Sonos Home Theater Receiver?

Because they're in the speaker market, not the home A/V receiver market? While they're related from a consumer perspective, they're probably pretty different from a manufacturing perspective, and I'd think that Sonos would prefer to stick in their wheelhouse and make great speakers for home music, rather than expanding into another area.

I'd also imagine that the home theater receiver market is pretty full with other players already. Might be hard to "break in" to that market and 'rake in a bunch of money'....

They're not only in the speaker market (Amp, Connect, Playbase). It's all digital processing, so not that different. No other player has incorporated Sonos wireless functionality in a receiver.

You're right, rake wasn't the right metaphor...more like vacuum...vacuum in a bunch of money.

Heh.

As I'm sure you're aware, I have absolutely no idea, I'm just spitballing.

But if there was that much money lying on the table, wouldn't there already be a company in there raking it up?

At the end of the day, Sonos is a "we make speakers" company. And frankly, they've always been focused on "whole home music". The home theater line is secondary to that, and not where it feels like they're concentrating their attention.

For sure. My question is meant to generate conversation, but ideally someone from Sonos could jump in.

You touched on my point. I take your “speaker company” to mean they’re an audio company. But, I think they’re running out of room to bring something new. Providing a way to tie into my home theater speakers would be game changing.

Yea, I’d love to see the market research on that, and figure it against costs of manufacture. Then the marketing cost for entering a newish area of sales.

Because there are millions of consumers (like me) who have zero interest in huge, unsightly, overly complex, black A/V receivers that have features that seem to change every year, Dolby this, THX that, etc, when I basically only watch The Newshour and stream from Amazon and Netflix. Playbar just gets out of the way, and perfectly suits my needs, and the needs of many, many others.

AV receivers have to be low margin products; the house brands sell for $99, major brands are constantly on sale. Hard to make "big bucks" in a low margin environment.

Zero interest in room shaking explosions and car chases, which so many movies have degenerated into. Great acting, great dialog, great cinematography, great directing, all work well with a good display and the Playbar.

I do not want a Connect.

Why doesn't Sonos get into the Home Theater receiver market by creating a receiver that could solve all of these issues/use cases and rake in a bunch of money?

As others have said, probably not much money to be made, as the number of people who have full AV systems are now very much in the minority.

Why would you want to buy (what would probably) be an expensive new receiver, though, when simply adding a Connect would resolve your issue?

If you have a more modern receiver, then it may even have Chromecast/Spotify etc built in, so you can still stream to the receiver from your chosen music source, albeit not via the Sonos software.

Yea, I’d love to see the market research on that, and figure it against costs of manufacture. Then the marketing cost for entering a newish area of sales.

I would also. I’m not sure what percent of total market share Sonos could capture, but if you three and this guy are correct, there would be goodness to creating a minimally-featured, small(er) form factor receiver with Sonos Amp capabilities built in.

As others have said, probably not much money to be made, as the number of people who have full AV systems are now very much in the minority.

Why would you want to buy (what would probably) be an expensive new receiver, though, when simply adding a Connect would resolve your issue?

If you have a more modern receiver, then it may even have Chromecast/Spotify etc built in, so you can still stream to the receiver from your chosen music source, albeit not via the Sonos software.

I don’t know about “the minority.” I searched for data to confirm or refute that statement and came up blank.

Why? I don’t want a separate component AND a common problem many home theater enthusiasts have is how to get wireless surround sound which is Sonos’s wheelhouse. Again, your streaming example is not my use case where I’d want the same music playing on all Sonos devices (e.g. during parties).

I’m going to chime in a little late but a lot of the responses to the initial question are very ignorant. The surround amplifier buisness would be great segway for sonos to get into. The market is stagnant full of products that lack innovation and really has not changed much in 30 years. A pioneer or Denon AVR have to many buttons options..and settings and can easily be mis configured by a everyday operator. Setting up wired speaker systems allow you to gain a natural stereo separation that sounbars only simulate. Not to mention getting to use your own speakers. sonos very much has a horse in the race with high end clients the same clients that purchase whole home audio or have wired theater rooms. The only class D amplified AVRs I know of are made by pioneer and retail at 1,599ish there is plenty of margin and space here for a product that adds some simplicity and technology. People want easy that’s why sonos is king with their home audio solution. If they could bring that same ease into what I think is a broken market I think the risk would pay off in profitability for the company. Not to mention the ease of an app guided setup. There would also be a Benefit of less needs for universal remotes if sonos removes some complexity here.

