Is the Sonosnet dying out?


Userlevel 2
Badge +4

Is the Sonosnet dying out? The new eras 100 & 300 can no longer use or perform it! They can only handle home wlan like move or roam. 

If that's actually the case, I hope, that wireless repeaters will be perfect supported in the future.

Dirk 

 


17 replies

Is the Sonosnet dying out? The new eras 100 & 300 can no longer use or perform it! They can only handle home wlan like move or roam. 

If that's actually the case, I hope, that wireless repeaters will be perfect supported in the future.

Dirk 

 

 

I think ‘dying out’ implies it’s happening much more faster than it actually is.  Most of the Sonos speakers sold today are still capable of using sonosnet, and are unlikely to reach end of life soon.  The explanation provided, makes sense.  Modern home networks don’t need sonosnet.  I would suspect that Sonos look all the data they’ve gathered from customers via support to come to that conclusion.  

Userlevel 7
Badge +22

Related: Can I keep my old Sonos on SonosNet while letting the new stuff connect to my WiFi?

Not really happy having Sonos on my WiFi but I do appreciate the need for faster connections given the support for higher definition music.

 

Related: Can I keep my old Sonos on SonosNet while letting the new stuff connect to my WiFi?

 

This is exactly how Move and Roam operate already.

Userlevel 7
Badge +22

So you are telling me that with my current setup, wired to Ethernet and SonosNet (wireless) connected speakers I could add the 100 or 300, which means giving Sonos WiFi credentials (which it does not have now) and the existing SonosNet Wireless ones would continue to use the SonosNet and not a WiFi connection without stability issues?

I’m not saying no at this point as the 100 looks like something I could use in a couple places. The 300 I don’t see a need for versus adding another Five for my needs.

A bit on my setup:

I have avoided buying a Roam or Move due to the WiFi requirement, didn’t want to open that can of worms just to save moving a power cord on my One and I have a box of decent Bluetooth speakers that rarely see use.

My current WiFi (both APs and connected devices) is both old and very stable but it is also heavily loaded from time to time and it wasn’t always able to support Sonos’ data throughput needs, which is what got me started on the Ethernet connections in the first place.

The solution here is probably adding a more modern WiFi system dedicated to connect to the 100 and 300 class Sonos while keeping my current SonosNet and existing WiFi for my legacy needs. That would put all three clear channels in use here but it should work.

I’d certainly try putting all Sonos on the new WiFi and see how that worked, easy as pulling a few patch cables. It should be lightly loaded without the legacy gear that would remain on the old WiFi.

Yes, that’s what we’re telling you. In the same manner as the Move and the Roam work now, if you had them. 

However, if you use them as surrounds, it’s a moot point once they’re set up. They would still connect to the soundbar’s signal, not your Wi-Fi or SonosNet. 

 

The solution here is probably adding a more modern WiFi system dedicated to connect to the 100 and 300 class Sonos while keeping my current SonosNet and existing WiFi for my legacy needs. That would put all three clear channels in use here but it should work.

 

I think having sonosnet and 2 WiFi networks would overcomplicate it.  Remember that your controlling devices (phone) needs to be on the same network as Sonos.  If your going to get a modern WiFi system, then it should have no problem handling the load.  I don’t have any issues with Roam and Move on my WiFi along with everything else, including a lot of IoT.  No issues.

 

 

 

Userlevel 7
Badge +22

The cameras are old, 802.11g and 20 MHz so they aren’t going to be able to use any modern WiFi features and will likely drag a new AP and other clients down to a compatibility mode as it does the one I have now. 

I only have a single active network here, I use one or more Access Points to provide my WiFi signal. All are wired to my router’s internal switch.

When I got my Boost I replaced the dedicated to Sonos AP I was using with the Boost keeping it on the same channel. When I dropped the Boost and wired several Sonos I didn’t change anything.

So it sounds like dropping SonosNet and adding a high performance AP for Sonos and my modern WiFi devices and keeping my legacy WiFi for the old cameras might be the ticket.

That simplifies things. Thanks.

Userlevel 7
Badge +17

Just one disadvantage of using Sonosnet and wifi on the same system is that the system will know the wifi credentials and speakers might switch between WM0 and WM1. If have seem problems with this for people using both Sonosnet and Move or Roam.

Userlevel 7
Badge +18

Maybe it's good to know that Sonos will be discontinuing the Boost. What the deeper meaning of this action is, I'm at a loss, though.

Userlevel 6
Badge +14

I use a Boost as my router is in a really silly place in my fairly new built home. It works well to help my Sonos system and my portable speakers never get messed up by it either. I think it will be a shame if it is discontinued. 

Userlevel 6
Badge +11

I have a theory. Sonos is committed to driving down the power consumption of their newer devices:

https://s29.q4cdn.com/969873633/files/doc_downloads/esg/Sonos-2022-Listen-Better-Report.pdf

SonosNet will consume power, as each device is a node in the SonosNet network, and can forward network traffic to other devices when idle.

If that functionality is removed from the devices, they will potentially use less power.

Looking at official power consumption the non-SonosNet devices all consume less power when idle.

However, the power saved in the Sonos devices will still be consumed by other devices, WiFi APs, mesh networks nodes, etc?

 

Userlevel 7
Badge +17

Penny-wise, pound-foolish?

Penny-wise, pound-foolish?

 

Move and Roam have been operating on WiFi  for years.  We’ve had the option of operating all our speakers on WiFi for years.  The Era speakers surely went through extensive beta testing.  I would think that if such a setup increased the likelihood of network related errors in systems, Sonos would know about it.

Sonos stated that they didn’t think the Era speakers needed sonosnet as modern routers can handle it.  Not sure why this reason isn’t good enough.  Sure, probably helps reduce idle power consumption.  It may very well reduce hardware costs, dev costs, and support costs...I have no idea. Will people still have network issues?  Sure, they do with sonosnet now.

However, the power saved in the Sonos devices will still be consumed by other devices, WiFi APs, mesh networks nodes, etc?

 

 

That presumes that people don’t are already have a more modern router/network setup in their homes already, and would only ever do so to support Sonos speakers.  I don’t really think Sonos is driving people to upgrade their networks so much as taking advantage of upgraded networks...but I suppose there’s room for debate there.  Sonos certainly wasn’t a driver for me.

I have a theory. Sonos is committed to driving down the power consumption of their newer devices:

https://s29.q4cdn.com/969873633/files/doc_downloads/esg/Sonos-2022-Listen-Better-Report.pdf

SonosNet will consume power, as each device is a node in the SonosNet network, and can forward network traffic to other devices when idle.

If that functionality is removed from the devices, they will potentially use less power.

Looking at official power consumption the non-SonosNet devices all consume less power when idle.

However, the power saved in the Sonos devices will still be consumed by other devices, WiFi APs, mesh networks nodes, etc?

 

 

As good an analysis as any I’ve heard. 

Current routers and WiFi access points are much more capable than previous generations. Older units can only deal with one stream at a time. SONOS is quite talkative on the network. All but the lowest quality modern routers can deal with multiple simultaneous streams. This keeps SONOS from hogging the channel.

Reply