Contributor I

Why is Connect more expensive than Play?

Forum|Forum|14 years ago
April 28, 2012
179 replies
75917 views

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.

Show previous replies

W

WifiStrut

Avid Contributor I

@NoBoB

I'd like to do the same but aren't yours getting hot of hidden? Mine are already hot, I can't imagine what would it be if without any air circulation.

thanks of your feedback

NoBoB

They're not enclosed. One hides behind my satellite DVR, which sits fairly high up; the other sits in a little wicker basket (an idea I got from this forum) with a little artificial flower arrangement shielding it from view.

ratty

The weird thing from my perspective is how it sticks out like a sore thumb aesthetically in my very humble stack of home audio/video gear. That little white box just doesn't seem to fit into the "high end" enthusiast space the way one poster implied.

Of my four ZP80s the only one with any aesthetic significance sits happily on the floor beside active speakers hooked up by chunky optical cable.

I actually wondered (and posted) about whether a Play5 wouldn't be a better value with the headphone output.

There's no comparison. The headphone output is, well, for headphones. It's been noted for having a fair level of hiss, which is the last thing you'd want when connecting to decent poweramps. Oh, and the P:5 has no digital outputs whatsoever.

D

davey400

Contributor III

I Think the Connect has a good value when compared to any midrange cd-player.
(But I would not mind if they where a lot cheaper… 😉 )

W

WifiStrut

Avid Contributor I

They're not enclosed. One hides behind my satellite DVR, which sits fairly high up; the other sits in a little wicker basket (an idea I got from this forum) with a little artificial flower arrangement shielding it from view.

-thanks-

ratty

I Think the Connect has a good value when compared to any midrange cd-player.

In terms of digital output compare it instead to a 'high-end' transport. A secure lossless rip via Sonos (in Fixed Volume mode) should yield a bitstream as good as any CD transport's real-time error correction.

D

Diceman

Enthusiast II

Got to agree with alecf. The price of the Connect is riduculous. If the pricing really is a marketing ploy then it is as ill judged as it is greedy.

Most people I know have some sort of multi purpose system in their living room; a surround sound AV linked to their TV and games consol. Price the Connect at a reasonable level and everyone I have discussed this with would be coming on board.

Once "connected" they would inevitably be adding at least one (probably more) play 3 or 5 units.

I have 2 x play 3 but will vote with my wallet and will never get a Connect at the current price level. I steam to my AV amp (7.1 and still cheaper than a Connect!!) via airplay and I am more likely to expand that system than to invest in more Sonos kit at current price levels.

Sonos need to get real - every other High Tech toy I have brought has dropped in price as adoption rises.

B

B Fraser

Contributor III

Never say never Diceman.

I was unsure about adding a Play to my Hi-Fi and expected to need to add an external DAC to get a decent performance. I was wrong. I also use a dedicated Graham Slee headphone amp and Sennheiser HD 650 headphones. The sound is very impressive with great detail and presence.

(mods please note that other manufacturers supply equivalent products and this is not intended to be an advert ;))

Ask your local stockist to lend you a Play to do an A-B comparison with your current setup. Why don't you roll the dice and report back.

S

slowrey

Contributor II

I'm personally glad it's pricey and not everyone has it.

P

page3

Enthusiast I

I couldn't honestly say any Sonos gear is cheap, but then neither is Apple. Connect has been around a while, so there are a few second hand ones floating about, which is how I bought mine :)

I already have an Airport Express, which wirelessly bridges my network into my AV cabinet (Over 5Ghz N which works brilliantly). However, I don't use Airplay as I find the Apple way of doing audio lacking. I do use an AppleTV (running XBMC) for video though.

Sonos is far, far better for music and I love my Connect.

Bought a Play:3 and would buy a Play:1 (bedroom radio thingy I just made up) at the drop of a hat, although no doubt it would be £150 more than I"d want to pay!!

Show more replies

Sign up

Login to the community