Delay compensation when used with AV receivers

One of the reasons that I rarely watch TV is poor lip sync. In my experience it varies from station to station and often from show to show or commercial to show. I'll sometimes watch or listen, but doing both simultaneously is too distracting for me. Curiously, the movie channels and streaming services usually have better sync.

Are you saying that if you're watching on a TV screen with TV speakers you have sync problems? Or that your receiver introduces delays that differ from one channel to another? In any case, the proper test of whether Sonos's sync would need to be tuned up over time is whether your receiver, once properly time synced to a particular DVD (for example) would always play that DVD correctly or whether the receiver "drifts" over time to come out of sync. And I'm pretty sure in 100% of cases it's the former.

jbs,

Absolutely. Every TV I have encountered since the digital migration exhibits poor lip sync. This is not always the TV's fault. Most of the delay is built into the program or the cable box. I can observe the delays on direct antenna reception. Even in the days before the old analog standard was discarded, an analog set that had no delay suddenly had a delay after the TV station switched their processing chain to digital.

I haven't noticed receivers or TV's "drifting", but a firmware update might shuffle the deck. Some receivers allow storing a delay with each input. On the YAMAHA receivers you may be able to use "Scenes" to do what you need to do. Of course, a visiting teen could update the scenes and cause trouble. If you are using a universal remote, at least on the higher YAMAHA models, you can keep a step ahead of the teen.

None of this will protect me from source changes. I would want to tinker with the delay after every channel change on the TV.

Anyway, I think that one should use a SONOS CONNECT:AMP and automatic speaker relays to share the speakers. This allows both the receiver and the SONOS system to do what they do best, system operation is straight forward, and there are no SONOS related latency issues due to receiver processing.

buzz,

I'm sure we both have better things to do that beat this horse to death 🙂 but if your lipsync issue is with digital TV then it makes my point that receivers, once time synced, won't drift.

And frankly, anybody who updates their receiver firmware (practically nobody) is going to be comfortable tweaking the Sonos sync timing (again in the remote scenario it's needed).

Nobody is going to BUY a new receiver to be able to use their Sonos zone. Instead clients just skip Sonos in the home theatre (lost revenue for me and for Sonos). And the laws of physics dictate that if the receiver is doing anything that delays the sound, then the ONLY thing that will get the sound in sync is to SLOW DOWN the other Sonos zones. This is not a complex scenario -- either remove the receiver delay or match it in the other zones, there's no other way to skin the cat in this instance. 🙂 (sorry cat lovers). And since we've already agreed that some receivers introduce a delay NO MATTER WHAT SETTING, that means we're down to one cat skinning option.

Finally, understand that in your last scenario you're suggesting that disconnecting ceileing/wall speakers from the receiver, inserting a new ($$) relay and upgrading to a Connect Amp ($$$$) vs Connect ($$) is *better* than a dozen lines of code in the software to manage the delay. Oh, and most of the speaker relays I've seen are actually IR or RS232 controlled, meant to be programmed into the automation system. I assume you mean some kind of relay that automatically knows which source to turn to, but what does it do when both turn on? The only reliable ones are prorgammed into the home control or universal remote, but now we're talking about even more $$$. As a dealer I'd be embarassed to suggest that to a client because it would look so blatantly like I was trying to pad the bill, plus I'm introducing new points of failure, new connections, messing with an existing setup that works fine. No, instead I'll just continue to avoid the Connect until and unless there's a Sonos software fix.

jbs,

There is no need for signal sensing. Many receivers offer a 12V trigger that can directly operate speaker relays from NILES and others.

jbs,

There is no need for signal sensing. Many receivers offer a 12V trigger that can directly operate speaker relays from NILES and others.

Except as far as I know all the Niles speaker relays are stereo only. I don't see any 5 or 5.1 channel relays which means you'd only be using 2 of your 5.1 / 7.1 or more speakers for Sonos.

One of the great things about Sonos in a home theatre is that many receivers do a very nice job turning stereo music into a virtual surround field or at the very least spreading the music across the full set of speakers.

The software approach to this problem preserves that capability but the speaker relay (on top of all the added cost and complexity) does not.

I swear I'm not trying to be stubborn or a jerk here and usually even if I think I'm right I can understand why an opposing point of view makes sense to others. But in this case I'm struggling to see why instead of a simple software tweak you would prefer:

1. A more expensive player (Amp vs Connect)
2. Adding multiple connections to the speaker run
3. Adding a new piece of equipment (speaker relay)
4. Wiring the speaker relay into the system
5. Wiring the speaker relay control signal
6. Giving up 60% or more of your speakers when using Sonos.

Doesn't that seem like a LOT of trouble and expense vs:

• Delay the other zones by xxx milliseconds

jbs,

ADA offers a one box product.

Certainly the software approach is less cash outlay, but from an operational/usability standpoint, using a CONNECT with an A/V receiver is simply too complicated for most users to grasp. Even if the primary user can deal with the situation, a house guest will be facing an enigma.

If the receiver offers IP control, it is possible to use an "app" on a smart phone or pad and offer a seamless operational experience without adding any hardware, but at a programming cost to the consumer.

jbs,

ADA offers a one box product.

Certainly the software approach is less cash outlay, but from an operational/usability standpoint, using a CONNECT with an A/V receiver is simply too complicated for most users to grasp. Even if the primary user can deal with the situation, a house guest will be facing an enigma.

If the receiver offers IP control, it is possible to use a "app" on a smart phone or pad and offer a seamless operational experience without adding any hardware, but at a programming cost to the consumer.

The one box product (the MORB-1) still doesn't solve the problem since it does not create the surround sound that the receiver would have. You'd be left with manually splicing the Sonos LEFT output into 2 or more of the LEFT speaker inputs in the MORB and the right into 2 or more RIGHT inputs, potentially damaging speakers or the Sonos Amp if (like me) you have 7.1 surround with different channels having different speaker specifications. And where does the center channel go?

The argument you're making is really about the Sonos Connect itself. It sounds like you're arguing against the existence of the Connect at all then, is that right? Since afaik it's only PURPOSE is to play through an AV receiver (or something like it) then if turning on a receiver is too complicated for most users (and I don't agree that it is, but for the sake of argument) there would truly never be an instance when the Connect would be a good option (which would of course also solve the sync problem) ;-)

In my view it's easy to make the Connect a perfectly accessible Sonos zone, especially in conjunction with a universal remote (and I'd say 95% of the customers to whom we sell receivers we also sell a Logitech Harmony remote). One button on the remote is "Sonos". Press the button and now the Sonos controller works just like any zone. When they're done they can press the Off button on the Harmony. Even a houseguest could do it ;-)

Just to come back to the original topic, this is an INCREDIBLY easy problem to solve. No hardware is needed, no physical rewiring, no changing of the receiver setup, no changing of ANYTHING except a single, simple addition to the Sonos equalization settings panel that says, "This zone delays sound by xxx milliseconds."

One setting, some very simple backend buffering, and the problem is solved. I simply can't imagine why someone would prefer hundreds of dollars worth of new equipment, labor, programming time, etc to the setting of one OPTIONAL field in Sonos. I'll bet 99% of Sonos users have never even LOOKED at the Equalization panel, so it would affect them NOT ONE BIT. But when a dealer is setting up a system, he/she could EASILY solve what's otherwise an embarrassing problem. And when a DIY customer calls Sonos tech support, they could EASILY walk the user through solving the problem. And when a DIY customer posts a complaint on this forum, any of us could EASILY walk the user through solving the problem.

Do you really want to walk a user through discarding their Connect, buying a Connect Amp, buying a MORB, splicing into their speaker wires, adding a 12V control circuit, possibly frying their new Connect:Amp, etc etc etc?

vs this:

"Go into "Room Settings", tap on the Equalization panel and then pull the "This zone delays" slider to the right until everything sounds good.

I really don't know what else I can say here. If anyone else is still following the thread I'd love some other input to see if I'm missing the point here . . .

"Go into "Room Settings", tap on the Equalization panel and then pull the "This zone delays" slider to the right until everything sounds good.



But, we would then need to explain why users who don't have a CONNECT attached to an A/V receiver should avoid using this control.

All I am suggesting is that the feature will be a little quirky and we should be careful what we wish for.

But, we would then need to explain why users who don't have a CONNECT attached to an A/V receiver should avoid using this control.

All I am suggesting is that the feature will be a little quirky and we should be careful what we wish for.

Actually the setting would ONLY show up for a Connect, not on any other equipment (this is already how settings like "Create Stereo Pair" work, they only show up on rooms with the relevant player). And a Connect is (almost) ALWAYS attached to a receiver or some other processing device.

Do you currently have to explain to users why they should not use the "Create Stereo Pair" button? Of course not. This is the beauty of having the setting buried on a screen where 99% of users never go. It's there to solve the problem when it comes up, or when a dealer sets up the system, but nobody's talking about putting it on the VOLUME CONTROL page where users stumble across it 10 times a day!

As I said, 99% of our Sonos clients have never SEEN the Room Settings panel. Adding an option would have ZERO impact on them, just like "Loudness" "Create Stereo Pair" and "Line Out Level".

Besides, if the description is "This rooms sound lags behind the rest of the house by xxx milliseconds (default: zero)" then even if someone DID stumble upon it, there is ZERO likelihood that, absent some problem they've noticed, that they're going to think, "Oh, I should really go and adjust this setting for the hell of it".

I certainly agree with you that the addition of any new feature or setting should be weighed carefully against the risk that somebody screws it up. But in this case the problem is HUGE for a certin subset of users and can be fixed with a VERY minor tweak that 99% of users are never going to see and the other 1% will have no reason to change unnecessarily. You and I disagree on whether it's better to risk what I see as a very small chance of someone choosing to modify a setting buried 3 screens deep on one of their rooms or to have their system sound crappy every time they try and play music throughout the house. It's not a close call for me.

If anyone else is still following the thread I'd love some other input to see if I'm missing the point here . . .
I can see both sides of the argument but I certainly agree with you that a hardware based solution would not only be much more complicated but also very expensive.

But, we would then need to explain why users who don't have a CONNECT attached to an A/V receiver should avoid using this control.

Easily overcome by having the settings available through a "secret" menu - maybe browser based e.g. xx.xx.xx.xx:1400/avdelayconfig.htm rather than even having to go via a controller? Assuming of course that this would usually be used by expert installers and wouldn't need constant adjustment.