**Big WOW Factor** The Gold Standard with a Few Handcuffs

I’ve stayed out of this conversation since my first response. However, like others I don’t understand how Sonos is responsible for one having to pay for upgrades in codecs by the likes of Amazon, Apple or Spotify. Sonos at least not at the moment doesn’t seem interested in being a curator of music in the same category as those services I just mentioned. Sonos does make it so that one can choose to subscribe to a service if they desire and integrate with the App.

Setting up a share on Sonos does require a bit of tech savvy. However one needs to know how to do the same on a computer.

As far as your drive failing…how is that a fault of Sonos?

In this community people are always asking for more than what the current offerings or capabilities that Sonos can provide. Some have been implemented and some I suspect are being considered and others will never see the light of day. The bottom-line is no company can be all things to satisfy everyone.

BTW… the Sonos Five is not an advanced unit versus the Era Series. The Sub 4 is just another logical upgrade to the Sub series. The Sub Mini was the last new/advanced introduction in the sub lineup.

I understand that integration has costs, but my point is that the two tier approach often feels more like a pay to play barrier. For instance, you cannot simply play YouTube audio through Sonos unless you have a premium subscription, even though it is a standard function on almost any other wireless speaker. For users who prefer alternative apps to avoid aggressive advertising, Sonos does not even recognize them. This is why I have largely given up on playing music from my phone and have reverted to using my Nvidia Shield Pro for video and music files. It is simply more reliable.

Regarding the music library, the process is far from user friendly for those of us with modern, multi device setups. My music is not on one single machine. I have a work laptop, a business machine, and various drives. The fact that my 3TB drive ended up crashing during the fiddling required to link it to Plex just highlights the lack of simplicity. It shouldn't feel like a challenge to simply link a drive to a premium audio system.

I love the sound of this hardware, and with my Arc Ultra, dual Era 300s, and Sub Gen 3, I am finally enjoying music and movies at a level I never thought possible. But that doesn’t mean I have to ignore the culture of greed that prioritises corporate partnerships over human freedom and welfare. It is precisely because the hardware is so good that the software shouldn't be holding it back.

I have a question for those of you who have made the leap to a dual sub setup. I am currently running a single Sub Gen 3 with my Arc Ultra and Era 300s. I am curious if the Sub 4 actually offers a noticeably better sound experience compared to the Gen 3?

If you have combined a Gen 3 with a Sub 4, or moved from a single to a dual setup, could you please elaborate on the difference it made? I am particularly interested in whether it truly improves the low end detail for music or if it is mainly about the physical impact during movies. Since I only have the one sub at the moment, I would value your real world feedback on whether the investment is actually transformative for a 9.1.4 system.

I think you are missing my point about the difference between a codec and a forced subscription. For example, YouTube Music and its sister apps use the same basic audio codecs for both free and premium tiers. However, Sonos has designed the integration so that it only functions if you have a YouTube Premium account. This isn't a limitation of the audio technology itself, it is a choice to gate the hardware behind a specific third party subscription. Unless I am doing something terribly wrong, Sonos does not allow the use of alternative apps that would provide a similar experience without the "culture of greed" that accompanies these premium alliances.

Regarding the tech savvy requirements, my frustration is that it shouldn't be a challenge for the end user. I use a variety of devices including a work laptop and a business machine, so my music library isn't always accessible from one place. My 3TB drive was working perfectly with my TV before I started fiddling with the network settings and Plex to satisfy the Sonos requirements. I am not blaming Sonos for the hardware failure, but the complexity of the setup certainly didn't help.

That being said, I am still very impressed by the hardware. I am even tempted to try a Sonos Five for my bedroom, as I live in a detached property and don't have to worry about the neighbors. I am curious if it would integrate easily with my Samsung tablet or if I should look for an alternative for that room. Given how much I am enjoying the Arc Ultra set for movies and music, I suspect the Five might offer an amazing experience for a dedicated music space, despite my grievances with the software.

The use of single or dual subs depends on several factors. Some of which are:

• Room Size
• Placement in the open or behind or under a sofa
• Primary use such as movies or music
• EQ adjustment
• Your ear

I use dual subs primarily for movies the extra low end for music for me is not needed. Therefore I have a stereo pair of Fives with a single sub for music in the same room as my HT.

Difference between Sub 3 and 4 IMO does not warrant an upgrade. Although some will claim there is a difference. Here again it depends upon your ear and if the china cups rattle more 😂

I have a Sub gen 2 and a Sub 4, different rooms and different associated speakers but they sound the same to me.

