I don't see any way this can be done; even if you bought new or rededicated some old hardware for this, it would have to run on current Sonos firmware that would not allow any earlier version of the controller to be used.

Perhaps there are other make streamers that may serve, working in the one room reading music wirelessly from the hard drive, that are not as “advanced” as Sonos, and still allow control via the computer.

Sonos doesn’t support running old versions of software… Even if you have an old copy of the desktop software, as soon as you try and install the Sonos speaker then you’ll have to ‘upgrade’ to the latest version.

If the frequency of updates is the issue then turn off automatic updates in your app store and in the Sonos Settings.  

Why do you want to use an old version of the Desktop controller? It really hasn’t changed much in years, except for the deletion of the Setup features.

Hi Controlav

Thanks for your reply. I suppose that’s a reasonable question. What I wanted to get to was a system for controlling my music library and my music library only, but I take your point. Perhaps a parallel system limited to one room only, to which no other members of the family had access would do the job, especially if I turn off auto-updates as John B suggests.

Regards

Milt

May I ask what the benefit would  be in only you having access to the music library and having it on a separate system? I can only think of disadvantages. 

Well, you can do it - by setting up the new kit as a separate ‘house’, but you’d need to use a controller device (android or iDevice) for the setup, as you can’t set up using the desktop controller any more.

As the others have said, though, I’m not seeing the benefit, unless you have a specific reason for locking it off to other devices.

Similar to Miltomaticc, my main use is to play my CD collection from a hard drive.  Amazing how difficult Sonos has managed to make such a simple use model.  If Sonos isn’t interested in supporting that use model the should make that clear so people can buy other products that support that use model.

Being a longtime Linux engineer, the workaround I found is to put my music collection on a Samba server, which Sonos does support.  Then use the Sonos Mac app to tell the speaker about the music collection.  I will probably switch to one of the open source Sonos controller projects to play music once I have some spare time to play with them.  The Sonos Android app is simply not usable for this purpose.

If not for the fact that I am a computer engineer that understands the underlying technology, can set up a Samba server and is able to work around the poor Sonos app, I would have returned the speaker in frustration.

If Sonos only wants this to be used for streaming services they should include that in their advertising.  That would avoid a lot of frustration.  I have complete sympathy for the frustrated customers.  Sonos management needs to understand how upset/frustrated their customers are.

I bought Sonos for this use, but now use it for streaming services a lot more. But: I still have the NAS accessible for the times I want to use the CDs stored there, so I don't understand the gripe. I can still get Sonos to play that music equally easily from both my Mac and from my Android phone, as easily as at any time in the past. And there is nothing I had to do to retain this ability exactly how it was when I bought Sonos back in 2011.

Apart from the lack of support for SMB2 and above, the limit on the number of tracks (which will only affect a few people) and the withdrawal of functionality from the desktop controller, is it really that much more difficult?

Yes, there have been changes and limitations that I’m not happy with, but the basic kit is playing away as I write….

I echo ​Kumar's comments entirely.  Playing my music library is fthe same easy process it has always been .

How hard is it to tap 'Room' and select a room, then tap 'Browse', 'Music Library' and select some music?

It is equally easy on the desktop.

Yes.  With my Bose bluetooth device I can connect it to my Android phone or iMac and play music using VLC or iTunes on it.  That does not seem possible (or at least easy) on Sonos.  Sonos requires creating a user account an accept their terms of service to use the device.  Bose does not (nor any other stereo company I have used).

Using the Sonos Android app I was unable using “On this mobile device” to get the app to find the music on the phone.  I was unable to get the Music Library set up to the Samba NAS.

Using the Sonos Mac app was non intuitive.  Even though the Samba NAS was mounted on the Mac, adding it as “Another folder or drive connected to my computer” and being able to browse to it, it failed because “You cannot select a folder on the network to be shared”.  Selecting Networked device shows examples such as \\MyOtherComputer\Shared\Music (the backslash being Windows syntax, not Mac/Unix) when what it wanted is //<ip>/directory .  With trial and error I was able to find the right syntax.  With that music on the Samba NAS can be played with the Sonos app (but not VLC or iTunes).

If not for the Samba NAS and iMac (which is the wife/kids, all my boxes are Linux) the Sonos would not be connected.

