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 7 / 8
Userlevel 1
New entrants like the Bluesound Node you mean?
They are one of many entering this popular market but their strategy is to be a more audiophile alternative, which it certainly is. I am hoping more for big players to get in along the lines of how even Apple had to reduce the price of the ATV to stay competitive in the video streaming market.
When Sonos feel the need to reduce margins to stay competitive they will doubtless do so. That day has yet to dawn. (They must have amortized CONNECT hardware development long ago so presumably have some leeway.)
Interesting to raise Apple as an example though, since if there was a single phrase which sprang to mind when considering, say, the iPhone it would surely be 'premium pricing'...
Agree and agree.
The Connect pricing is a Sonos philosophy based on end use. And when used to bring a multiple thousand dollar high end 2 channel sound system on to a unified Sonos platform, the price doesn't stick in the throat for the additional value that can then be extracted from said audio system. That said, many users in this category are suspicious of its credentials because it is too cheap!
On the other hand, for use like allowing a play 1 or 3 pair to get line in signals from TV or other device, compared to a play 5 unit that has the necessary socket, the price is out of whack.
The latter use/requirement is probably small in size compared to the former.
On the other hand, for use like allowing a play 1 or 3 pair to get line in signals from TV or other device, compared to a play 5 unit that has the necessary socket, the price is out of whack.
The latter use/requirement is probably small in size compared to the former.
TOTALY AGREE!!! they are just charging more because they can and I am not buying one at that price. I have appletvs everywhere and will stay with that until the price drops.
clickner,
Typically, users replace their stereo system with SONOS. CONNECT offers a way to add SONOS functionality to an existing stereo system.
It's a numbers game. On a practical level, the CONNECT is an older design and not a huge seller. It is possible that a newer design, using newer, more complex parts could be less expensive, but the cost of redesign spread over a relatively few units would probably negate the per unit savings.
Typically, users replace their stereo system with SONOS. CONNECT offers a way to add SONOS functionality to an existing stereo system.
It's a numbers game. On a practical level, the CONNECT is an older design and not a huge seller. It is possible that a newer design, using newer, more complex parts could be less expensive, but the cost of redesign spread over a relatively few units would probably negate the per unit savings.
I wouldn't say that typically they replace their stereo with sonos. That would be dumb!! Why would I replace thousands of dollars with that stuff? They have the technology in the play system just drop the crap amp and speaker put a digital out and let me run it through my DAC. Don't even need to put a DAC in it. Then maybe I would buy some of their speaker stuff for rooms I don't care about the quality. They are a software company that locks their software to expensive hardware. Just because I paid for nice audio equipment does not mean I need to overpay for their stuff. I will stick to appletv and today it looks like Apple is coming out with a new one.
Clickner, you're in a minority, most people do not have "thousands of dollars" worth of stereo equipment (especially in the US), they have cheap, crappy systems that they will happily replace with Sonos devices.
Incidentally the amp and speakers in the play:1s is far from crap and that attitude alone speaks volumes about you. You're an audiophile snob, which makes your cheapness all the more surprising, usually people that think like you dismiss the Connect as being too cheap, you'd be better off with a bluesound node, reassuringly expensive...
Incidentally the amp and speakers in the play:1s is far from crap and that attitude alone speaks volumes about you. You're an audiophile snob, which makes your cheapness all the more surprising, usually people that think like you dismiss the Connect as being too cheap, you'd be better off with a bluesound node, reassuringly expensive...
Ha!! The LHC!!! I never said that they shouldn't make the play stuff I think they have a great product for those that don't have anything. I am just saying that ones that do have a stereo shouldn't be "taxed" because of it. If the technology is there with an amp and speaker for. $199 why do I have to pay $350 for just half of the play:1 product?
Because, to reiterate a point made a number of times in this evergreen thread, there's a difference between cost and price.
Sonos will charge what they can for CONNECT (and ZP80 before it) because of the tangible benefit it offers the consumer, and his/her willingness to pay for that. The purchasing decision of someone Sonos-enabling "thousands of dollars" worth of audio kit is hardly likely to be affected by $100 either way.
But, hey, if you're happy with AppleTV then stick with it. IMO you get what you pay for,
Sonos will charge what they can for CONNECT (and ZP80 before it) because of the tangible benefit it offers the consumer, and his/her willingness to pay for that. The purchasing decision of someone Sonos-enabling "thousands of dollars" worth of audio kit is hardly likely to be affected by $100 either way.
But, hey, if you're happy with AppleTV then stick with it. IMO you get what you pay for,
Ratty what do I get from sonos that I can't get from appletv?
I suggest you do a bit of basic research. How about starting with multi-room sync. And 60+ music services. Not to mention the other Sonos Player models apart from CONNECT.
Okay, if all you care about is a single un-amplified streaming device and Apple services then maybe ATV is for you.