Please sonos make me a receiver that does not work like my dad and grandpas, it’s about to be 2020 I want something that breaths the same creativity from the AMP just with 5.1 channels.

-I work in home theater sales

I'm not quite following what's being asked for here. If it's asking to be able to setup a 5.1 HT system with Sonos amplification/processing, but 3rd party passive speakers, this is already possible...almost. You can setup the front channels (left, right, simulated center) + sub (Sonos or wired active sub). Then you add a second amp for the rear channels. It's technically 4.1, but I'm not sure it makes sense for Sonos to make a single amp/receiver that covers all channels in a single box. For one thing, that means you'd have to wire front and back speakers from the same central location. That's rather difficult in many open concept spaces. The other is that it's only useful for those who don't want to use Sonos speakers for the rear channel. I'm not quite seeing what's missing here.

If you want something more than Sonos's offering for HT, then go out and get the latest and greatest and use the Connect (now Port) to integrate it to Sonos. I'm not following the logic of wanting the functionality of the Port, but not wanting the Port. Is it form factor? Cost? Ease of use.

Now if we were talking about a hypothetical "Super Connect" that would connect to your TV, and wireless send audio to 6 (or more) speakers/subs in a HT configuration, that's different I think. But even then , I can't really say that I'm going to go for that, just because my open concept space where I watch TV isn't setup to take advantage of that, and I'd have to get electrical outlets added in certain spots (or have wires everywhere). Would all that cost be worth it for marginally better sound? Maybe. Then again, I could probably go with a old fashion reciver and passive speakers for similar cost or less.

I'm not quite following what's being asked for here. If it's asking to be able to setup a 5.1 HT system with Sonos amplification/processing, but 3rd party passive speakers, this is already possible...almost. You can setup the front channels (left, right, simulated center) + sub (Sonos or wired active sub). Then you add a second amp for the rear channels. It's technically 4.1, but I'm not sure it makes sense for Sonos to make a single amp/receiver that covers all channels in a single box. For one thing, that means you'd have to wire front and back speakers from the same central location. That's rather difficult in many open concept spaces. The other is that it's only useful for those who don't want to use Sonos speakers for the rear channel. I'm not quite seeing what's missing here.

I think you get almost exactly what I think is missing here. Re-read your own first paragraph and @Dbjones20 reply.

It’s really simple. I want a Home Theater quality AV receiver that can process (at least) 5.1 as discrete signals sent to separate speakers. All of the speakers should have the option of being wired or Sonos wireless. For me, then, I would wire my three fronts and sub and use Ones (or the new One SL’s) as wireless surrounds. Since the receiver would also be processing the video signal (e.g. HDMI), Sonos processing would then be able to sync the amped wired audio channels, pre-amped wireless audio channels going to Sonos speakers over WiFi, and the video signal going to the TV/projector. When not using it as a home theater (e.g. a party), this setup would also allow me to use up to all 6 of those speakers (configurable by the user) as a Sonos zone.

Yes, the new Port looks interesting, but it still adds another component when I think the right move is to include it as a capability in a receiver than can also distribute synced surrounds (home theater use case). Plus, it’s $400. That’s frickin’ crazy for what it is and is about half the cost of my current Onkyo 7.1 Home Theater AV receiver. But, at least it’s black (not white like Connect).

I think you are understimating the work Sonos would have to put into such a receiver.

By the way: my Connect is black, see https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flexson-ColourPlay-Skin-SONOS-CONNECT/dp/B00KISBV2K

It’s really simple. I want a Home Theater quality AV receiver that can process (at least) 5.1 as discrete signals sent to separate speakers. All of the speakers should have the option of being wired or Sonos wireless.

That's going to add tremendous cost to this hypotehtical unit. You don't want to buy amp(s) that you aren't going to use because you're sending the channel to an active speaker. Sonos allows you to buy combinations of amps and speakers that fits what you need with minimal stuff that you don't. No, it doesn't have all the features that every HT enthusiast in looking for, but it's aiming to hit the boxes for the common user.

For me, then, I would wire my three fronts and sub and use Ones (or the new One SL’s) as wireless surrounds.

You do know you can do this already, with the exception that the center is phantom/simulated, right? And you only have to pay $600 from the amp, vs $1000+ for the receiver product your asking for.

Since the receiver would also be processing the video signal (e.g. HDMI), Sonos processing would then be able to sync the amped wired audio channels, pre-amped wireless audio channels going to Sonos speakers over WiFi, and the video signal going to the TV/projector.