As a new customer, this has been an extremely frustrating experience and I am still undecided as to whether to return the Sonos.  As  a Linux engineer, I understand that Sonos is running Linux, that it plays music not by streaming but by playing the mp3 on the Samba NAS.  I don’t mind turning this into a science experiment to get it to work.  But I now understand the limitations.  Sonos (wifi) cannot be used like a bluetooth device to play all audio from a phone or computer.  I cannot use VLC or iTunes they way I can with bluetooth.  Most disturbing reading these forums is the willingness of Sonos to remove functionality in updates, causing previously working customer setups to no longer work.  “Thou shall not break customers” is a Commandment where I work in the tech industry.  Sonos does not seem to have that same commitment.

Sonos (wifi) cannot be used like a bluetooth device to play all audio from a phone or computer.  I cannot use VLC or iTunes they way I can with bluetooth.

This is is the most important "limitation" of the system and it leads to a lot of misconceptions and disappointments with people who haven't looked into what they are actually buying. I'm always extremely clear to people who ask me about Sonos, that they shouldn't expect it to function as a Bluetooth speaker in any way, I use the example of YouTube or PC audio to illustrate this. It's just not what the system is for. If you want to hold Sonos accountable for that, fine, I don't. Most Bluetooth speakers don't offer all the other functions that Sonos does. I know that Denon Heos and Bose Soundtouch do have Bluetooth, but does that then integrate seamlessly into the multiroom, like the line-in in the Sonos system does? Because only then I would find it a useful addition.

 Sonos requires creating a user account an accept their terms of service to use the device.  Bose does not (nor any other stereo company I have used).

Bluesound, Denon Heos and Bose Soundtouch multiroom systems all require you to create an account. That is what you should be comparing Sonos to, not to "dumb" stereo systems.

Most disturbing reading these forums is the willingness of Sonos to remove functionality in updates, causing previously working customer setups to no longer work.

Compared to other tech products, Sonos supports their hardware for a very long time, and is very cautious about backwards compatibility. In some cases, there is no other way but to remove functionality. Incompatibility or end of life of mobile OS's is something Sonos has only very limited control over. I would remind you that Bose has recently discontinued an entire line of hardware, and the only way to remain supported is to purchase a completely new hardware setup.

Just to avoid confusing others, the advertised backslash syntax works perfectly for accessing Samba shares via Sonos (provided SMBv1 is supported by the NAS).

There are many reasons someone may want to return Sonos, mostly for not having fully investigated its suitability for a desired use case/s, but that Sonos does not anymore do what it used to isn't a valid one. Which is what this thread started being about. Those other reasons have plenty of threads devoted to them.

Yes, significant one time set up/set up tweaking functionality now needs a smart phone, but that still does not amount to “Sonos no longer doing what it used to for CDs ripped to a NAS” for those - at a guess 99 percent plus - of the user base that has one. And for that small minority too, for routine use that does not involve set up changes, a computer is still enough for all the necessary user interaction for music play, and for adding and indexing more music to the NAS.

Tried quoting, but it soon became a mess, I’m afraid...

Sonos hasn’t supported Bluetooth until the Move, so I don’t understand why you thought that it would.

AFAIA, the more complex systems (ie. not Bluetooth) do require an account/registration. I share your concerns, though, about the increasing number of settings that need an internet connection to work (e.g. max volume).

Sounds like you have the syntax sorted out now, which is good….

You mention the NAS and the iMac as being essential, but nowhere do Sonos list Linux as being supported - so I don’t understand why you thought that it would be.

If Sonos doesn’t meet your needs, then perhaps you should return it and buy a Bluetooth enabled device, which sounds like it might meet your expectations.

As regarding functionality removal - yes, I agree in some respects, but Sonos tend to take the approach of protecting their own legacy hardware first - i.e. keeping older kit working. Due to the limited space in these devices, and the constant call for ‘improvements’ just to stand still (e.g. voice) there are limits as to what they can do as far as support for older external devices - e.g. phones, tablets. They don’t even have the space to move to a later version of SMB. So Sonos tries not to break their own customers, but this has an impact on external devices. I’m not happy about this either, but IMHO it’s better than obsoleting older Sonos players. 

Sonos is happy to use a music library hosted on Linux, mine is happily running from a Raspberry Pi. I find that a safer option than enabling SMB v1 on my “real” NAS device.

There are Linux controllers available from folks, a search here should turn some up. I don’t have a lot of experience with them recently but when I was looking a couple worked well.

I miss access to the internal data and am aggravated by the need to access via IP instead of name but neither is more than aggravating.