Okay, if all you care about is a single un-amplified streaming device and Apple services then maybe ATV is for you.
I stream anything you can with sonos to multi room with my appletvs. And are all in sync. I am looking for specifics ratty.
So ... you already have ATVs, and you're quite happy with their service support and the "sync" they offer. And you just joined this board to throw rocks.
Okay, I'm done. I've been here long enough to recognise the pattern...
Okay, I'm done. I've been here long enough to recognise the pattern...
No I am always looking to try something new but trying to wrap my head around why it's so much more. Not going to adopt something new if it's 3.5 times my current setup
No spacifics Ratty? Anyone else? Is there a reason for me to try something new. Really want to know.
He already gave specifics, you can't be this obtuse. But I will add more:
Mesh architecture that is 10x more reliable than standard WiFi,
A choice of components ranging from the small Play:1 to the Play:5, Sub, Playbar, Connects, etc.
The most music services of any multi-room streamer.
Line-in input on the Connects and Play:5.
Those are just some of the differences. There are many more, but if you want to keep insisting that Apple TV gives the same experience as Sonos, then there will be no convincing you, and you are indeed only here to throw rocks.
Jgatle no I didn't see any spacifics that I can't do with an appletv. You say it streams more but what are those services? I have any streaming service out there and to all my devices at the same time with no down time. I really was looking for a reason to try something else before purchasing the new appletv announced today but no one seams to give me spacifics.
I give up! Putting aside the fact that you could look up on this very site what music services are supported, what is not "specific" about a mesh architecture, having many more speaker/component options as opposed to a single unamplified box, and having a line-in option so you can connect other sources? You may not be looking for those features/options, but they are most certainly "specific" differences between Sonos and Apple TV. Big, honking differences at that!
Userlevel 7
+26
We usually try not to get involved in these sorts of discussions on why to buy Sonos versus a competitor, obviously I'll have my preferences. Just like the pricing of products, there's a lot you get for the price on the CONNECT. We think it's the right price, but we recognize some people may disagree, and that's ok.
One major feature Sonos has included in our multi-room support is the way we handle control. In most cases, you aren't sending a song to your players from your controller. The Sonos software is more like a remote control, it sends a signal and the players take it from there.
Using any controller, iOS, Android, or desktop, you can tell any of your rooms, in any combination to play any of your audio sources. For example, you can stream 3 different songs from Spotify to 3 different rooms, all using your iPhone. You can group some rooms, and not others, have 3 players playing one song, 2 players another, and a third a radio station.
Every Sonos controller you're using can change what's on in any room, at any time.
Just a more general comment here, I know this sort of discussion can get heated, but please remember our terms of use on the community here, let's try to respect everyone here. Personal attacks are not allowed, disagreeing with statements and comments is perfectly fine. Thanks.
One major feature Sonos has included in our multi-room support is the way we handle control. In most cases, you aren't sending a song to your players from your controller. The Sonos software is more like a remote control, it sends a signal and the players take it from there.
Using any controller, iOS, Android, or desktop, you can tell any of your rooms, in any combination to play any of your audio sources. For example, you can stream 3 different songs from Spotify to 3 different rooms, all using your iPhone. You can group some rooms, and not others, have 3 players playing one song, 2 players another, and a third a radio station.
Every Sonos controller you're using can change what's on in any room, at any time.
Just a more general comment here, I know this sort of discussion can get heated, but please remember our terms of use on the community here, let's try to respect everyone here. Personal attacks are not allowed, disagreeing with statements and comments is perfectly fine. Thanks.
Thank you Ryan!!! Those are specifics, I cannot play multiply things to different rooms from one source, have to another source into the mix at that point. Is that enough of a reason to switch that is something I would have to look at. Ryan can you answer the original question about if the play:1 is $199 why can't you pull out the amp and speaker and put in a digital output and sell for around $100 to$150? it just seams the "audiophile" gets taxed because they spent so much on their system already.
jgatie: I know there are differences I was asking for specific things the sonos could do that I could not do with an Apple TV.
jgatie: I know there are differences I was asking for specific things the sonos could do that I could not do with an Apple TV.
Userlevel 7
+26
As I said above, we tend not to go into specifics for pricing of products. In the case of the CONNECT, it's a very different product from the PLAY:1. In some cases they can do similar things, but the hardware is almost completely different. The CONNECT has a lot to offer, including an analog line-in, three different audio outputs all active at the same time, an extra Ethernet connection, and more. We don't have any plans now to change the pricing of components but we'll be sure to let everyone know if that changes at some time in the future.
jgatie: I know there are differences I was asking for specific things the sonos could do that I could not do with an Apple TV.
Different music in different rooms at the same time is one such. And you can have a dedicated to audio wifi set up only with Sonos.
I agree the Connect is too much. I decided to get the Google Chromecast Audio for my main stereo. $35 (USD), $45 (CAD). No brainer.
Page 7 / 8
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.