But there's no need for Sonos to process video channels With the growth in smart TVs, much of the content people watch doesn't even come through HDMI at all, and you actually need to receive audio from the TV, instead of having all your sources come through the receiver with the reciever just passing along the video signal. The Amp (and all the other HT products) does get the signal from the TV and will sync it's amped wired channels with the pre-amped wireless audio channels. That aspect, isn't anything new.

When not using it as a home theater (e.g. a party), this setup would also allow me to use up to all 6 of those speakers (configurable by the user) as a Sonos zone.

It already is a Sonos Zone. There are limits to how you can configure them though, basically with rear surrounds off or playing stereo along with the front channels.

Yes, the new Port looks interesting, but it still adds another component when I think the right move is to include it as a capability in a receiver than can also distribute synced surrounds (home theater use case)

.

Well, then the Port would be the Amp.

Plus, it’s $400. That’s frickin’ crazy for what it is and is about half the cost of my current Onkyo 7.1 Home Theater AV receiver. But, at least it’s black (not white like Connect).

You got a 7.1 HT AV for $200? The cheapest Onkyo 7.1 HT on Crutchfield right now is $380. It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison regardless as the Port isn't a receiver, it's value is in it's ability to integrate audio in and out of the Sonos system. What that means to a person depends on their Sonos sytem and how important it is to integrate their non-Sonos system. The price is absolutely higher than I'd like it to be.

I get that you want a system that's extremely flexible that can do whatever it is you may dream up. I somewhat agree in that I'd want a device that acts a hub for wireless channels in a rather flexible way, I don't want to amps in it though. I don't agree that Sonos needs to start doing video signal processing. I don't know that the cost of developing products with this level of flexibility has a big enough market to justify it. I hope there is, but I don't see overwhelming evidence.

And I'd as well that those who are going to do serious HT. Those that are going get the right size room with a huge screen, 7.4.2 sound, etc...they likely are going to be willing to cut into the walls for passive speakers and not care about wireless speakers anyway. Sonos won't be much of an advantage to them. And a $400 port will suffice for those that do want whole home. Not all, but certainly the majority.

I think you are understimating the work Sonos would have to put into such a receiver.

At these prices, frankly, I don't care.

By the way: my Connect is black, see https://www.amazon.co.uk/Flexson-ColourPlay-Skin-SONOS-CONNECT/dp/B00KISBV2K

I looked into those skins, they're discontinued (but N/A now that the Port is coming out)

It’s really simple. I want a Home Theater quality AV receiver that can process (at least) 5.1 as discrete signals sent to separate speakers.

All of the speakers should have the option of being wired or Sonos wireless.That's going to add tremendous cost to this hypotehtical unit. You don't want to buy amp(s) that you aren't going to use because you're sending the channel to an active speaker. Sonos allows you to buy combinations of amps and speakers that fits what you need with minimal stuff that you don't. No, it doesn't have all the features that every HT enthusiast in looking for, but it's aiming to hit the boxes for the common user.

Have you looked at the back of an AV Receiver lately? Lots of unused ports on them already. I suspect that focusing in on these sort of use cases (Home Theater wireless surround + Sonos extendibility) would make for a receiver no more or less complicated or costly than those. I'm happy that you and may others are happy with their current offerings. I am not.

For me, then, I would wire my three fronts and sub and use Ones (or the new One SL’s) as wireless surrounds.

You do know you can do this already, with the exception that the center is phantom/simulated, right? And you only have to pay $600 from the amp, vs $1000+ for the receiver product your asking for.

I cannot because of the 75ms WiFi delay and I do no want a phantom/simulated center

Since the receiver would also be processing the video signal (e.g. HDMI), Sonos processing would then be able to sync the amped wired audio channels, pre-amped wireless audio channels going to Sonos speakers over WiFi, and the video signal going to the TV/projector.

But there's no need for Sonos to process video channels With the growth in smart TVs, much of the content people watch doesn't even come through HDMI at all, and you actually need to receive audio from the TV, instead of having all your sources come through the receiver with the reciever just passing along the video signal. The Amp (and all the other HT products) does get the signal from the TV and will sync it's amped wired channels with the pre-amped wireless audio channels. That aspect, isn't anything new.

75ms WiFi delay is why

When not using it as a home theater (e.g. a party), this setup would also allow me to use up to all 6 of those speakers (configurable by the user) as a Sonos zone.

