We need Audiophile Edition version of Port

Completely disagree with the idea that any one who’s purchased a Port is in the  ‘enthusiast and audiophile’ bucket.  As you pointed out, if you already have an existing system that you like, then a Port is a good option, but you didn’t mention the cost difference between keeping your system and replacing it with Sonos home theatre setup.   As an example, I used to have a basic 5.1 setup with in wall speakers that I had a Connect (Port’s predecssor) connected to.  I did not want to spend over a thousand to replace that just to get the system part of Sonos, so the Port made a lot more sense.  It does not mean I’m an audiophile.

Likewise, if you want use a 3rd party multiroom amp instead of several Sonos amp, then you’ll want to use a Port.    If you have a turntable or some other component you want play in your Sonos system, but don’t need a Five or Amp, the Port is the way to go.

You’re correct that the convenience of the Port is a big plus, but it’s really about the convenience of the whole multiroom system and the Port is often a useful component of that system….even if doesn’t read the audiophile standards of a segment of the market.

Wyred 4 Sound.  ROFL.  They recently formed a company to license the legendary Bob Carver name, then produced this overpriced piece of garbage:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/carver-crimson-275-review-tube-amp.29971/

Most “audiophiles” are utterly clueless.  Thankfully, Amir is changing that by measuring this crap.

You think?! You cannot change what does not want to be changed.

Manufacturers are being forced to take Amir seriously.  His site now has 2.8X the traffic of Stereophile (with its nonsensical “reviews” pushing over-priced garbage), with more engagement.  

Hiya, you make a lot of good points here, but I’m not saying that anybody who has bought a port is an audiophile, but lots of people who have, are. I’m saying that to invest £400 into an existing system suggests a level of love for old school hifi, for people who love their amplifiers enough to not buy a Sonos amp but rather keep their old one and buy the port dispite the price difference not being too drastic. But we live in a world now with high res music streaming from Apple Music, tidal, Amazon and soon to be Spotify for no extra money. Sonos are a great company who make great things but are being fast outdated (in this respect) and I think that for £400 a far better streamer could be sold to us, or for a bit more too. By this I mean that if it costs £400 for a streaming module then it should be a better streaming module than they put into speakers that you could buy between 2-3 of for the same price. A decent power supply that doesn’t produce so much electrical noise and a couple more digital outputs aren’t a lot to ask. High res shouldn’t be either but I understand that’s relatively recent and slightly more complicated to fit into an entire ecosystem. 

Could you give us a analysis result which shows the power supply on the Port puts out “so much electrical noise” along with an ABX test which shows that “so much electrical noise” is audible to the listener?

Thanks!

Again, you are wrong here.  Your assumption that people are choosing between an existing 2.0 stereo receiver/amo  + Port  or the Sonos amp is not correct.  There are some, sure, and that cost difference is minimal.  However, I would argue that the majority are looking at replacing a 5.1, 7.1, etc home theatre setup or multiroom audio system  rather than a ‘simple’ 2.0 stereo.   To replace a 5.1 setup, I would need an amp  + 2 Ones at a minimum, (keeping exiting front speakers and sub) well over the cost of a single port.  And obviously, you would need at least two amps to replace a multiroom audio system.  That’s not considering those who only want an aux input into the Sonos system for a turntable, CD player, etc.

It seems like you are looking at the Port more as a stand alone streaming device rather than part of a multiroom audio system.  I would agree that if all you want is a streaming box, whether you’re an audiophile or not, there are probably more logical choices out there.  But the Port isn’t just a streaming box, and those other options are not going to play in sync with other Sonos speakers or wirelessly send aux audio to Sonos speakers.

The current from the power supply is what’s moving the magnets in the woofers and tweeters that creates the sound you hear. The first commercial DACs built into CD players had tons of issues, such as voltage changes based on how many bits were 0s and how many were 1s. They’d output a significant difference between 01111111 and 10000000, when that should be the smallest difference possible. It doesn’t take “golden ears” to hear the difference between a mass market 1980’s CD player and a high quality one from 2022. It also doesn’t “golden ears” to hear the difference between components with cheap switching power supplies and ones with good power supplies.

Sonos power supplies aren’t crap, but to simply dismiss the impact of the electrical engineering that goes into making different audio components as inaudible because they’re “digital” is as foolhardy as the claims of any audiophool.

Sorry to pick on you. You’re post is just at the end of a frustrating thread in which I’m trying to find some answers as to why my 2-ch system w/ a Sonos Connect into a Pro-ject Pre Box S2 into a Bryson 4B sounded so much better before I replaced all that with an Amp so I could use the 2-channels as rear speakers with an Arc and Sub. Even when I set the surrounds to max for music playback, the music just isn’t as enjoyable as it was before. Probably has more to do with impedance matching with the speakers (B+Ws) than anything else.  

If you want any constructive help here you will have to clarify exactly the signal chain via which the sound in the past, being compared against, was delivered as compared to the signal chain via which it is being delivered now.