play speakers.
While there is a lot of hot air in this thread, coming from all quarters, this is an important point. Thanks for pointing it out.
It is may be a well understood point, but I wouldn't have thought of it.
I have several Connects, which are connected to great, but aging amps. I would have been seriously bummed if I had bought home a new receiver, then found it smudged up synch.
I pretty much agree that Sonos should have some fine print to go with the Connect device. I haven't been shopping for an amp recently, but if it is fact that many of the amps being sold today have this delay, then Sonos should attend to their claims with regard to the Connect.
ie.'"Play the same song in different rooms, simultaneously, without echoes or delays. Add or drop rooms from your rooms grouping and still be in sync."
http://www.sonos.com/shop/products/connect
There should be an asterisk on that claim on the Connect product page IMO.
Userlevel 1
No offence but I had a feeling you didn't know what you were talking about either...
Userlevel 1
I wish you'd make your mind up...
Userlevel 1
AV amps or stereo amps? If it's the latter you aren't likely to have any issues.
I wasn't thrilled with the price, but that the time I purchased (years ago), I didn't care. Still think they are kind of high, but as someone early on mentioned, they are the only game in town.
Plus, Sonos was able to give me what I'd wanted at the time for years... a way to play my extensive music collection throughout my entire house. For that, Sonos is priceless.
Plus, Sonos was able to give me what I'd wanted at the time for years... a way to play my extensive music collection throughout my entire house. For that, Sonos is priceless.
As I said it has been a while since I shopped for these, so up until now I didn't really know there was a difference. I will pay a lot of attention if I need to replace anything.
It's pretty straightforward, if you bring in virtually any modern A/V multichannel receiver, delay will be added and sync with the Plays will be lost. A "typical" amp is used for hi-fi reproduction and typically is used to power two high quality and powerful speakers, left and right. It's "classic hi-fi" stereo. A/V receivers are the typical home theater hub which can power 5.1, 7.1, 9.1 speakers and can be used not only as a "classic" amp but as an hub for different sources (i.e. you connect to it the cable TV receiver, you Sonos, your BRay, etc., and for each of the sources you choose which sound program to go: for instance, for the Sonos i have it set-up so it plays the music -which is stereo- across all five channels + the sub).
It's just maths, if the A/V has processing going in, delay is unavoidable.
If you use it in "straight" mode it will be using "only" the 2 L/R speakers in "true hi-fi mode" (forget about subs and all the rest), but delay gets greatly reduced, depending on the various amps.
Again, you could be perfectly fine with it as well as being totally bummed with it.
I am bummed as i moved from having 500W of speaker power + Sub to 200W of speakers and no sub - if i want to use the Play as well, which i stopped doing.
Your other points are well taken, although I don't see how you see it to be enormously less expensive. The play units aren't a lot more expensive than airplay enabled units of similar sound quality.
By Apple adding i mean that Airplay is developing more and more and becoming a standard across virtually all music and video related devices. It's the "App Store" effect. Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and progressively achieving what before was an exclusive of Sonos and the likes users. Think at what happened with the Sonos controller and the iPad with the Sonos -wonderful- app and talk me about value for money.
A quality A/V receiver which powers 5.1 speakers, has HDMI inputs, etc. etc. etc. can cost around 400$ and is Airplay enabled. That is, you stream your music to it for 400$.
If you want to stream your music to the same receiver with Sonos you need to add 350$ for the Connect.
That's almost double the money, i call it a pretty significant difference.
If you want to stream your music to the same receiver with Sonos you need to add 350$ for the Connect.
That's almost double the money, i call it a pretty significant difference.
Seen that way, I'd have to agree.
But the Connect does allow you to create a system that can stream different music from the same source, at the same time, to different rooms over a more robust Sonosnet, neither of which AirPlay can do. And of course for now both have the problem with the delay you refer to.
I also believe that Sonos lacks and therefore needs serious competition to keep them honest. At the moment, AirPlay doesn't fit that bill.
Userlevel 1
We clearly have different standards of "quality"...
Clearly if you are part of the guys that think that an amplifier needs to cost 3k+ to be a quality one, you should avoid using Sonos components: the quality of an audio signal is equal to the quality achieved in the worst component in the signal chain. Or perhaps you want to tell me that Sonos components are up-to-par with the so-called hi-fi standards of people spending 100$ a meter for a cable?
But that's another story.
Since Sonos digital output is, with Fixed Volume, bit perfect to the source a Sonos Connect is quite the equal of top notch DACs and amplification. In fact with a secure rip to lossless it's most probably better than any CD player, which by definition must do error correction in real time.
Ratty...i totally agree, i was just pointing out that saying that a $400 amplifier is by definition not a quality amplifier implies loads of assumptions which are very 1980s and proven irrelevant for 99,9% of the population who does not have Mozart's ear and properly acoustic treated listening rooms (alongside with 10ks of hi-fi equipment).
