Party Mode is a problem. We need ability to create multiple groups of rooms!



Show first post
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.

105 replies

Badge
+1 would save a lot of frustration.
Userlevel 2
Badge
+1, I fully expected to be able to create multiple groups which could optionally contain the same speakers as other groups, so I can easily select the set of speakers I want to use without the faff if grouping/ungrouping all the time. Why is this not available?!
I've been waiting 8 years for this function so don't hold your breath people.
Once again, it is logically impossible to have the same speakers in multiple groups. It's easy to demonstrate:

Given speakers 1 2 3
Group A contains speakers 1 & 2
Group B contains speakers 2 & 3

If I play Led Zeppelin in Group A and Chopin in Group B, what is playing on speaker 2?
Userlevel 2
Badge
Well that's easy - either just play on the speaker the most recent group selected, or throw an error when you try to play a group when that speaker is already in a different group that is playing. It doesn't really matter - it's not a situation that most people would configure, and so long as whatever method is consistent, who cares?
Well that's easy - either just play on the speaker the most recent group selected, or throw an error when you try to play a group when that speaker is already in a different group that is playing. It doesn't really matter - it's not a situation that most people would configure, and so long as whatever method is consistent, who cares?

As a software developer, I care. I support creating permanent groups. I do not support the illogical concept of a speaker belonging to more than one group. It's stupid.
Userlevel 2
Badge
I'm a software developer too as it happens, yet I think it's a great idea. It's like Gmail allowing you to label emails rather than putting them in a single folder - genius!
Far different concept. No need to "throw an error" when an e-mail has different labels. I see this functionality to be more transient, such as a "moods" setting that automatically groups/ungroups when a mood is selected, instead of permanent grouping that requires all sorts of ugly logic to implement. Agree to disagree.
Well that's easy - either just play on the speaker the most recent group selected, or throw an error when you try to play a group when that speaker is already in a different group that is playing. It doesn't really matter - it's not a situation that most people would configure, and so long as whatever method is consistent, who cares?

As a software developer, I care. I support creating permanent groups. I do not support the illogical concept of a speaker belonging to more than one group. It's stupid.


Surely as a software developer you would know that if there is an 'illogical concept' then software can be programmed to deal with it.

In your example while Led Zeppelin is blaring out in Group A and the wife wants to play Chopin in Group B, it is simply greyed out and cannot be done. Speaker 3 would still be available to play Chopin or Group A virtual zone could be ungrouped and Group B would become available. It is not a difficult concept really.


Surely as a software developer you would know that if there is an 'illogical concept' then software can be programmed to deal with it.

In your example while Led Zeppelin is blaring out in Group A and the wife wants to play Chopin in Group B, it is simply greyed out and cannot be done. Speaker 3 would still be available to play Chopin or Group A virtual zone could be ungrouped and Group B would become available. It is not a difficult concept really.


All that is unnecessarily complicated, especially since the original concept was for permanent groups. Why should you have to ungroup a permanent group in order to do what one wants? If that's the case, why have a permanent group in the first place? As I said above, if this functionality is to work, it should be implemented as transient "moods" setting that does a group/ungroup macro. Permanent groups make no sense when they contain multiple instances of the same speaker.


Surely as a software developer you would know that if there is an 'illogical concept' then software can be programmed to deal with it.

In your example while Led Zeppelin is blaring out in Group A and the wife wants to play Chopin in Group B, it is simply greyed out and cannot be done. Speaker 3 would still be available to play Chopin or Group A virtual zone could be ungrouped and Group B would become available. It is not a difficult concept really.


All that is unnecessarily complicated, especially since the original concept was for permanent groups. Why should you have to ungroup a permanent group in order to do what one wants? If that's the case, why have a permanent group in the first place? As I said above, if this functionality is to work, it should be implemented as transient "moods" setting that does a group/ungroup macro. Permanent groups make no sense when they contain multiple instances of the same speaker.


I don't see a request for permanent groups, they are your words. The original request is to create multiple groups or virtual zones that can be selected depending on the circumstances. I'm not going to debate the solution with you as you have your opinion on this but there is nothing complicated about the concept and this could be developed. Therefore this request still gets my vote.
Userlevel 7
Badge +26
Thanks for all the feedback and suggestions guys. We've heard the request for more flexibility and expanded grouping controls in a number of ways in various threads, but we always like to hear your ideas. We don't publish any plans for the future of Sonos in terms of what's coming out, but thanks for sharing. We'll pass the word on for you.

If you have suggestions for how you'd like this sort of feature to work please feel free to share.
Userlevel 2
Badge
If you have suggestions for how you'd like this sort of feature to work please feel free to share.
Hi Ryan,

Since you ask, I would do something like so:

Let's say I have the following speakers:
Kitchen, Dining Room, Outside, Bedroom, Livingroom

It should be possible to create an arbitrary number of groups, each with any combination of the above speakers. Groups are essentially views of speakers. So I could define the following groups:

Downstairs: Kitchen, Dining Room, Livingroom
House: Kitchen, Dining Room, Bedroom, Livingroom
Party: Kitchen, Dining Room, Outside, Livingroom
Dinner: Kitchen, Dining Room
Evening: Livingroom, Bedroom

So obviously, if I select any group from Downstairs, House, Party, Dinner or Evening, it should start playing my selected music on that group.

If, as jgatie suggested, and you start complicating things by playing a group at the same time as another group is playing that both contain the same speaker, you would 'move' the speaker from the initial group and into the newer group.

