Can you make your Sonos have no Wi-Fi signal at all?
My step had has been reading that Wi-FI and EMF are bad for you. so I’m not allowed to buy anything that as a Wi-Fi Signal. Any suggestion?
Page 1 / 2
My step had has been reading that Wi-FI and EMF are bad for you. so I’m not allowed to buy anything that as a Wi-Fi Signal. Any suggestion?
Well, I'd be surprised if the small levels involved would make a huge difference, but I suppose it depends how paranoid one is.
It is possible to switch off the Sonos wi-fi completely, with all network traffic going via the ethernet port(s), but it's not a supported configuration - so if you have a problem, Sonos won't support you unless you set it back to the default.
How are you going to control it? if you plan on using your phone then THAT will need Wi-Fi of course. The only non-WiFi solution would be a PC/Mac hard-wired to the router.
My step had has been reading that Wi-FI and EMF are bad for you.
If you really believe that, Sonos is the least of your issues if you live in a typical urban environment that is flooded with other people using emitting devices; so while not using Sonos for music, make sure you are covering all these bases as well.
Before you do anything else try to solve the fear issue.
Grab a free WiFi analyzer app for your tablet or phone and show the person with WiFi issues just what is already going on in your area in both the 2.4 and 5 GHz ranges.
Next pull up a cell phone tower map as well as making a note of every cell phone in the home and surrounding homes if you can. A phone in your pocket is giving you a lot more RF than a Sonos on a shelf.
You may not quiet their fear of RF energy but you'll be able to show that Sonos is a very minor contributor to the problem.
You can also cut down on the Sonos RF emissions level by wiring as many speakers as possible to your router while not disabling WiFi internally. Much better option than forcing WiFi off.
Grab a free WiFi analyzer app for your tablet or phone and show the person with WiFi issues just what is already going on in your area in both the 2.4 and 5 GHz ranges.
Next pull up a cell phone tower map as well as making a note of every cell phone in the home and surrounding homes if you can. A phone in your pocket is giving you a lot more RF than a Sonos on a shelf.
You may not quiet their fear of RF energy but you'll be able to show that Sonos is a very minor contributor to the problem.
You can also cut down on the Sonos RF emissions level by wiring as many speakers as possible to your router while not disabling WiFi internally. Much better option than forcing WiFi off.
Yes, cell phone signals are thousands of times more powerful with respect to RF than WiFi. The British Health Protection Agency says that if a person spends one year in a location with a Wi-Fi hotspot, they will receive the same dose of radio waves as if they had made a 20-minute call on a mobile phone. I tried explaining this to a person who wanted to use 3G to control Sonos in order to "cut down on dangerous WiFi radiation" and I was excoriated for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6676129.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6676129.stm
Yep, I have a family member worried about his WiFi killing him but he keeps a cell phone in his pants pocket or screwed to his ear about 18 hours a day.
I just looked and I have about a dozen close 2.4 Ghz Wifi systems plus my two, and a half dozen on 5 GHz plus mine. So me cutting back there won't be helping much.
Then there is our cordless phone setup that has six extensions that is in the 5 GHz range.
And our two cell phones, that are low emitters when we are home because I can see the BIG local cell tower from the back yard.
By the time you have added in all the RF flying around, most of which isn't easily identified without expensive gear your own WiFi isn't a big enough contributor to be significant.
I just looked and I have about a dozen close 2.4 Ghz Wifi systems plus my two, and a half dozen on 5 GHz plus mine. So me cutting back there won't be helping much.
Then there is our cordless phone setup that has six extensions that is in the 5 GHz range.
And our two cell phones, that are low emitters when we are home because I can see the BIG local cell tower from the back yard.
By the time you have added in all the RF flying around, most of which isn't easily identified without expensive gear your own WiFi isn't a big enough contributor to be significant.
This reminds me of the Odenkirk elder brother in Better Call Saul and his issues with RF with the extreme measures taken to address them. I haven't figured out whether these issues were real or just in his head in the story.
Best not go outside in the sunshine. Far more radiation than your WiFi will ever expose you to.
Better break out the tin foil hats and take every Wifi device and put it in the garbage.
I wish people did more research before spewing comments like these. I happen to have taken an interest to RF and read a few studies and papers on the subject. While the cell phone is immensely more harmful to your health on the long term basis, it is also not always on your head (at least I hope that’s the case for you). I took out a spectrum analyzer and an RF energy meter (I own a lot of sonos) and found out that besides the microwave and the darn cordless phone which I have since taken down, the highest RF emission device in my house are my sonos speakers. They emit 3-4x more proven harmful RF power than my ubiquiti wifi APs at full power. My spectrum analyzer also showed me how much intensity and how wide of a band it is occupying saturating more of the spectrum than any wifi router/AP I know. It convinced me for now to take down Sonosnet and move the sonos to my wifi to reduce the number of emitting devices and reduce the intensity of the signal which would then follow wifi protocol instead of Sonosnet. The spectrum has much lower intensity now but the sonos transmit power is still absurdly high. One can see that also from the unifi controller when you see that a distant sonos still has a very high signal... much higher than some closer devices. My paper search shows that the sonos emits over 500X higher microwave RF than the lowest known power to have caused cancer and several million times what you get from the sun. In order to get get out of this danger range only if you stand at least 6ft or 2m from it. Not all wifi devices are created equal... You get a radiation therapy from the sonos if you are not careful. In comparison, my Xiaomi robot vacuum peaks at 200x less power the sonos emits at the antenna.