Apologize for the off topic in this sense, to me Sonos audio and component quality are more than fine to be clear.
+5
@mods
isn't time to make a new thread of this? The opening post was about the pricing of the connect
versus the play, but soon it changed into a discussion about the sync issue.
Both legitimate discussions, but for clarity I prefer two threads for this.
isn't time to make a new thread of this? The opening post was about the pricing of the connect
versus the play, but soon it changed into a discussion about the sync issue.
Both legitimate discussions, but for clarity I prefer two threads for this.
Userlevel 1
$400 to $3k+, that's a real big gap, no, you don't need to spend $3k+ but you'll see definite improvements going to $1k (for example).
But that's irrelevant anyway, if you cared about sound quality at all, you wouldn't be using an AV amp for music in the first place.
But that's irrelevant anyway, if you cared about sound quality at all, you wouldn't be using an AV amp for music in the first place.
True. Anyone who prefers a surround DSP instead of direct mode for a 2-channel signal is not really interested in sound quality, they are interested in using as many speakers as possible. This is fine if one likes simulated surround over stereo, but one should not mix this opinion into a 'purist' discussion of sound/amplifier quality.
As someone that uses a 2 channel amp for the HT as well, in order to drive 2 good speakers for the same price of 5 ordinary ones, I am still not sure I agree. Yes, given the extra hardware in the AV amp, one would need to spend up to twice as much to get the same quality as from an equivalent 2 channel amp. And of course, likewise for the speakers. But if one did that, there may be merit in surround sound audio? Even for music recorded in 2 channel stereo as almost all pure audio is?
PS: This is now way off topic....:o
PS: This is now way off topic....:o
My point wasn't about price, my point was about preferring the simulated DSP surround modes over 2.0. Any purist who is serious about sound quality would never listen in anything but 2.0 stereo. Heck, I'm no purist, but I don't use DSP's. Matter of fact, I still listen to the mono track on older movies, even if they've been remixed to 5.1.
Secondly, the "direct" mode simply reduces the delay, while having the "little" drawback that you seem to forget that if you have, say a 5.1 or 7.1 system connected to your A/V receiver with the direct mode on you are left with a pure 2.0 speaker set. Wow, what a party.
I took the liberty to read the manual of two surround receivers in the normal price range, both the NAD T 748 and the Onkyo TX-NR515B actually have "Direct stereo mode". This is still the standard!
From the NADs manual:
The analog or digital sources are automatically played in their native formats. All the source’s audio channels are reproduced directly.
Stop your shenanigans!
You probably prefer the old movies in black and white too (I do).
Anyway, DSP or not, is about the same as seasoning on food. I have a friend who is into major seasoning while I am a minimalist. With my cooking there is a medley of individual flavors. With her cooking there are a few strong seasonings, but not much food taste. These seasonings can be interesting because they might kick in at different stages, but I prefer subtle. Naturally, she does not like my (bland) cooking.
There seem to be two camps in the audio world. The purist views the track as a work of art that should not be violated. The other group feels that the recording engineer has no artistic sense and one needs equalizers and DSP processing to undo the damage done in the control room.
Audio wise I tend to be a purist, but one could view the DSP modes as a way of translating one acoustic space into another.
Occasionally, I'll encounter a recording that I think is a little too "dry" (close miked, no reverb) and a gentle application of some DSP can help. But my application will probably be too subtle for most. After I get my hands on a surround system, the user will typically remark: "the rear speakers are not working". They are working, of course, but they are not constantly grumbling. Legitimate effects will come through nicely.
---
An interesting figure of merit is to divide the retail cost of an A/V receiver by the number of amplifier channels. Of course, this does not account for the DSP, but it is a quick and dirty way of dropping the amplifiers into a class of product category.
A cooking thread!!! Anyone interested in talking about garlic??? :D
Great analogies and post. Proves the theory that music (and everything related to it, including Sonos) is subjective.
Great analogies and post. Proves the theory that music (and everything related to it, including Sonos) is subjective.
Still not seen any justifiable explanation regarding the overpricing of the Connect when compared to the Play3/5s. Especially when Bridges are now (pretty standardly) bundled with Plays.
This makes the Connect appear to have gone from Overpriced to Rip Off.
This makes the Connect appear to have gone from Overpriced to Rip Off.
This makes the Connect appear to have gone from Overpriced to Rip Off.
Cost of manufacture has very little to do with the final pricing of luxury items. Squeezebox charged $2000 for their Transport, and the electronics weren't that much different than their lower priced units. It's all in what the market will bear.
You're surely not comparing a Bridge with a Connect? (I ask, because people have.)
The former is basically a link-layer bridge between wired and wireless. The latter is a fully equipped multi-room-sync streamer.
Page 4 / 8
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.