Say for example, you select Downstairs and start playing a Radio stream. This starts playing on Kitchen, Dining Room and Livingroom.
Whilst this is playing you then select Evening and start playing an iTunes playlist. There's a conflict here because Livingroom is in this group, but is already in the group being played above. So Livingroom is effectively removed from Downstairs which causes Radio to stop playing on it, and iTunes starts playing on Livingroom and Bedroom (Radio continues to play on Kitchen and Dining Room). If you happen to stop playing this group whilst Downstairs is still playing, that group continues to just play over the two speakers it has left. If you want to re-instate playing over Livingroom you would just select the group again.
If both groups above are still playing, and you select Downstairs again, it would take back Livingroom, so your new selection would play over Kitchen, Dining Room and Livingroom, and the iTunes playlist would now only be playing over Bedroom.

So I guess this is creating soft groups on the fly, from pre-defined group templates.

In addition, as well as being able to select a group to play on, you should be able to select the individual speakers that were added to the group. So this would allow me to just select Livingroom to play over. Of course this is a moot point if the above is implemented, as I could just create a group Livingroom that contained only that speaker.
Userlevel 7
Badge +26
Thanks for the details Mekon! We'll get that passed on for you. No promises of course as we don't share what's coming or going to be added, but we love getting the feedback.
The Mekon solution is well thought out. Nice to see a suggestion that works through the real world application of the requested feature.
Hello, This is an excellent idea, so I'm going to move this from the Questions forum to the Share an Idea forum. This will allow others to comment and +1 your idea as well.
Is this still true? I've been told that you can make different groups by sonos and dealers. My client just bought 4 amps, because I was told him he could make different zone groups.
Userlevel 7
Badge +20
Is this still true? I've been told that you can make different groups by sonos and dealers. My client just bought 4 amps, because I was told him he could make different zone groups.

Hi Fedz,

You can already create groups using any combination of Sonos speakers on your system. The feature request here is to be able to save custom groups so you can switch presets on the fly. At this time you have to specify the Sonos units in each group rather than selecting a preset group of rooms.
Oh my good...
I am always wondering when this feature will be released. During beta testing there is so much new stuff introduced but basic things like multiple groups is still missing. What a feature lack, really Sonos, it is time to wake up!
The feature proposal of "The Mekon" looks promising, but at first it would be great to have even the possibility to group speakers in multiple groups and just play from the last group selected without automatically removing them from other groups.
This is a great idea. When are you guys going make it happen?
Userlevel 3
Badge +7
as a new user who went from one Play1 to a Play3 and another Play1 in a matter of weeks... i TOO am AMAZED that the ability to have PERMANENT groups of rooms is not a feature! really? and its been how many years? SONOS come on!!!!! there is a perfect solution from THE MEKON right here.

i LOVE that you added PLEX (and the week after i bought my first speaker) as that was the ONLY reason i had held off and had finally just given in and then WHAT a treat to have PLEX added... but the multiple rooms...this cant be that difficult to add!
Thanks for all the feedback and suggestions guys. We've heard the request for more flexibility and expanded grouping controls in a number of ways in various threads, but we always like to hear your ideas. We don't publish any plans for the future of Sonos in terms of what's coming out, but thanks for sharing. We'll pass the word on for you.

If you have suggestions for how you'd like this sort of feature to work please feel free to share.


I started using Sonos 5 years ago and have grown my system to 8 ceiling speakers powered by Connect:Amp, Soundbar, and multiple Play:1's, a Play:3, and a Play:5. Having to re-group all these components all the time is the single most ANNOYING aspect of my system. Please, please, PLEASE!, add this feature!!!

May I suggest "Virtual Room" as the feature name. I can see the Mekon solution work by which the latest Virtual Room being activated (from Stop to Play) "wins" all the configured speakers automatically. Alternatively, I could also see a simple yes/no user prompt such as "Living Room and Dining Room are currently playing music from Virtual Room 'Downstairs', play music from this room instead?" Nothing wrong with letting the user decide to leave the conflicting speakers in the existing virtual room or have them taken over by the new virtual room.

In either case, PLEASE add this feature in one of the next releases, it really cannot be that difficult to implement compared to other challenges that have been solved.
Userlevel 7
Badge +17
in the meantime, give the Sonosequencr app a go (IOS only)
Wow, I'm greatly disappointed that this wasn't a basic feature right out of the gate. I just got my second Play1 and planned on getting a third to group them up in interesting ways, but I am rethinking this. This reeks of lack of competition that this hasn't been implemented.
Userlevel 7
Badge +26
Wow, I'm greatly disappointed that this wasn't a basic feature right out of the gate. I just got my second Play1 and planned on getting a third to group them up in interesting ways, but I am rethinking this. This reeks of lack of competition that this hasn't been implemented.

Hey ChewyWaffles (I love your username!)

Just to clarify, you can have as many groups of Sonos players are you'd like (your only limit is no more than 32 players in a household). The title of this thread is misleading as the subject is really about having quick access groups that are easier to make.

Currently, if you have 3 rooms, you can have 2 doing one thing and 1 doing another. Just as if you have 6 players, you could have three groups of 2, two groups of 3, two groups of 2 and two playing separately for what would look in the controller like 4 "groups".

Groups are temporary and can be changed around as much as you'd like, they'll show up in the controller as multiple room names with a box around them showing they're together. This is slightly different from how you'd "bond" players together, where they show up as one room name and reboots don't clear the settings.