References?
They emit 3-4x more proven harmful RF power than my ubiquiti wifi APs at full power.
References which show that WiFi is in any way harmful?
move the sonos to my wifi to reduce the number of emitting devices and reduce the intensity of the signal which would then follow wifi protocol instead of Sonosnet.
SonosNet is WiFi, at the physical level.
My paper search shows that the sonos emits ... several million times what you get from the sun.
Good grief. We definitely need references for this one.
I collected my own data as my post mentioned, I have my own RF meter and Spectrum scanner. I am an engineer and physicist.
Reference for wifi being harmful... quick google and you will find hundreds of articles and studies. Some sites are a bit shady taking advantage to try to sell you something but... the actual serious data is there too.
https://emfinfo.org/PDFs/Information%20about%20EMFs%20&%20Safety%20Levels%20D%202-25-14.pdf
https://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/10-shocking-facts-health-dangers-wifi/
There is nothing special about wifi that makes it not harmful. It is in the microwave frequencies which have been proven to alter genes even at the lowest power. It is the same frequency your microwave runs at to heat your food. Because 2.4GHz and 900MHz are unregulated does not make them not harmful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS1gQgnUf5A&list=PLQUtszwcl8KXsDD4tBeamIqhTeAx1byei&index=22&t=0s
And sonosnet is not wifi. You would see it if I could show you my Spectrum scanner results. It is similar in that It uses the same spectrum and channel but does not respect the protocols related to power savings. It reuses some of the channels within the band to link to other speakers to create a mesh. The spectrum analyzer goes bonkers with a massive wide and intense mark when it is on. In essence it is much worse. Almost everything you read is on wifi. My UAP AC HD reads 180-200mW/m2 at mac transmit power. Every SONOS speaker reads 250mW/m2 at idle and spikes up to 1W/m2 when playing. The lowest proven power to have caused cancer is 2mW/m2... All measurements taken with the meter probe right on the device. Obviously the power decreases in a square function of distance. So you get below that 2mW/m2 at about 6ft from the sonos.
Reference for wifi being harmful... quick google and you will find hundreds of articles and studies. Some sites are a bit shady taking advantage to try to sell you something but... the actual serious data is there too.
https://emfinfo.org/PDFs/Information%20about%20EMFs%20&%20Safety%20Levels%20D%202-25-14.pdf
https://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/10-shocking-facts-health-dangers-wifi/
There is nothing special about wifi that makes it not harmful. It is in the microwave frequencies which have been proven to alter genes even at the lowest power. It is the same frequency your microwave runs at to heat your food. Because 2.4GHz and 900MHz are unregulated does not make them not harmful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS1gQgnUf5A&list=PLQUtszwcl8KXsDD4tBeamIqhTeAx1byei&index=22&t=0s
And sonosnet is not wifi. You would see it if I could show you my Spectrum scanner results. It is similar in that It uses the same spectrum and channel but does not respect the protocols related to power savings. It reuses some of the channels within the band to link to other speakers to create a mesh. The spectrum analyzer goes bonkers with a massive wide and intense mark when it is on. In essence it is much worse. Almost everything you read is on wifi. My UAP AC HD reads 180-200mW/m2 at mac transmit power. Every SONOS speaker reads 250mW/m2 at idle and spikes up to 1W/m2 when playing. The lowest proven power to have caused cancer is 2mW/m2... All measurements taken with the meter probe right on the device. Obviously the power decreases in a square function of distance. So you get below that 2mW/m2 at about 6ft from the sonos.
The first link is broken with a 404.
In any case, let's have some reputable sources.
In any case, let's have some reputable sources.
Sorry I really don't feel the need to convince you. I have no idea where you got your information from (you ask for source) but my assessment is based on my own data on the emissions. The impact on health is part common sense, part studies which big corporates (not sonos but rather the communication industry) is burying by saying we need more data...
Bad URL decode sorry. https://emfinfo.org/PDFs/Info about EMFs & Safety Levels.pdf
I only gave you reliable sources from doctors/non profits. This PDF gives you reference to studies and various organizations recommendations.
This is my scanners: This is sonosnet on chanel 1. Note the other wifi being relatively low on the other channel. Note also that the analyser did not recognize the SSID because... well it is not exactly wifi.
And now with sonos net disabled (only wifi left) Notice the red which is the very high amplitude. The height is the frequency that channel is being powered.
Bad URL decode sorry. https://emfinfo.org/PDFs/Info about EMFs & Safety Levels.pdf
I only gave you reliable sources from doctors/non profits. This PDF gives you reference to studies and various organizations recommendations.
This is my scanners: This is sonosnet on chanel 1. Note the other wifi being relatively low on the other channel. Note also that the analyser did not recognize the SSID because... well it is not exactly wifi.
And now with sonos net disabled (only wifi left) Notice the red which is the very high amplitude. The height is the frequency that channel is being powered.
I wasn't advancing any information. I was merely querying the selective use of sources from the great unfiltered ocean that is the internet. For those inclined to believe in conspiracies I'm afraid there's precious little that can convince them otherwise.
Note also that the analyser did not recognize the SSID because... well it is not exactly wifi.
The SSID is not recognised because ... it's not broadcast. The players use standard WiFi chipsets.
Sometimes people need to condense their overall anxieties and direct them towards an easily defined entity. Vaccinations, anyone?
Don't even get me started on this...
The point is that sonosnet is emitting way more than wifi. There is a scientific debate already about how much RF is harmful with no consensus mostly because of the lack of consistent long term data showing that it has an effect. Emphasis on "consistent" because there is already some data. It is like good engineering: before releasing a product, one should run the thing until it fails and get enough statistical showing where it fails. Most of what we get (including vaccination) get validated (certified) with only inconsistent data showing that it does not fail short term.
I have nothing to gain from sharing this. I am just reporting what I am finding. Heck I have 15 sonos speakers in my house with no intention of getting rid of them. They just emit 4X the power of any other wifi device and there is already more and more data indicating that the wifi certification level is too high for health. I would really want to reduce the transmit power of these if someone found how to... When I map the wifi signal on my unifi system, the signal strength of the sonos speakers are way too high for where they are and certainly are causing problems for other devices. It's like someone screaming really loud over the same frequency others need to communicate on.
On the basis of multiple tests, under entirely controlled conditions, as is required for certification by the regulatory authorities? I'm sure I don't need to point out the effects of reflection, attenuation and the inverse square law...
There is no legitimate scientific debate.
And please stop with the vaxxer nonsense. Whackadoodle theories about non-ionizing radiation only affects the whackadoodles. Anti-vaccination people put the entire rest of the human race at risk, especially the weakest among us. They should be thrown in jail.
And please stop with the vaxxer nonsense. Whackadoodle theories about non-ionizing radiation only affects the whackadoodles. Anti-vaccination people put the entire rest of the human race at risk, especially the weakest among us. They should be thrown in jail.
Funny, Sonos uses bog standard, off the shelf, plugin WiFi cards in all their devices. Hard to imagine they emit any more radiation than any other WiFi device.
yes... All the data is consistent between the spectrum scanner, the RF meter and the unifi controller report
I was just reading my unifi controller data:
My Harmony sitting right on top of my sonos 1 on the same AP reads: 77dBm when the sonos reads 33dBm as an example. A whopping 44dbm difference which represents over 10W of transmission power.
All these instruments are FCC certified.
All these instruments are FCC certified.
If you feel that your SONOS system is emitting 10W in the WiFi band, have your unit tested by a certified laboratory and report this immediately to the FCC.
With respect to your dBm figures, I think that you are missing a sign. The "77dBm" and "33dBm" should be "-77dbm" and "-33dBm" respectively. I expect that these are the received signal level as indicated by your Ubiquiti access point. In any case +77dBm would be a significant power level. Also, the antennas on the devices are likely somewhat directional, depending on their "gain". If you are taking your field measurements at a single point, you could easily be on a beam axis for one device and off axis for another -- depending on the box's orientation with respect to your observation point.
I was just reading my unifi controller data:
My Harmony sitting right on top of my sonos 1 on the same AP reads: 77dBm when the sonos reads 33dBm as an example. A whopping 44dbm difference which represents over 10W of transmission power.
All these instruments are FCC certified.
I use my EMF meter today for something else today, scanned my home. I accidentally found all my rooms with sonos device have high readings. So I put the meter close to the device and boom, 20X than average reading through the house with turning all my Sonos off. I don't care much about the RF but 20X??? that's too much.
So I started to google about Sonos radiation and found I'm not along. LOL.
I am addicted to Sonos. So I added a smart plug to all my Sonos device. I'm not going to power them on if not I am not using them.
Anyway, I'm so surprised about this finding. BTW, I'm holding an electrical engineering Ph.D.
Why don't you wire them all with ethernet, and turn off the radios on them all? Except for speakers that are "bonded", such as the soundbars, the SUB, and surrounds, there's no reason for you to have the radios on, if you're significantly concerned.
I'm not concerned much actually:) I have two beams and two connect:amp and several play1s. I also have some used smart plugs sitting in the tool cabinet. I have so many wifi devices and Z-wave or Zigbee smart home devices running 24x7. I'm not sensitive to radiation at all.
But Sonos seems emit too much RF. So I will give them each a smart plug and power them on if needed:) I'm very curious why though. Will do more research.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.