My main HT Room could use dual Subs but placement for the second would be an aggravation and the single one isn't really inadequate, just a bit less impressive than the non-Sonos one it replaced.

I previously had two subs and now I have moved to the Arc Ultra and Era 300s with a single Sub Gen 3. Since I am a movie enthusiast, I do wonder if a piece of the puzzle is missing for that true Dolby Atmos spherical experience. I have heard claims on other forums that adding a second sub might cause the Arc to suppress its output, but in my view, it should actually free up the soundbar to deliver better clarity in the higher frequencies.

The idea of placing a sub under the sofa is very intriguing. I currently have my single sub hidden in the front right corner under a table. The space where my second sub used to be is still vacant. I sit at the back of the room on the sofa, so placing a second sub underneath or directly behind me for that physical vibration sounds excellent. It is a shame that Sonos does not allow us to tune each sub with its own independent EQ. Being able to set one for floor shaking impact and the other for clean acoustic detail would be phenomenal.

I have two weeks off work coming up soon, so I might look for some Sub 4 deals on the forums to see if I can complete the setup. I am also still very tempted to test a pair of Fives for my bedroom. I want to see if they can offer that same high level experience I am getting from the Arc Ultra set, but in a dedicated music environment where I can take advantage of living in a detached property.

Thanks for sharing your experience, Stanley. Since I can already hear a significant improvement in the clarity of the Arc Ultra compared to the original Arc, it makes me wonder if adding a Sub 4 would provide that truly sublime experience in sound depth. The Sub Gen 3 is certainly more budget friendly, but the newer hardware in the Sub 4 is tempting for future proofing.

My logic is that by adding a second dedicated sub, the Arc Ultra can offload the heavy lifting of the low end entirely. Even though the Ultra has its own impressive internal woofer, letting two external subs handle the bass should allow the soundbar to focus all its energy on the higher frequencies and dialogue. This should add an extra layer of refinement to the Atmos experience.
 

I am also very tempted by the idea of placing one sub directly under the sofa. If I can find a good deal on a Sub 4 during my upcoming time off, I would love to see if that physical rumble combined with the Arc Ultra's clarity finally completes the puzzle for me.

“This isn't a limitation of the audio technology itself, it is a choice to gate the hardware behind a specific third party subscription. Unless I am doing something terribly wrong, Sonos does not allow the use of alternative apps that would provide a similar experience without the "culture of greed" that accompanies these premium alliances.“

Sonos opens up it's system to anyone who wants to have their music service play through the Sonos app. What the music service does with this access is totally up to them. If Youtube has decided only the premium tier works on Sonos, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Music services that do not work from the Sonos app could be Airplayed to Sonos. Sonos does not do casting from Google, but this is a widely publicised fact, to be considered before buying Sonos.

“I use a variety of devices including a work laptop and a business machine, so my music library isn't always accessible from one place."

Not sure I understand what you expect form Sonos. Sonos expects (and has done so since the beginning) that the music library finds a home on an always on device like a NAS. Could be a computer, but most people do not like having a computer on all the time. So access from different devices should not be a problem.

Would you want Sonos to recognise a library (or multiple libraries) that is (are) spread out over multiple devices? If so, it would not be Sonos making this hard, but you. As has been said above nowadays the music library is a niche feauture, I do not see Sonos adding a feauture like that would be a niche within a niche. All for people using a maximum of 65k songs. 

My understanding is that you can define multiple locations for music library files. 

You can have at least two, I have that now BUT I haven't put any music on the second share yet to test it.

Thanks for the various insights. It is helpful to know that multiple library locations can be defined, though that doesn't change the fact that the process is far from intuitive for the average user.

To @106rallye, I must say that I find your defense of corporate greed quite remarkable. Your argument essentially suggests that since a restrictive system exists, we should simply accept it and move on. I believe it is vital to remain vocal against the hostile control and monopolistic tendencies we see in tech today. When you buy a premium product, you should own the right to use it freely without being steered into specific third party subscriptions.

Regarding your point on YouTube, it is logically flawed. If the audio codec is compatible, Sonos should allow its users to cast that audio freely from any app they choose, rather than gating the hardware behind a YouTube Premium requirement. Using your logic, if a NAS provider decided to only allow access via a premium tier on Sonos, you would presumably tell the customer they were barking up the wrong tree there too.

I am a consumer who has invested in a high end set, and I am voicing my opinion because I believe in the freedom of the user over the greed of the corporation. This culture of forced subscriptions is a larger picture that often leads to catastrophic consequences for consumer choice. I accept that my mistake led to my 3TB drive crashing, but that mistake was only possible because of the unnecessary complexity required to make a simple music library function in this ecosystem.