It already is a Sonos Zone. There are limits to how you can configure them though, basically with rear surrounds off or playing stereo along with the front channels.

What is "It?"

Yes, the new Port looks interesting, but it still adds another component when I think the right move is to include it as a capability in a receiver than can also distribute synced surrounds (home theater use case)

.

Well, then the Port would be the Amp.

Amp does not do what I want either

Plus, it’s $400. That’s frickin’ crazy for what it is and is about half the cost of my current Onkyo 7.1 Home Theater AV receiver. But, at least it’s black (not white like Connect).

You got a 7.1 HT AV for $200? The cheapest Onkyo 7.1 HT on Crutchfield right now is $380. It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison regardless as the Port isn't a receiver, it's value is in it's ability to integrate audio in and out of the Sonos system. What that means to a person depends on their Sonos sytem and how important it is to integrate their non-Sonos system. The price is absolutely higher than I'd like it to be.

$400 x 2 = $800. Exactly, it's a fancy audio streaming box.

I get that you want a system that's extremely flexible that can do whatever it is you may dream up. I somewhat agree in that I'd want a device that acts a hub for wireless channels in a rather flexible way, I don't want to amps in it though. I don't agree that Sonos needs to start doing video signal processing. I don't know that the cost of developing products with this level of flexibility has a big enough market to justify it. I hope there is, but I don't see overwhelming evidence.

And I'd as well that those who are going to do serious HT. Those that are going get the right size room with a huge screen, 7.4.2 sound, etc...they likely are going to be willing to cut into the walls for passive speakers and not care about wireless speakers anyway. Sonos won't be much of an advantage to them. And a $400 port will suffice for those that do want whole home. Not all, but certainly the majority.

I disagree, but thank you for your perspective.

I would be interested in a true 5.1 Sonos solution.

I'll qualify my requirement for 5.1 - five individual speakers placed at 5 independent locations (Front Left, Center, Front Right, Rear Left, Rear Right) plus a subwoofer.

A Sonos playbar solution misses this by not providing the Front Left and Front Right as individual independent speakers. Yes, the playbar acts like L/C/R, but that is not what I am looking for.

A Sonos AMP solution misses this by not providing the Center channel as an individual independent speaker. Yes, the AMP provides a phantom center, but that is not what I am looking for.

So Sonos can process and provide all the individual channels, it just can't provide them to individual independent speakers in one setup. Yes, I could use a Port and feed it to an AVR, but that is not what I am looking for.

What is the market for this? Who knows. But for me, this is what I would be looking for, no less.

Have you looked at the back of an AV Receiver lately? Lots of unused ports on them already. I suspect that focusing in on these sort of use cases (Home Theater wireless surround + Sonos extendibility) would make for a receiver no more or less complicated or costly than those. I'm happy that you and may others are happy with their current offerings. I am not.

I think your underestimating the complexity of Sonos's speaker to speaker streaming protocol. I don't think you could just take an average AV receiver, throw in a radio, memory, etc, and say it's now a Sonos receiver. Add a $50 premium.. It's not a matter of being happy with the current offerings, and I am not 100% happy myself. It's a matter of understand what the current products can do, why some of the limitations exist, what the wider market wants, and what makes products are sensible for Sonos to make.

For me, then, I would wire my three fronts and sub and use Ones (or the new One SL’s) as wireless surrounds.
You do know you can do this already, with the exception that the center is phantom/simulated, right? And you only have to pay $600 from the amp, vs $1000+ for the receiver product your asking for.

I cannot because of the 75ms WiFi delay and I do no want a phantom/simulated center

Incorrect. There is no 75ms delay for speakers/amps bonded in a HT room/zone. The speakers/amps communicate over 5Ghz wireless in this scenario with minimal buffering, different then normal audio between different rooms over 2.4GHz If you don't want a soundbar or phantom center channel, then yes, Sonos doesn't have an option for you.

Since the receiver would also be processing the video signal (e.g. HDMI), Sonos processing would then be able to sync the amped wired audio channels, pre-amped wireless audio channels going to Sonos speakers over WiFi, and the video signal going to the TV/projector.
But there's no need for Sonos to process video channels With the growth in smart TVs, much of the content people watch doesn't even come through HDMI at all, and you actually need to receive audio from the TV, instead of having all your sources come through the receiver with the reciever just passing along the video signal. The Amp (and all the other HT products) does get the signal from the TV and will sync it's amped wired channels with the pre-amped wireless audio channels. That aspect, isn't anything new.

