Skip to main content
Contributor I
February 27, 2026

Feature Request - Negative delay for Sonos Port

  • February 27, 2026
  • 37 replies
  • 381 views

The Sonos Port is designed to be connected to external audio devices, it is the sole purpose of this device. Those external audio devices are likely to add latency due to audio processing. It makes no sense to expect users to remove audio processing just to have the port be able to almost be in sync with other sonos devices in the house.  To resolve this, the sonos port should have negative delay.  

 

This is how I believe it should work. Obviously adding negative (future) delay is impossible. When a Sonos Port is configured with a negative delay of say 60ms, and it is joined into a group with other Sonos devices, the OTHER devices should have a positive delay of 60ms added to them, which would allow the port to be in sync with the entire group.  When the Sonos Port is removed from the group, they would remove that added positive delay.

 

I know this has been discussed in other topics which are all closed now, but this device really takes a hit when it can’t function with a good chunk of AVRs on the market without removing processing features from those AVRs. 

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.

37 replies

106rallye
February 27, 2026

I believe Sonos is about sound, so removing any (extra) processing an amp would do is superfluous.

Having said that, what is your use case? I believe you want to have your amp, connected to a Port, play in sync with other Sonos devices? How would setting a hard “negative delay” work, when the time taken to process the sound might be different from amp to amp and between settings on what processing you think is necessary?

buzz
February 27, 2026

I assume that you are discussing the SONOS Line-In latency. Eliminating this latency would risk audio interruptions due to small network delays resulting from wireless interference or heavy traffic. The latency allows SONOS to ride through relatively minor issues without interrupting the audio.

jgatie
February 27, 2026

I believe the OP is talking about the delay added by some receivers due to DSP processing of the incoming signal from the Port.  The request, I assume, is to be able to apply a delay to all other Sonos devices in a group, so they will be in sync with the Port output + DSP delay of the receiver.  If this is so, it poses some logistical questions:

So what happens to the sound when the Port is added/removed from a group?  Should the other speakers in the group go from their standard delay to a longer delayed buffer, thus causing a dropoff in sound, in order to accommodate the newly added Port’s downstream delays?  Similarly, when the Port is removed, should the track skip ahead to eliminate the delay which was added for the Port? 

Also, the delay effect for downstream receivers can vary according to the amount of processing required for each DSP being applied.  How do you compensate for the difference between passthrough/”True Stereo” type limited processing and something which requires a more significant delay? 

PhAzEAuthor
Contributor I
February 27, 2026

So, lets say I have 3 sonos devices, one of which is a sonos port connected to an AMP, and the AMP plays the audio through a 5.1 surround sound system.  The AMP will add a delay for the processing (to clean up sound and split amongst the speaker array, etc). 

 

When the Sonos Port is part of an audio group with the other 2 devices, the Port will sound out of sync due to the delay coming from the AMP.  The way I see this working, is in the settings for the Sonos Port, a new option would be added for output delay compensation (aka negative delay).  A user would then be able to adjust the slider up as needed to add ‘negative delay’ to the settings for the Port.

 

When the Port joins a group (or is removed from the group) this delay value needs to be registered to the group, and the other speakers in that groups should apply that added delay to each speaker. So in this scenario.  So lets say the user has manually configured this new “output delay compensation” value to 60ms.  When the Sonot Port joins a group with two other speakers, both of those speakers would automaticaaly add on 60ms delay to themselves.  Now those two speakers and the output from the AMP would be in sync.  Since an AMPs delay would be a static amount, the user really only needs to configure this setting on the port one time.

jgatie
February 27, 2026

So you are proposing a group inserts a skip into the stream when a Port is added to a group?   

And how long do you think it will take before this forum is screaming about their music skipping whenever they add in the Port?  I’ve got news for you, it won’t be long.  

Either way, as you stated this has been requested for a long, long, time.  It has never been implemented, more than likely for the problems stated very clearly here and in those long closed threads (incidentally, threads are closed after a period of inactivity, regardless of the subject).  I would not expect things to change on this issue. 

PhAzEAuthor
Contributor I
February 27, 2026

I believe the OP is talking about the delay added by some receivers due to DSP processing of the incoming signal from the Port.  The request, I assume, is to be able to apply a delay to all other Sonos devices in a group, so they will be in sync with the Port output + DSP delay of the receiver.  If this is so, it poses some logistical questions:

So what happens to the sound when the Port is added/removed from a group?  Should the other speakers in the group go from their standard delay to a longer delayed buffer, thus causing a dropoff in sound, in order to accommodate the newly added Port’s downstream delays?  Similarly, when the Port is removed, should the track skip ahead to eliminate the delay which was added for the Port? 

Also, the delay effect for downstream receivers can vary according to the amount of processing required for each DSP being applied.  How do you compensate for the difference between passthrough/”True Stereo” type limited processing and something which requires a more significant delay? 

Yes, if a user has configured a delay compensation (negative delay) value on the Sonos Port, the other speakers in the group would have a slight pause when the Port joins the group when they increase their output delay.  And they would also slightly skip ahead when the Sonos Port is removed from the group and that delay is removed. Keep in mind, this would only happen when the Port is added/removed from the group.

Currently, my Port changes the receiver automatically to it’s “sonos” input when audio is detected, and that is always set to whatever setting. I do not think users would be flipping between DSP modes regularly once they have this configured. If they change it, and the DSP delay changes, they woul dneed to update the slider on the Port’s settings (the new setting I mentioned) to accomodate their change.

PhAzEAuthor
Contributor I
February 27, 2026

So you are proposing a group inserts a skip into the stream when a Port is added to a group?   

And how long do you think it will take before this forum is screaming about their music skipping whenever they add in the Port?  I’ve got news for you, it won’t be long.  

Either way, as you stated this has been requested for a long, long, time.  It has never been implemented, more than likely for the problems stated very clearly here and in those long closed thread (incidentally, threads are closed after a period of inactivity, regardless of the subject).  I would not expect things to change on this issue. 

A slight skip would only occur if a negative delay was added. Users who don’t have a need for this delay would not experience any skip in sound. Also, under the setting, adding in a one line message that outlines this if the setting is used, would be all that’s needed. Users would be aware of what they are adding if they adjust that setting.

Stanley_4
Grand Maestro
February 27, 2026

Interesting idea, not sure how big the target audience is though.

Given my experience with a couple different AVRs you would need a programmable delay interval and maybe need to change it, not only for different AVRs but if your music processing modes/settings change on a single one. 

jgatie
February 27, 2026

A slight skip would only occur if a negative delay was added. Users who don’t have a need for this delay would not experience any skip in sound. Also, under the setting, adding in a one line message that outlines this if the setting is used, would be all that’s needed. Users would be aware of what they are adding if they adjust that setting.

 

All things which have been proposed before, for this and other “make an exception for XYZ functionality” issues, like the request to eliminate the Line-In delay when used on a single device.  Suffice to say that Sonos is not a big fan of these types of exceptions, given these “problems” have never been addressed.  Interrupting the smooth transition from a grouped to an ungrouped state (or vice versa) seems to be a big taboo, given the importance of grouping as a function of Sonos’ core multi-room capabilities. 

PhAzEAuthor
Contributor I
February 27, 2026

Well, the target audience would basically be Sonos customers who also have an AVR in their living room and want to utilize those existing speakers as part of their Sonos environment.  I imagine the amount of users using an AVR is not tiny.

 

So looking at this from an ROI perspective, you have a decent number of potential users who would likely utilize this use case. I know when I search google about the port, you see a number of threads across different sites with complaints about being unable to Sync the port, and that could be a deterent that currently persuades customers from not buying the product.  Having this type of feature would alevieate that complaint and make the product more viable to that market. Also, it is a software update and existing hardware would likely be compatible (though I’m not a Sonos dev so that would need to be verrified). And lastly, with this new value being defaulted at 0, existing users would not be affected and their current Port setups would be unchanged, so it would be an invisible upgrade.