Regardless of the software hurdles, I still love the hardware itself. I suspect the Five might offer an amazing experience for my bedroom given my detached property, and I intend to keep testing the limits of what this system can actually do for me.

I’m just curious…what tech that you own does everything thing you want it to do and has no limitations or sandbox restrictions either self-imposed or by 3rd parties.

From what you are presenting you have to be very upset with the brand of TV you own. It may have apps for programming but you surely have to pay to access commercial free content. So do you feel the TV manufacturer has created a restrictive product that doesn’t allow you the freedom to access what you want without paying. That’s only one example.

Personally, l can’t continue in this conversation as temping as it may be. 😊

“Far from intuitive”? It’s a while since I set mine up, but I can see the option by clicking on Settings, Music Library, Add Shared Folder and all that’s then needed is to then enter the details requested. How could it be simplified or made more intuitive? 

Sorry, but I do not defend corporate greed. I agree with you lots of tech companies work by promising a lot and when you are hooked they enshittify their product and make you pay. See the likes of Netflix luring you away from ad riddled TV and after a few years making having no ads a premium feauture. Please keep adressing this - I just do not see Sonos as a main culprit of this.

What I am doing is trying to explain how Sonos works. This means it is up to the music service what you see an how you use it. Any limitations are limitations caused by the music service, not Sonos. Regarding your Youtube argument: their is nothing to allow for Sonos if Youtube decides you need a subscription to listen to music via Youtube. If Youtube decides you cannot Airplay music to Sonos it is their decision. Casting in the sense of Google cast is just not there on Sonos. And indeed, if your NAS would somehow stop sharing to Sonos because even they would ask a subscription, this is not up to Sonos.

It does seem you are complaining to Ford about the price of gas. Ford has not “gated it's hardware behind a third party” supplying gas. This is just how things work.

I guess that increasing licence fees are playing a crucial part in the game.

Why are you assuming that Sonos is blocking casting from specific apps?  Sonos doesn’t own the OS on your phone, or the music streaming apps.  They cannot just force other companies to comply with their desires just because Sonos customers want a particular feature.  Some streaming services do allow casting from your app (Amazon, spotify, Pandora, Plex based on my memory) but others don’t support this. 

Google casting does exist, but it’s my understanding that they want to charge a license fee for that, and has restrictions.  For example, you can’t cast youtube videos to any device that doesn’t have a screen.

In your NAS example, if the NAS was charging a subscription fee to allow Sonos to read the audio files, than it would be the NAS company that consumers should complain about, yes.  Sonos could perhaps complain on behalf of the consumer, or negotiate behind close doors, but the fact we don’t know of it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  We do know that Sonos does pay some license fees and has gotten some services from other companies implemented on Sonos that the other company didn’t want to do.  Google Assistant is the example that comes to mind.

I am not necessarily a fan of subscription culture either, particularly when the option to just buy isn’t available.  However, I find the accusations of corporate greed against Sonos to be rather misplaced considering the what Big Tech gets away with these days.  Many will say that companies like Sonos should just play along with with whatever Apple/Amazon/Google dictate, as though only Sonos can possible block them from getting the features they want in their integrated systems.

AjTrek1, that is a very good question. For me, freedom is the ability to make conscious choices between available options. The more options we have, the more freedom we possess. My Nvidia Shield Pro is a perfect example of this. I have chosen to alter it and sideload apps to suit my specific needs. Because I can customise it, I feel a sense of belonging and ownership over the device that I simply do not feel with the Sonos software.

Regarding my TV, the difference is clear. While I may choose to pay for commercial free content, the TV manufacturer does not physically block me from casting a basic video from my phone just because I don't have a premium subscription with a third party. Sonos, however, has created a sandbox where corporate alliances take priority over the user's ability to simply use the hardware they bought. It is not just about the money; it is about resisting a corporate culture that treats the customer as a recurring revenue stream rather than an owner.

@nik9669a, when I say it is far from intuitive, I am referring to the reality of modern multi device households. In a world where we use tablets, work laptops, and business machines, having to manually map network paths and ensure an "always on" permissions protocol is a hurdle for the average person. Most modern electronics are "plug and play" via simple casting or Bluetooth. Requiring a user to understand network sharing and pathing just to play a local file is an outdated approach for a premium 2026 system.

I am here to voice my opinion because I believe we shouldn't have to accept hostile conditions just because they are "part of the system." I am a fan of this hardware, and I am beginning to enjoy my Arc Ultra and Sub Gen 3 immensely, but that doesn't mean I will stop advocating for the freedom to use them without corporate gatekeeping.