75ms WiFi delay is why

As I stated before, this is incorrect. I'm not even sure where this thought is coming from as Sonos wouldn't be able to have any wireless HT offerings at all if it came with 75ms delays.

When not using it as a home theater (e.g. a party), this setup would also allow me to use up to all 6 of those speakers (configurable by the user) as a Sonos zone.
It already is a Sonos Zone. There are limits to how you can configure them though, basically with rear surrounds off or playing stereo along with the front channels.

What is "It?"

Whatever combination of speakers and amps you setup for a home theatre. They are a single Sonos zone (aka 'room'). I currently have a playbar+sub+ 2 play3s form my main living area. When watching TV, it's normal 5.1 DD sound. When streaming audio, I have it set so the playbar plays stereo and the play:3s play stereo. I can turn the play:3s off for audio if I wanted to. In another room I have a Beam+sub+2 play:1s with the same configurations.

Yes, the new Port looks interesting, but it still adds another component when I think the right move is to include it as a capability in a receiver than can also distribute synced surrounds (home theater use case)

.
Well, then the Port would be the Amp.

Amp does not do what I want either

Maybe because you think there is a 75 ms delay in wireless communication? I get that you want an all-in-one box with all the amps, radio, etc that you could want, like you get with a receiver minus all the Sonos features, but it sounds like what you want can be achieved, except for the dedicated center channel, with Sonos current products.

Plus, it’s $400. That’s frickin’ crazy for what it is and is about half the cost of my current Onkyo 7.1 Home Theater AV receiver. But, at least it’s black (not white like Connect).
You got a 7.1 HT AV for $200? The cheapest Onkyo 7.1 HT on Crutchfield right now is $380. It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison regardless as the Port isn't a receiver, it's value is in it's ability to integrate audio in and out of the Sonos system. What that means to a person depends on their Sonos sytem and how important it is to integrate their non-Sonos system. The price is absolutely higher than I'd like it to be.

$400 x 2 = $800. Exactly, it's a fancy audio streaming box.

Why would you need 2 Ports? You can only use one port per zone. Only one is needed matched with a single non-Sonos receiver/amp.

Have you looked at the back of an AV Receiver lately? Lots of unused ports on them already. I suspect that focusing in on these sort of use cases (Home Theater wireless surround + Sonos extendibility) would make for a receiver no more or less complicated or costly than those. I'm happy that you and may others are happy with their current offerings. I am not.

I think your underestimating the complexity of Sonos's speaker to speaker streaming protocol. I don't think you could just take an average AV receiver, throw in a radio, memory, etc, and say it's now a Sonos receiver. Add a $50 premium.. It's not a matter of being happy with the current offerings, and I am not 100% happy myself. It's a matter of understand what the current products can do, why some of the limitations exist, what the wider market wants, and what makes products are sensible for Sonos to make.

Well, I think I do understand their current offerings and they do not cover my use case(s). We're now talking in circles in this area.

For me, then, I would wire my three fronts and sub and use Ones (or the new One SL’s) as wireless surrounds.
You do know you can do this already, with the exception that the center is phantom/simulated, right? And you only have to pay $600 from the amp, vs $1000+ for the receiver product your asking for.

I cannot because of the 75ms WiFi delay and I do no want a phantom/simulated center

Incorrect. There is no 75ms delay for speakers/amps bonded in a HT room/zone. The speakers/amps communicate over 5Ghz wireless in this scenario with minimal buffering, different then normal audio between different rooms over 2.4GHz If you don't want a soundbar or phantom center channel, then yes, Sonos doesn't have an option for you.

Yep, you got it!

Since the receiver would also be processing the video signal (e.g. HDMI), Sonos processing would then be able to sync the amped wired audio channels, pre-amped wireless audio channels going to Sonos speakers over WiFi, and the video signal going to the TV/projector.
But there's no need for Sonos to process video channels With the growth in smart TVs, much of the content people watch doesn't even come through HDMI at all, and you actually need to receive audio from the TV, instead of having all your sources come through the receiver with the reciever just passing along the video signal. The Amp (and all the other HT products) does get the signal from the TV and will sync it's amped wired channels with the pre-amped wireless audio channels. That aspect, isn't anything new.

75ms WiFi delay is why

As I stated before, this is incorrect. I'm not even sure where this thought is coming from as Sonos wouldn't be able to have any wireless HT offerings at all if it came with 75ms delays.

...or, maybe not...If the audio and video processing was all contained in the receiver, Sonos could most certainly do this.

