Answered

Forced to update to incompatible controller software?

  • 7 November 2016
  • 45 replies
  • 1612 views
D
Badge
I have been using my three Sonos Play:1s quite happily now for well over a year, but now I have bought a new Play:1 and when trying to add it, I'm told "Your Sonos controller must be updated before you can add and set up Sonos products". I recall getting an email saying that the latest version of the Sonos Controller would not be compatible with Windows XP, which I'm still using on the machine where the Sonos controller is used.

Does this mean that I will be forced to update to a version of the controller that is not compatible with my OS, thus rendering my entire system unusable?

Before anyone says it, I am not interested in updating to a newer version of Windows at the moment. It's an enormous amount of work and there is no compelling reason for it. The OS is just background infrastructure in my view, not a toy. It should be meddled with as little as possible.
icon

Best answer by Edward R 7 November 2016, 23:46

View original
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.

45 replies

D
Badge
I have a desktop PC with Windows 7. Would it be possible to install the updated controller on the W7 PC, add the new Play:1, and then use it on the XP PC with the older controller software? Where is the configuration stored?
Edward R
Userlevel 7
Badge +20
David, your suggested approach of adding the player on the Windows 7 machine would suffice. Please be advised, however, that there may come a day where XP is no longer supported.
Paulw123
Userlevel 7
Badge +17
This link to sonos system requirements may make things a little clearer
https://sonos.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/127
D
Badge
Hi Edward. I've installed the Sonos Controller on the W7 PC and now it's prompting me to update the Sonos system. I assume that means it will update the Sonos firmware...? Might these updates break my XP controller?
Chris
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
Updating the firmware on the hardware is what it is prompting you for. Once you do this your XP controller won't be able to change room settings, but the other parts should work. The link Paul had shows you the options the XP controller will not have once you do the firmware upgrade.
Respect the Queue (1)Move (2)Beam (1)ARC (1)SonosOne (1)Playbar (4)Play5 (4)Play1 (3)Play3 (1)Port (2)Connect (1)Connect:Amp (3)Sonos Amp (1)Sub + (9) Echo + Smartthings
D
Badge
Ok thanks. Once a stereo pair is created, does it "stick" (unlike grouping, which is lost once the speakers are turned off)?
ratty
Once a stereo pair is created, does it "stick"
Yes. The bonding is persistent.
D
Badge
Ok, final question: quite frequently, when I turn on my speakers, the kitchen speaker appears as "UNUSED" and I have to set it to the kitchen again. No idea why this happens. Will I be able to do that with the XP controller?
Paulw123
Userlevel 7
Badge +17
You could look into another type of controller. Have you not got an old smart phone kicking about? or get an amazon fire tablet for £48. More portable and start up quicker than a pc.
ratty
Ok, final question: quite frequently, when I turn on my speakers, the kitchen speaker appears as "UNUSED" and I have to set it to the kitchen again. No idea why this happens. Will I be able to do that with the XP controller?
No. Those functions are stripped out of the XP controller from 6.4.

Two things:
- If by 'turn on' you mean 'apply power' Sonos units are designed to be left powered 24/7.
- It sounds like you have wireless issues. Sonos Support should take a look at a diagnostic.
D
Badge
That is true. I hadn't even considered that. I have an Android phone so I could use that.
D
Badge
I definitely don't intend to leave my Sonos speakers on 24/7. That's crazy. With four speakers that's like having another fridge running. I use Z-wave sockets to turn the whole system on and off as required. I don't normally have to interact much with the controller anyway because the home automation groups the speakers and sets the sound source automatically when it comes on.

I definitely have some interference problems. I have a Boost and yet still get some interference. I've tried putting the Sonos and wifi at the opposite extremes of the channel spectrum and that has helped, but I do still occasionally get interference.
ratty
I definitely don't intend to leave my Sonos speakers on 24/7. That's crazy. With four speakers that's like having another fridge running.
It's around 14W for four PLAY:1s.

Regularly powering electronics on and off is the most aggressive way of reducing their lifespan. It's your call of course but, as with routers, switches, access points and the like, Sonos units are network components designed to be left powered up. The amplifiers automatically switch off when idle,
D
Badge
Actually it's more like 19-20W. I've measured it. You may not care about how much energy you use, but I certainly do. Turning a device on and off twice a day will not significantly affect its lifespan, that's absurd.
There's no good reason to design them to be left on permanently, and in view of the concern about the very significant power drain by "vampire devices", they certainly should not be.
Chris
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
That actually is not absurd. So what you wish though. I don't believe anyone attacked you for your views.
Respect the Queue (1)Move (2)Beam (1)ARC (1)SonosOne (1)Playbar (4)Play5 (4)Play1 (3)Play3 (1)Port (2)Connect (1)Connect:Amp (3)Sonos Amp (1)Sub + (9) Echo + Smartthings
ratty
You may not care about how much energy you use, but I certainly do. Turning a device on and off twice a day will not significantly affect its lifespan, that's absurd.
Actually it does, as anyone who knows anything about electronics will tell you. Voltage and thermal cycling is the dominant factor in determining product life. (Others include simple chronological age.) The point when electronics fail is almost always at power-on.

But, as I say, it's your choice. Bear in mind that the energy required to manufacture a replacement unit for one which has failed prematurely is also part of the equation.
D
Badge
Modern power supplies limit the stress caused by turning devices off and on. In the EU at least, all devices sold are required to handle this, AFAIK.
jgatie
Thermal cycling may lead to fatigue cracking of the solder joints, especially with elastic solders; various approaches are used to mitigate such incidents.


Accumulation of charge carriers trapped in the gate oxide of MOSFETs. This introduces permanent gate biasing, influencing the transistor's threshold voltage; it may be caused by hot carrier injection, ionizing radiation or nominal use. With EEPROM cells, this is the major factor limiting the number of erase-write cycles.


Note: Each power cycling requires a read/write cycle on the internal storage.

During thermal cycling, the silicon atoms may migrate and clump together forming nodules that act as voids, increasing local resistance and lowering device lifetime.[2]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_of_electronic_components
ratty
A PSU might restrain a voltage ramp. However it can do nothing about the actual number of capacitor voltage cycles, nor the number of thermal cycles.
Chris
Userlevel 7
Badge +22
Yea. It's the same device in EU no matter what the marketing speak.
Respect the Queue (1)Move (2)Beam (1)ARC (1)SonosOne (1)Playbar (4)Play5 (4)Play1 (3)Play3 (1)Port (2)Connect (1)Connect:Amp (3)Sonos Amp (1)Sub + (9) Echo + Smartthings
D
Badge
OK, well, be that as it may, I shall not be leaving another fridge's worth of phantom power drain on 24/7.
jgatie
Modern power supplies limit the stress caused by turning devices off and on. In the EU at least, all devices sold are required to handle this, AFAIK.

Nothing about a power supply can mitigate the effects of thermal cycling. A unit not drawing power is cooler than a unit drawing power and by definition going from one state to the other requires a thermal cycling. But as ratty said, it is your choice. Whatever makes you feel good. But if one is really going calculate the energy footprint of any given product, one must realize the overall impact on the environment is far more complicated than, not to mention counter intuitive to, the standard narrative. Otherwise, we are really looking at what makes us feel good, rather that what is good for the environment.
D
Badge
Thanks for everyone's help.
I apologise if I was a bit sharp there but I'm not in the best of moods today, for entirely unrelated reasons.
ratty
I think a lot of us can understand that.
D
Badge
Modern power supplies limit the stress caused by turning devices off and on. In the EU at least, all devices sold are required to handle this, AFAIK.

Nothing about a power supply can mitigate the effects of thermal cycling. A unit not drawing power is cooler than a unit drawing power and by definition going from one state to the other requires a thermal cycling. But as ratty said, it is your choice. Whatever makes you feel good. But if one is really going calculate the energy footprint of any given product, one must realize the overall impact on the environment is far more complicated than, not to mention counter intuitive to, the standard narrative. Otherwise, we are really looking at what makes us feel good, rather that what is good for the environment.

I assume you're referring to the energy and resources needed to manufacture another Sonos speaker if it stops working due to the constant cycling. Well, I know what power I'm using (or not using) today, but I have no way reliably to estimate the lifespan of a Sonos speaker, or the effect (I suspect small) of such infrequent cycling. So there's no way to do those calculations.

Anyway I note that Sonos has been telling owners of some older products that their functionality is going to be more limited because they're 10 years old. I suspect your Sonos product is likely to be made obsolete by the constant upgrade cycles long before it dies due to power cycling.
Terms & ConditionsCookie settings