I appreciate the debate, though I must disagree with the analogies being used. To suggest that complaining about these restrictions is like complaining to Ford about the price of petrol is inaccurate. If I buy a Ford, I am free to buy my fuel from any station I choose. Sonos, however, has built a system where they effectively decide which "petrol stations" are allowed to serve their cars.

@106rallye, you mentioned that if a NAS decided to require a subscription, it would not be up to Sonos. But that misses the point. If I have an audio file on my phone or a third party app, the hardware I own should be capable of playing it without a middleman requiring a premium "tax." The fact that we have accepted "enshittification" as a standard part of the tech lifecycle is precisely why we need to remain vocal. We should not be "hooked" and then milked for more money just to use features that are standard on much cheaper, less sophisticated equipment.

@melvimbe, I agree that Sonos does not own the phone’s OS. However, they do choose which protocols to support. By not supporting open casting standards that other manufacturers use, they are making a conscious choice to maintain a closed ecosystem. It is a choice of control over consumer freedom. I believe that once we buy a system, we should truly own it, and the manufacturer should not maintain a grip on what sources we are allowed to listen to.

I am a fan of the Arc Ultra and the Sub Gen 3, and I am looking forward to seeing how the system performs once I add a second sub to take the heavy lifting away from the soundbar. But I will continue to advocate for a world where the quality of the hardware isn't used as a justification for restricting the rights of the consumer.

Is it Google Cast that you want?

Can you list the “open casting standards” that Sonos doesn’t support? 

It seems to me, ​@TheWhiteWater, that you keep altering your views every time anyone questions or challenges you. 
 

Consequently, I shall not be contributing further to this debate. I hope you continue to enjoy your system, but would strongly recommend that you heed your own comments and your perceived concerns regarding the Sonos infrastructure and its limitations before adding further to your own system. 

“I appreciate the debate, though I must disagree with the analogies being used. To suggest that complaining about these restrictions is like complaining to Ford about the price of petrol is inaccurate. If I buy a Ford, I am free to buy my fuel from any station I choose. Sonos, however, has built a system where they effectively decide which "petrol stations" are allowed to serve their cars.”

Again, you are wrong about how Sonos works. The “petrol stations” decide if they want to connect to Sonos. Sonos (Sonos Music API) is open to any music service If the music service will not do this Sonos is Airplay capable. So you have a choice.

Exactly this.  An open standard doesn’t require to pay a license fee to use. While there are lots of standards out there that are common on most products, they are not free.  Dolby and DTS are not free.  Bluetooth is not free. Airplay and Google Casting are not free.  You can certainly want these features on Sonos and believe that it’s worth it for Sonos to pay for them because competitors do, but that’s not the same as claiming they are open standards.

That said though, I do somewhat agree that Sonos is not a fully open system, and that’s intentional.   They do not freely license out (except where legally forced to) their communication protocol so that you can use non Sonos speakers in your Sonos system.  They did not originally support bluetooth either.   I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing since it allowed Sonos to better control the user experience (for better or worse) and blocked big tech and other customers from stealing their sales.  It’s obviously not ideal for every consumer as some consumers don’t care about ease  of use, they just want as many features as possible.  But you can’t look at Apple and then say that a closed system is a bad business strategy, or that customers just won’t like your products if your garden is walled.

​@TheWhiteWater 

OK…I’ll eat my words…I’m back to comment again 😂

You used Nvidia as an example to allow you to customize your experience. While true Nvidia does allow users to practically do whatever they want with customization. However, untethered ownership comes at a price as long as you are willing to accept responsibility for changes made that may cause functionally issues. Granted that after the manufacturer’s warranty expires it’s probably a moot point depending upon what country you reside in.

To that point if you read Nvidia’s limited warranty (in the link) one could customize their purchase to a point where it becomes a “paper weight”.

Granted it could be viewed as an apples to oranges comparison as it relates to Sonos. However, IMO Sonos will by all probability never allow that level of customization as it’s in a very competitive market. Giving others access to code at that level could sound the “death knell”  for Sonos as a company.

Sonos however does allow Dev’s to create apps that will interface with its products at an unsupported level.

I realize that shifting your philosophical views about corporations isn’t going to change. I too feel that corporate greed is rampant in the world we live in. For that matter I wish I didn’t have to support Amazon; however at times I have to yield to the scale of economy to make my dollars go further.

That said I don’t lump Sonos in the same category as it relates to greed with other corporations. Sonos has a niche product and the cost of ownership will remain relatively high until more companies start producing a similar product that meets and/or exceeds Sonos; thus reducing it to a commodity.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/warranty/