When not using it as a home theater (e.g. a party), this setup would also allow me to use up to all 6 of those speakers (configurable by the user) as a Sonos zone.
It already is a Sonos Zone. There are limits to how you can configure them though, basically with rear surrounds off or playing stereo along with the front channels.

What is "It?"

Whatever combination of speakers and amps you setup for a home theatre. They are a single Sonos zone (aka 'room'). I currently have a playbar+sub+ 2 play3s form my main living area. When watching TV, it's normal 5.1 DD sound. When streaming audio, I have it set so the playbar plays stereo and the play:3s play stereo. I can turn the play:3s off for audio if I wanted to. In another room I have a Beam+sub+2 play:1s with the same configurations.

Right, I want separate front channels. You do not have "normal" 5.1 DD sound. You have 3.1 sound at best. Again, I'm glad (it seems) you like that. It's not what I want.

Yes, the new Port looks interesting, but it still adds another component when I think the right move is to include it as a capability in a receiver than can also distribute synced surrounds (home theater use case)

.
Well, then the Port would be the Amp.

Amp does not do what I want either

Maybe because you think there is a 75 ms delay in wireless communication? I get that you want an all-in-one box with all the amps, radio, etc that you could want, like you get with a receiver minus all the Sonos features, but it sounds like what you want can be achieved, except for the dedicated center channel, with Sonos current products."Except" and I don't want separate components

Plus, it’s $400. That’s frickin’ crazy for what it is and is about half the cost of my current Onkyo 7.1 Home Theater AV receiver. But, at least it’s black (not white like Connect).
You got a 7.1 HT AV for $200? The cheapest Onkyo 7.1 HT on Crutchfield right now is $380. It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison regardless as the Port isn't a receiver, it's value is in it's ability to integrate audio in and out of the Sonos system. What that means to a person depends on their Sonos sytem and how important it is to integrate their non-Sonos system. The price is absolutely higher than I'd like it to be.

$400 x 2 = $800. Exactly, it's a fancy audio streaming box.

Why would you need 2 Ports? You can only use one port per zone. Only one is needed matched with a single non-Sonos receiver/amp.A Port is $400 which is roughly half the cost of my 7.1 Onkyo Home Theater AV Receiver. Why would I pay half the cost of what an entire high end HT AV Receiver provides for the modest and non-integrated capabilities of the Port?

Sonos would get obliterated in the AVR market right now. Sound United recently bought Onkyo/Integra and Pioneer/Elite while already owning Marantz and Denon. Sony and Yamaha are the only other mid to mid-high AVR manufacturers. Without selling a ton of units or charging way too much they couldn't afford licensing Dolby, DTS, and possibly auro-3d (along and every other tech they would need to have to compete). There is a reason a single company owns so many brands now.

The "Works With Sonos" campaign was their first attempt to partner and the new 12v trigger on the port is the new solution that will cover nearly every high end model from those and other brands. This is a good compromise in my opinion. Most network DAC/Streamers/Pre-Amps (it has one input and streaming so kinda a pre-amp) cost at least this much, on the high end you are looking at stuff like the mytek brooklyn bridge for $3000 and is considered an audiophile steal (admittedly it does allow more digital inputs).

Arcam, Anthem, and NAD prices are what Sonos would be comparable to since they are closer in size (blah blah economies of scale rant). If you notice they don't have anything below $1200 (and even at those price points the other mainstream brands are recommended most of the time).

So I need a sonos amp?

Already have a sonos 5 and 4 sonos player 1 plus beam .

Also bought recently a sonos turntable though expensive sounds great and enjoy listening to my old records.

Looking to buy a good cd player .

.

Please advice

Sorry, there’s no context I can find to determine if you should buy a Sonos Amp or not. What is it you’re trying to do, that isn’t working currently?

To add Sonos to most AV Setup Sonos just need to make a Connect which Outputs the audio via HDMI (with CEC) then you could just treat it like another AV Input on you AVR. When you play audio it can automatically switch to that source just the same as when I press play on my Blue ray player.

That way Sonos can remain a “Audio Company” and everyone can still use there AVR setups. The current digital audio out is clumsy in a modern AVR setup. I was quite disappointed when the Gen2 Connect came out recently. It also would have be nice to of added Alexa / google to the connect. This would have bought 2 welcome additions to my AV setup and would have made parting with no doubt £400 worth while.

Come on Sonos.

Sign up

Login to the community

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded